Talk:1990 Cordillera autonomy plebiscite

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that only Ifugao consented in being ato be part of an autonomous region in the Philippine Cordillera in a 1990 plebiscite? Source: "Several legislators have tossed the issue to the Commission on Elections, saying it's up to the poll body to declare whether Ifugao province alone can constitute an autonomous region."

• Comment: QPQ to follow later.

Created by Howard the Duck (talk). Self-nominated at 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC).

• Article is long enough, new enough at the time it was nominated, well-sourced and the source (from a major Philippine newspaper) checks out. Will wait on the QPQ for this nomination before proceeding further. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 18:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Sky Harbor: QPQ done at Template:Did you know nominations/Mood Ring (song). Howard the Duck (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Sky Harbor: The QPQ has been completed. Can you finish the review? SL93 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• As the reviewer has not been online for a few days, I can complete this review. QPQ done. But there is one paragraph in this article that lacks a cite, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've deleted the offending sentence. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. Hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Sky Harbor. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - Two support !votes versus one oppose, but the conciseness and RS sources found for the proposed move put this one squarely in "moved" territory.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• 1990 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite → 1990 Cordillera autonomy plebiscite
• 1998 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite → 1998 Cordillera autonomy plebiscite

– Pithier titles than the current ones; also aligns nicely with the 2019 Bangsamoro autonomy plebiscite. Disambiguation isn't needed as "Cordilleras" in other countries haven't held plebiscites, not that I know of. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose That would only work if their regions are at the suggested shortened titles, like Bangsamoro instead of Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Obviously our articles on regions are not at their ideal WP:AT titles nor follow WP:COMMONNAME which are the short forms. I suggest an RM for Cordillera Administrative Region be initiated first to cover that region that is now an administrative region and which was previously proposed to be autonomous yet failed, but still pertain to the same area regardless of degree of autonomy and which is commonly referred to as Cordillera not its official long title. I suggest Cordillera (Philippines) or Cordillera (region).--RioHondo (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Headline of the Manila Standard February 1, 1990: "Cordillera rejects autonomy". That pretty much explains the names of these two articles. In 1990, there was no Cordillera Administrative Region to speak of; the provinces that participated in the plebiscite were either from Region I or II. Being from the Cordillera was a shared identity, and it was, is, and will be well understood, in the Philippine context, what "Cordillera" means. When you're talking about actual regions though, "Cordillera Administrative Region" or "CAR" are the WP:NC. (I feel they used "Cordillera Administrative Region" so that if autonomy is accepted, they'd just change it to "Cordillera Autonomous Region" and still use "CAR". Lazy, but brilliant.) Howard the Duck (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

    Correction: There was a "Cordillera Administrative Region" prior to the plebiscite. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

    The administrative region and the geographic region of the mountain range are actually more or less contiguous so the long official title is really unnecessary if you ask me. That deals with the problem of extremely long titles of related articles but if you insist on keeping the region article where it is, then all related articles must keep their current titles.--RioHondo (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

    I dunno how you can demarcate a mountain range, honestly. Remember, in this 1990 plebiscite, only Ifugao voted for autonomy, and they would have been the Cordillera Autonomous Region if the Supreme Court didn't intervene. So unlike "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao", a "Cordillera Autonomous Region" (notice it's not "Autonomous Region in the Cordillera") would most likely be referred to as "Cordillera", just as the current "Cordillera Administrative Region", but people know what "CAR" means nowadays, and "Cordillera Administrative Region" is within the consciousness of the people who live there, and for those who care. It'll also be interesting if Nueva Vizcaya is included into a future Cordillera region; that means the Cordillera mountain range and the Cordillera Autonomous/Administrative Region would no longer be contiguous. "Cordillera" in this case would be acceptable; after all, why aren't you proposing to RM "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" to "Muslim Mindanao", if you claim that it is the short form? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

    The province of Zambales was demarcated by its mountain range that runs north to south from Pangasinan to Bataan, its original territory as administered by the early Spanish;) I am only after the application of articles titles in titles of related articles here, and making each one of them conform to one or the other. A discussion on names and article titles don't have to be too scientific or political. Long story short, if you want to move related articles, aim for their roots.--RioHondo (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah, demarcations are so exact. You can't demarcate a physical feature as exactly as a political one. The most famous example is the Sierra Madre in Isabela, which up to now, no one has an answer on what's the right boundary. If the boundaries are correct it shouldn't be straight lines as what can be found in many provincial boundaries.

    When you say "aim for their roots", are you saying that for election articles, the locator part of the article title should be exactly like what the actual name of Wikipedia article of the place is? Or you're allowing for some leeway?

    My impression on your argument is that "the article is at 'Cordillera Administrative Region,' so any election/referendum article about it should be named as "<year> Cordillera Administrative Region election", and nothing else, and if you're calling this as the '1990 Cordillera autonomy plebiscite' the article about the region per se should be renamed to 'Cordillera' or something similar." Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

    Yup, consistency with main articles as we do categories and all other series articles. Cant use Mountain's 1st congressional district when the main article is at Mountain Province, hence Mountain Province's 1st congressional district.--RioHondo (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

    But Wikipedia doesn't do that; that would've meant we'd find the awfully-titled "2017 France presidential election". Election titles are subtly named differently than electoral district articles. For electoral districts, we'd use the name of the article it is referring to; for election articles, we'd have more leeway. After all, electoral district titles are in the possessive form, while election articles are not.

