Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tambayan Philippines Header.png
This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.


WT:TAMBAY - WT:PINOY - Deletion Sorting (Philippines)


Start new topic


00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39

Wikimedia Philippines.svg
AOI • By-laws
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Identi.caYouTubeUStreamYahoo GroupMy Space

On "Huangdoms" and "Kingdoms"[edit]

Hi everyone. I call your attention once again to the early historic settlements of the Philippines, to raise a question about terminology, specifically the use of the term "Huangdom" in the case of "Huangdom of Ma-i" and "Huangdom of Pangasinan", and the vulnerability to misunderstanding arising from the use of the term "Kingdom." This has the potential to be a long discussion so I'll just let this be my kickoff.

First: the ancient states of Ma-i and Pangasinan traded with China, and paid tribute to the court of the emperor be able to do so. So now the wikis for these ancient states are being referred to as "Sinified states". The Chinese records referred to their rulers as "Huangs", so these have been labelled "Huangdoms". I submit that both are assumptions. Trade with China does not automatically mean Sinification.

Second: I am not sure whether we have reached a consensus as to whether our ancient states (including the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo, for example) should be called "kingdoms", lest they be implied to be monarchies in the western sense. If we have, can someone direct me to the conversation where the consensus was achieved please? :D Otherwise, I submit that the term is confusing and that we should probably come up with some more broader term for the Philippine ancient states. - Alternativity (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to my mind is ask an expert regarding this. Personally, I never heard of the term "huangdom" and I think it is not even an English word. If there are no reliable sources regarding the term then it is original research and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. --Jojit (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I recently made a research on these and I agree that the classification of early political states in the archipelago do not qualify as a huangdom or kingdom. The rajah/datu or whatever titleholder he was is not certainly a king, technically speaking. To make the discussion short, I came to the conclusion that these states at least have the barangay system as titles and societal structures almost coincide everywhere it was practiced. Even the Sultan of Sulu had a predecessor named Rajah Baginda. However, I do not suggest that these states be given a barangay title, e.g. Barangay Tondo. I suggest that further research be made.

I disagree with the notion that there were Sinified states. Rather, while they may be recorded by Chinese writers, there is still the issue of the accuracy of the reports. A gift may be interpreted as a tribute. China is not alone in this practice as the Majapahit also claimed to have had tributes from these states, but recent research argues that these claims stop as claims as it is yet to be proved. Reading the Laguna Copperplate, it would seem these doubts have to be considered. Arius1998 (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Arius1998 (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to go by whichever the WP:RS go by? Which terms do they use? Well, if they're all Chinese sources, are we supposed to be stuck with the terms that they use? Which translations are we using? –HTD 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh. Come to think of it, there's the point that needs to be made. No sources use "Huangdom". There are references to the rulers as Huang (which the Chinese sources sometimes translate as "King", and sometimes as "Chief"). Will check further. - Alternativity (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Huangdom looks like a bad transliteration. Places where princes rule aren't "Princedoms", same with Rajahs and "Rajahdoms" (rajahnate should be the right term). Huang doesn't appear to be of much help. –HTD 07:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not advise the use of huangdom or kingdom, even for the sake of classification at par with standards in other areas. As for princedoms, I think principalities would be the correct term. While W. H. Scott used it to refer to the more complex societies ruled by rajahs/datus, I still advise against using it here, unless it has been general consensus to do so. Once more, I suggest further research on this matter. Arius1998 (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just updating everyone: I have moved "Huangdom of Ma-i" to simply "Ma-i" and "Huangdom of Pangasinan" to Luyag na Kaboloan, respectively. I think simply moving Ma-i would be agreeable to most edits, so I've decided to be bold. In the case of Kaboloan/Pangasinan, the article lede identified Lubag na Kaboloan as the local name, and I moved the article to that title as preferable to the initial "Huangdom" title. I'll have to do more resarch to further understand the term "Luyag", and the relationship between the names "Kaboloan" and "Pangasinan", so I'm not excluding the possibility that some more title movement is possible based on what literature I find. (The online articles I've found all vaguely reference Scott, so I shall see if I can figure out where in the originals the relevant discussions are.) Or of course, if anyone wants to help out and do fixes to the two articles, that would be great too. Just keeping everyone looped in. Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Maynila, Tondo, and Namayan[edit]

