Talk:Caboloan

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

why "Huangdom"?

Why is Pangasinan a huangdom and not a kingdom? Isn't huang/王 just the Chinese word for king? --90.199.98.121 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

See [1] and [2] which I have. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About deciding to undo Doug Weller's removal of the table of notable monarchs

In this series of edits by Doug Weller, he mentioned that almost all of these "notable" monarchs aren't even sourced at all. Apparently, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. restored the table, without actually making improvements or justifications regarding the notability of said monarchs and supporting them with relevant sources. I have decided to remove it again. I also urge eventual Wikipedia editors who want to contribute to this article to use actual scholarly articles. There is at least one talking about Pangasinan, entitled Towards an Early History of Pangasinan: Preliminary Notes and Observations. People here should be using sources like that instead of insisting on unverifiable sources like "The Mermaid Queen, The Beyer Ethnographic Series". Stricnina (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read about the chieftains names put inthe infobox mentioned in William Henry Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History. I restoredthe names intending to cite the book but unfortunately the Covid 19 Pandemic closed down our library so I was not able to physically get the book, again dont worry. My edition isnt unsourced its just unfortunate the Pandemic blocked off my access to the relevant book again Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Make sure the word "Caboloan" appears in the source you are talking about, otherwise it would be a problem to include them in this Wikipedia article. Last time I checked, the word "Caboloan" wasn't mentioned in that book. Stricnina (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Pangasinan was mentioned and and it was calledin Chinese recorda as Fengaschilan and tributary Chieftain or King mentioned was Kalamayin the same name mentioned in the infobox. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the lack of Indentation Im using my phone instead of a PC to write. Wiki does not code well on phones. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: If the polity of Pangasinan was mentioned, it would be better to put the list to a Wikipedia article referring to the Pangasinan polity, not Caboloan. Local historians differentiate between ancient Caboloan and ancient Pangasinan. W.H. Scott only talked about Pangasinan if I remember correctly. Or, another option, rename this article to Pangasinan (historical polity). I have read this and afterwards I've arrived at the conclusion that "Caboloan"'s entire existence, separate from that of Pangasinan, as based on thin evidence. Stricnina (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this original article was called Pangasinan but it was wrongly called 'Wangdom' of Pangasinan, then relabelled into something local, Caboloan which I find spurious too, Chinese records only mention Fengaschilan and Scott mentioned it as Fengaschilan too. If anything, this should be restored to and relabelled as Pangasinan again. Sorry, my PC is broken, am still using Mobile Devices. So my coding is bad. 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)