    One example is "the Republic of Ireland". You'd expect that the general elections are in the form of "<year> Republic of Ireland election", but no, they're in <year> Irish general election", which is like two steps away from the article name of the country, it being the "short form", then the adjectival form of the short form. (True, there is a complicated history on the Names of the Irish state but this didn't stop Wikipedia from using plain old "Irish" as the people know what that means.) Howard the Duck (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

    The adjectival form in election articles are only for country names per WP:NCELECT. Subdivision names are written out exactly how they are titled in WP. Hence, 2008 French municipal elections but 2008 Paris municipal election not 2008 Parisian municipal election. And 2019 Philippine local elections but 2019 Cebu local elections not 2019 Cebuano local elections. Changing the subdivision name in any election or referendum article would mean changing the title of the article on the subdivision itself. This works for all related articles too not just elections stuff.--RioHondo (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

    WP:NCELECT doesn't advise or tell you that, re: country subdivision names, which are indeed almost exclusively on where the article about the subdivision is. In fact, it tells you that whether it is a country or subdivision, you'd always use the adjectival form. So in your example, "2008 Parisian municipal election" is actually the correct usage. Now, since the rest of Wikipedia are obviously not following that in naming local electoral exercises, can we use something else? Remember, our article Cordillera Administrative Region is for the administrative, not autonomous region. For these plebscites, they're trying to define what "the Cordillera" is. Usage of simply "Cordillera" (or "Cordilleran") is correct, as "Cordillera Autonomous Region" isn't even created. I don't know if we'd start calling the Cordillera Autonomous Region as "Cordillera" but people still call the current region as "C-A-R". Howard the Duck (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• God, I love the Manila Standard: "It's all systems go for Cordillera autonomy plebiscite"; this was for the 1998 plebiscite. WP:RS are pretty clear with what they called this plebiscite. Yeah, I know, it's a sample of 1, but I do think other newspapers/media would've called it otherwise. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  The region of Cordillera existed long before the creation of the administrative region. The journalists were not defining anything new there, with or without the administrative/autonomous region, there have always been a geographic region of that name Just like even if Compostela Valley has already been renamed to Davao de Oro, the valley continue to exist. That is why i suggested that the geographic region and the administrative region, including its previous autonomous proposal be merged under the base name title of simply Cordillera (with region in parentheses as disambiguator).--RioHondo (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  If you want to do another RM you are free to do so, but we already have separate articles about the physical feature at Cordillera Central (Luzon) and the administrative region at Cordillera Administrative Region. As illustrated, article titles of election articles do not necessarily have to be exactly the same as the place that it happened; WP:NCELECT even says it should be different, with the place being a noun, and the election article using the adjectival form. Your opposition is not based on policy and guidelines, but is understandable if one wants to use consistent names; we have ceased to do that in the Philippines with LGU naming, but you can still push for that if you want to, but it has to be grounded on actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wait, we already have an article on the Cordillera geographic region in Luzon? I thought Cordillera Central (Luzon) only pertains to one of its three ranges, the Central range, as the Cordillera Occidental or Malayan range and Cordillera Oriental or Polis range still dont have articles. Collectively they are the Cordillera mountain region, from which the territory of Mountain Province or Provincia Montañosa and later the Cordillera Administrative Region was based. Anyway, those NCELECT guidelines definitely need to be revisited if actual practice or application is different from what has been prescribed.--RioHondo (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  "The Cordillera Central or Cordillera Range is a massive mountain range 320 km (198 miles) long north-south and 118 km (73 miles) east-west. The Cordillera mountain range is situated in the north-central part of the island of Luzon, in the Philippines." That seems to be about all of the mountains found mostly in CAR.

  Apparently, the "Cordillera Central" is the mountain range within most of the CAR. I was looking for resources in making "Central Plain of Luzon" article, and according to this, the "Western Cordillera" (Cordillera Occidental) are the Zambales Mountains, while the Sierra Madre (Philippines) is the "eastern Cordillera" and the "NE Cordillera" or "grand Cordillera", with the Caraballo Mountains becoming the "Central Knot". Looks authoritative, so who am I to suggest otherwise...