Now that the "Huangdom" issue is somewhat behind us, I would like to solicit feedback here on new names for Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan. The name format, as argued above, is an anachronism - specifically, a reference to the Westphalian system. Several editors, myself included, have raised concerns about this innacuracy. The present ledes of the pages Ma-i, Luyag na Kaboloan, Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan have newly been edited, thanks to Pare Mo, with the term "polity" replacing "kingdom", but as a piped link leading to Mandala_(Southeast_Asian_political_model). A lot of work is still needed to rid the pages of anachronisms, and in some cases, content actually belonging to fringe theories. However, a major next step is to remove the term "kingdom" from the article titles. I am thus proposing the renaming of Kingdom of Namayan simply to "Namayan" (over a redirect), and of Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo to Maynila (historical polity) and Tondo(historical polity), respectively. Namayan is reasonable enough, I think. But I find "historical polity" awkward enough that I want to solicit people's thoughts on the rename rather than just being bold and doing it myself. For your information and comments, folks. - Alternativity (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo right now, and the infobox identifies the first as a rājānate and the second as a lakanate. Rājānate of Manila (or Rajahnate of Manila or Manila (rājānate)/Manila (rajahnate)), then, seems good, and so does Lakanate of Tondo (or Tondo (lakanate)). I've seen rājānate used often enough in scholarly literature to know it's a widely accepted term. Now, I can't say the same for lakanate, but for that I blame my own limited exposure.
There's also an issue with using sovereign to refer to the pre-Westphalian polities themselves. In precolonial Southeast Asia (and in most of the pre-Westphalian world), it was the king (term used very loosely here) that was the sovereign, not the polity (today's sovereign state) itself. --Pare Mo (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Eliminated (almost) all instances of "Kingdom" for historical precolonial Maynila. Also removed the image showing the baybayin rendition of "Maynilad" since it uses the Virama kudlit style which was introduced in the Spanish colonial period (the one that utilizes the cross (+)). I am in favor of using "Manila (rajahnate)", I don't know for lakanate either.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
While it has been progress to have moved on from the huangdom/kingdom issue, it is still of doubt to use either rajahnate or lakanate in this situation. Is there any reference that says the paramount rulers of these areas had always been a rajah or a lakan? In addition, which references use the rajahnate/lakanate classification so as we can cite them? As for polity, it is not evident that the barangay system had been traditionally a rule of many (as polity would reflect) despite the existence of a council. How about a disambiguation instead? Once more, I suggest further research be made. Arius1998 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Arius1998, have you had a chance to look at Mandala (Southeast Asian political model)? I'm not sure how to blend this with "polity" to come up with a more apt description. (I'm personally more comfortable with using the word Polity and linking to Mandala, since I have never seen Mandala used that way. But the Mandala description is a perfect fit, as far as all my readings are concerned. I dislike the word Rajahnate myself and would rather not see it used in the article titles, but it seems there's support for the use of it. So I haven't taken a side against it yet. Lakanate, IMHO, that's just plain word invention already. - Alternativity (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)<------------ Position now withdrawn, please see next bulletpoint.
I did more reading on Polity and Mandala (just the wiki pages), and I withdraw all previous positions. I am now suggesting we rename all the articles "Subject (Historical Polity)" if they have modern descendant states (as in the case of Manila and Tondo), and just plain "Subject" if they don't in the case of (Namayan and Ma-i). OR we could just standardize and use "Subject (Historical Polity)" format for the whole lot of articles. No pipe-linking to Mandala, which is probably accurate in the cases of Namayan and Mai and Tondo, but which would still need counter checking of sources and is probably just more confusing when used in the article title anyway. I'm confident enough in this that I've moved "Kingdom of Namayan" to "Namayan" already as this seems uncontroversial, propose to wp:be bold and move the articles to "Maynila (historical polity)" and "Tondo (historical polity)"by Thursday unless two or more people object, or some definitive source is used as a counterargument. Appropriate notices have been added to the talk page of the articles. - Alternativity (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. As I did some research, it seems that we are the only ones who would be using "historical polity" as a classification. Of course, while the closest, and perhaps simplest, that I can think of is the Chiefdom, what about the use of "historical entity" as a more neutral term? As it is observed, "polity" first arises in Europe, and "mandala" is considered (perhaps not universally) as the Southeast Asian equivalent. However, since it is not advisable to be using labels without exhaustive research to justify it, I am for the use of the more neutral and simpler terms. Arius1998 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
How about "Historical State"? Or just "Historical|? Chiefdom is definitely controversial and most likely an innacurate placement on the continuum. - Alternativity (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, the term "chiefdom" has somewhat acquired a pejorative meaning. Degrading, as I see it. However, I do not think I can fully agree with the use of "historical state" as there is no existence of the term "state" at the time. While "historical" may do, perhaps "historical entity" would still be a good option. How do the other editors see this issue? Arius1998 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Filipinisms in 2016 elections articles[edit]

