Talk:Tondo (historical polity)

Another flaw...

Who is the Raja king that supposed to Lead the battle against the Muslim Bruneian empire? Supposed to be Gambang or Lontok (1430-1450), Even Dayang Kalangitan. (1450-1515)(JournalmanManila (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC))

This is NOT a flaw. The peer reviewed academic sources in the field don't explicitly say this, so that information is speculative. Adding that here would be a gross violation of Wikipedia rules, as stated in WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research.- Alternativity (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No Reliable Sources stating that Lucoes are from the Pasig River Kingdoms, let alone Tondo.

Hi. I have to point out that entire sections in the current article seem to have been created on the assumption that the Lucoes/Luzones are from Tondo. There's no direct evidence of that. I've looked and looked, but as far as I can tell, there are no Reliable Sources stating that Lucoes are from the Pasig River Kingdoms, let alone Tondo. According to WP:Verifiability, all content based on that assertion will have to be deleted, unless such documents can be found. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• • hmmm.. i dont think so, Since the Lucoes are People from Luzon, Lets say that they are not all from pasig river, their are also Kapapangans some are Ilocanos and other from Southern luzon, Which is already in possessed by the Kingdom of Tondo.

And Kingdom of Tondo was from Luzon, (example are: ) Tondo Helped The Siamese Kingdom of Ayuthaya in their City Defense while On the Other hand, 'Tondo Supported Toungoo Dynasty on its Expanisionism in 1547. who they are? Army /warriors/ mercenaries of tondo where tondo at ? Luzon what Portuguese called these mercenaries? Lusung warriors, so in the shorter terms its Lucoes not only a warriors but a traders too.sry for my grammar by the way . (JournalmanManila (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC))

All of which is speculation, which is a violation of the Core Content Policy of Wikipedia:No_original_research and is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS. We all have our theories. If you want to put yours on wikipedia, have them published in a peer reviewed journal first so you can follow WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Know the rules, or you risk being blocked, as you have been warned numerous times on your Talk Page by numerous other editors.Alternativity (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is scholarly evidence that the Lucoes existed and that they came from Luzon. Here's a quote from the University of Hawaii...

Pires [ca. 1500] twice mentions that the junks of the Malays and Javanese were not allowed to proceed to the city of Guangzhou because of the fear in which they were held, but when describing details of the fear in which they were held, but when describing details of the city he adds, "so the Lucoes [Luzons] say who have been there". These Lucoes demand some attention..."They [Luzons] have two or three junks, at most. They take the merchandise to Burney [Brunei] and from there they come to Melaka, . . . The Bruneians go to the lands of the Luzons to buy gold."....The Luzons were in fact the principal Melaka traders to China, which is difficult to understand unless they had brought with them to Melaka some knowledge of Chinese commerce and customs. It seems probable that the Luzon-Brunei connection arose when both centres were rising into commercial significance in consequence of their close connection with China in the early fifteenth century.

-- Alilunas-Rodgers, Kristine, and Anthony Reid. Sojourners and Settlers: Histories of Southeast Asia and the Chinese. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, 2001, 34-5.

However, I do not know if the Pasig River Kingdoms are indeed the ones described as Lucoes. I just know that they come from Luzon, that's all.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I meant what you said in that last paragraph. Although come to think of it, I'm beginning to think it'd we COULD have a viable debate if we were to find a reliable scholarly source that definitively says "Lusong" specifically referred to the Pasig River area prior to a certain year. (The preferable situation of course, is to find a source that explicitly and exactly says "The Lucoes came from the Maynila/Tondo/Namayan/thePasigRiver Kingdoms." I think that would finally end this discussion.)Alternativity (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Of Course there is no such thing as a Kingdom of Tondo or Kapampangan Empire that is ruled by Lakandula's kin, I think the empire is a fact except that it is not ruled by the kin of Lakandula..Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

About Unnecessary Deletions

May i remind everyone to review or check the sources before conducting a deletion in a particular section And even check the Citations before you delete the entire infobox WP:VERIFIABILIY (Theseeker2016 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

The deletions are necessary, especially if the sources are bullshit from geocities. When it comes to history, one should provide sources FROM academic peer-reviewed sources. I'll delete most of the information here UNTIL the parts are properly sourced. The extent of the Kingdom of Tondo depicted in the map is also unfounded and is pseudohistory. (Stricnina)