  Also it's quite stupid we have articles on mountains but we do not have articles on the landform where most of the people live, at least in Luzon. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  WP:NC trumps WP:NCELECT. Our WP:RS called these the "Cordillera autonomy plebiscites". Who are we to suggest otherwise, short of having another WP:RS say so, and prove that its usage of another term to be more widespread. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  I did say in the other RM discussion that it was for convenience that writers refer to the regions by the unqualified name. Kinda like how they always use Manila to refer to the whole Metro Manila even up to now. For Mindanao, it's even more pronounced as anything that happens in the Muslim region (normally bad stuff) is passed off as a Mindanao event affecting the whole island group, even when only a small fraction of the island is troubled lol. We have to be precise with these things, so that any mention of autonomy push or self-rule be attributed only to that troubled fraction of Mindanao. ;) As for Cordillera, the specific wording in its organic act and 1987 executive order is "an administrative/autonomous region in the Cordilleras" (there goes your official preposition "in" again), referring to the Cordillera mountain range complex/region that is centered on Cordillera Central but also includes its two parallel ranges, maybe not Cordillera Occidental/Oriental but Cordillera del Malaya and Cordillera de Polis o Amuyao. Those are three parallel north/south mountain ranges when talking about the Cordillera mountain region or Cordilleras, in which the only the most prominent central range has an article. The Cordilleras therefore is not entirely synonymous to the Cordillera Central, but as a geographic region is more or less contiguous with the undivided Mt. Prov/present-day administrative region IMHO ;) We already have a precedent for using Cordillera (region)/Cordilleras (region) or Cordillera (Philippines)/Cordilleras (Philippines) to refer to this region btw: Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras.--RioHondo (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  You are more than welcome to do an WP:RM on articles which you think have wrong titles. WP:RS have called these the "Cordillera autonomy plebiscites", on that exact wording, satisfying WP:NC. Again, your reasoning all boils down to "I know better than an WP:RS". Maybe if you can show another WP:RS that shows otherwise, other people can be convinced, but your arguments are not even based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  WP:TITLECON is the primary guideline behind my arguments for using the region's article title if it hasnt been any more obvious. Sorry, i don't agree with your "flexible" election or referendum titles either as the fact that a naming convention exists for this topic at NCELECT means these articles are all bound to follow something as we do pretty much all articles in WP. What NCELECT prescribes as adjectivals of country subdivisions are actually still their subdivision names that also work as adjectives in WP practice and actual real life usage, e.g, 2016 California elections and 2016 Manila local elections similar to California roll, California grizzly bear, Manila shawl, Manila paper, etc. So if the region is named as such in an election article or any article related to it for that matter, that's only cause the region is at that article title. This is not going against RSs, but only following the exact name in WP for that specific location mentioned in RSs as WP also has other considerations such as disambiguation and primary topic for why a specific title can or can not be used along with accessibility/uniformity with main and related articles. I go back to my initial suggestion, the region title might be the one that needs to follow RSs in terms of conciseness and commonname consideration first and foremost. Only then can we "correct" the situation or apply the same concise name to the rest of its related articles including this per WP:TITLECON.--RioHondo (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  WP:TITLECON isn't policy nor guideline. Our LGU articles have long abandoned that suggestion. Other election articles don't even follow this.

  WP:NCELECT is guideline, but people can be flexible with it. Our article on the country to the west of the United Kingdom is at Republic of Ireland, but for European Union elections, it is at "2019 European Parliament election in Ireland".

  We need someone else with an opinion about this. Again, your arguments are not based on actual policy nor guideline, even if you do mental gymnastics on adjectives as actual name of the place. California in Wiktionary and California in Merriam-Webster Dictionary doesn't say it is an adjective (either the word is a noun or a geographical name, or a noun), so I dunno where you picked that up. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support, the suggested titles match the WP:CRITERIA, being recognizable, natural, and precise. They are more concise than the current article titles. In some ways they are perhaps more consistent, as noted in the opening argument (although I don't think consistency is too important in this sense as it's a very limited number of articles). The current titles are clearly descriptive, and the proposed titles are also descriptive, so this does not change. Both are not exact phrasings found in any sources used on these articles, with the sources more focused on the organic act itself (often calling the vote a "plebiscite on the organic act" or similar), but the sources support the shorthand use of "Cordillera", even the combined "Cordillera autonomy", and separately support "plebiscite" (examples collapsed below). I don't see an advantage regarding any of the article naming criteria to spelling out the official name "Cordillera Autonomous Region", so support the more concise version. CMD (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

[1] "plebiscites mandated by the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6766 for the Cordillera and Republic Act No. 6734 for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao", interesting wording that treats "Cordillera" along as on part with the longer "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao". Later also has "Muslim Mindanao or Cordillera". [2] "Protests mount against Cordillera autonomy" [3] "Balweg vows to campaign vs Cordillera autonomy", describes the vote as "plebiscite on the autonomy law". [4] "Cordillerans reject autonomy proposal", uses "Cordillera" shortform throughout, equivalent to "Muslim Mindanao". [5] "What now for the Cordillera?", describes the vote itself as a "plebiscite for the ratification of the Organic Act for an autonomous Cordillera region". [6] Refers to "the Cordilleras" or "Cordillera region", quotes the constitution saying "Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras", calls the vote "the plebiscite on the Organic Act". [7] Legal text, describes the vote as "a plebiscite held on January 30, 1990 in the provinces and the city comprising the Cordillera Administrative Region". [8] "Ifugao not Cordilleras" [9] Legal text, includes "people of the Cordillera", "autonomous region in the Cordilleras". [10] "Militants seek "real autonomy" for Cordillera", sole source on 1998 article

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.