Do we use Philippine English terms such as "presidentiables", "survey", "COMELEC" instead of perfectly acceptable Philippine English words such as "candidates", "opinion polls" or "commission"? How about "COC"? Is it certificate of candidacy or canvass? Or the mobile game? Do we title the polling section as "Surveys" or "Opinion polls" just like every election article in Wikipedia? Please do join in the discussion at Philippine presidential election, 2016#Reminder on acronyms and Filipinisims such as "presidentiables". –HTD 01:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented over there. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive cleanup needed for Batangas article[edit]

The article of Batangas province contains several issues. It seems much of the content (especially in the History and Culture sections) was done by a single contributor in the past, since the tone of many sentences are biased. I have done several cleanup revisions in the article, but the article is still generally messy, with redundant, incomprehensible, and obviously biased sentences. Also importantly, I am not very sure if the History and Culture (such as those under Music) sections should contain specific people native to the province. Maybe they need to be listed under a new section Notable people, (which the article lacks). If anybody could kindly help clean the entire article, that would be great. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Local Chapters of PhilWiki Community[edit]

As an affiliate organization, Philippine Wikimedia Community User group (PhilWiki Community) envisions to promote and develop Wikipedia in the Philippine languages through cost-effective, creative and innovative projects and through partnership with local government units, government agencies, academe, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

Our past activities include:

Join the discussion on the Proposed Local Chapters of PhilWiki Community. --Filipinayzd (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 election task force[edit]

Hi everyone. With the 2016 elections ramping up soon, Wikimedia Philippines is looking to organize an election task force to help keep our articles in order. More specifically, the task force will do four things:

  • Monitor Philippine election-related articles (especially articles on candidates) for signs of biased editing by candidates or their campaign staff
  • Maintain and create/expand articles related to the election, including adding in the latest developments either from the campaign trail or from the COMELEC
  • Translate articles into Philippine languages
  • Update the vote counts when the results come in

On the fourth point, the goal is to have Wikipedia's results reflect the COMELEC's official count in as close to real time as possible, so as people can go to us for information on the election. If this is something that we can do, we'll try to get as many people as we can from around the country so we have enough coverage, and we can train people on how to edit Wikipedia. What do you guys think? :) (I should let our resident election editors Howard the Duck, Iloilo Wanderer, Hariboneagle927 and Supergabbyshoe, as well as other editors like BhlJRama, Regrobvmagtibay and Raigeiki55, know about this development, and see if they'd be willing to help get this off the ground. :P) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Count me in on this project. Nice. - Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 05:52, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
Count me in too. This is for all elections right? Not just 2016? Although of course we will be focus on the 2016 edition in the coming months.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ideally, this will be a rolling project, yes. Whatever we lay down for the 2016 election can be recycled for 2019, 2022 and all future elections, as the ultimate goal of this project (at least for me) is eventually having election coverage of our own and securing the COMELEC's support for that. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
While I may not be as active as the others, I am interested to participate in this task force. Arius1998 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)