The map: File:Tondov.2.png has references. Jim1138 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The map and the rest of the article have as references blogs, websites with no academic peer-reviewed material or books citing Wikipedia itself (e.g. the book "Soils of the Philippines" - https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=sY7EBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=kingdom+of+tondo&source=bl&ots=fJ3K8tTeob&sig=waGJLIKTI0NLMiv4K3ssKFMoqBk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ74W_1ebRAhUBkJQKHSnqDxI4ChDoAQgmMAU#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20tondo&f=false). The page itself is in need of a major overhaul in order to improve its credibility. In the meantime, I will tag all the unfounded statements without proper citations (the statements without citations from books or from peer-reviewed content). Stricnina (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Given how much popular speculation there is on this page, I strongly support (Stricnina)'s insistence on academic/peer-reviewed sources. One major piece of speculation that I've tagged: the entire section on the "Lucoes" rests upon the assertion that the polities referred to as the "Kingdom of Tondo" and the "Kingdom of Luzon" are the same state - I am not aware of a peer reviewed source that says the two are one and the same. (There are at least two other kingdoms in the immediate geographical location, and power shifted between them over the course of half a millenia, so a definitive identification if at all academically possible, is essential.) Another problem is that the sections discussing trade relations with China tend to take up a Sinocentric POV, overrelying on un-peer-reviewed primary sources and thus blindly accepting Chinese texts' assertions of China's significance. (As a result portraying Tondo as a subservient polity.) On a slightly different tangent: I am unsure what the review process for unsourced or POV images involves, but perhaps this rigorous review should continue there as well. Shouldn't images with speculative content be nominated for deletion? - Alternativity (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is a mess, with lots of speculation and unverified content, starting with the fact that the Kingdom of Tondo extended far beyond to Ilocos and Bicol when in fact that are no reputable sources that claims this. The only sources being cited are from blogs, websites that are down and can't be reached, and books that cite Wikipedia itself. So I'm going to ask Theseeker2016 to please stop undoing the removal of unverified non-peer-reviewed speculations. Speculations are reserved to blogs, not in Wikipedia pages. Thank you. Stricnina (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am removing the numerous translations of "Kingdom of Tondo" because there is no point. There are even no academic sources that attest that the polity called itself as a "Kingdom" in the past. We have no sources that testify that Ilocano and Bicolano were actually used as official languages in the past because of very scant sources. Plus, the Ilocano and Bicolano translations are only justified by non-academic non-peer reviewed blogs and articles that are written by anonymous people that claim the extension of the Kingdom of Tondo far beyond to the Ilocos and Bicol regions. I'm suggesting Theseeker2016 to refrain from undoing the removal of dubious content. If you engage in an edit war with me, then so be it. Stricnina (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll be removing citations about Rajah Alon because of the absence of peer-reviewed sources about him. I suggest Theseeker2016 and Jim1138 to stop undoing the removal of dubious content. This Wikipedia article is a mess and it is our job to present an article that is backed up by academic peer-reviewed sources and not blogs written anonymously nor books that cited Wikipedia itself. Stricnina (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support Stricnina actions to clean up this page from speculations and somewhat bordering "history fabrications", insist on only including academic/peer-reviewed sources, valid references, preverably published history books, avoiding blogs or sources that citing wikipedia, and deleting dubious sections. If Tondo's history is unclear, so be it, at least that's the fact. I think this is the main weakness on constructing Pre-Hispanic Philippines history article; scarce historical evidences and too little historical sources and materials for historians to work with, coupled with weak historiography discipline. But that does not means wikipedia editor could fabricate its history. Keep up the good workǃ Gunkarta  talk  12:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSeeker2016 and friends should REFRAIN from undoing edits. Thank you.

There is no justification in citing a book that cites a Wikipedia article. For example, this book is cited:

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=sY7EBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=kingdom+of+tondo&source=bl&ots=fJ3K8tTeob&sig=waGJLIKTI0NLMiv4K3ssKFMoqBk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ74W_1ebRAhUBkJQKHSnqDxI4ChDoAQgmMAU#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20tondo&f=false

Stop citing this book. You can't cite a book that cites Wikipedia. It doesn't make any sense. Theseeker2016. Stricnina (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This blog is also cited: https://philippinebuddhism.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/early-buddhism-in-the-philippines/ The blog is written by an anonymous person with no known academic background. There are no citations in that blog and it is full of speculations and bullshit. Every statement that cites this blog will be removed in the absence of further verification. Theseeker2016 Stricnina (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This source is being cited: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino The page is down and can't be reached. Every statement that cites this blog will be removed in the absence of further verification. Theseeker2016 Stricnina (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This so-called Rajah Alon can be traced to this blog written by an anonymous author with no known academic background: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/philippines/history-tondo.htm The blog doesn't cite any books or verifiable articles. I have zero tolerance over bullshit. Theseeker2016, Darwgon0801 and friends should take note. Rajah Alon is going to be deleted. Stricnina (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Another site being cited: http://www.bayangpinagpala.org/ Too bad it's down. Theseeker2016, Darwgon0801 and friends should look for other academic peer-reviewed sources or I'll delete every claim that cites an unreachable webpage. Thank you. Stricnina (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There were sources on those information based on LCI (a 900 AD doccuments mentioned the names of ministers and rulers mentioned) , and some books based on the works of , Inquirer, Anton Podsma , Nick Joaquin and Jaime F. Tiongson, W.H. Scot, Luis Camara Dery, by Grace Odal Devora, IIRC and Ambeth Ocampo. and supported by the Documents regarding the India (Sanskrit) Chinese influence (from Chinese / and Spanish accounts) (WP:Verifiability) and also the what you called Blogs(although it had a backed sources support with the anthropologist/researchers i mentioned) are reliable for secondary and tertiary sources! other than the Artifacts of uniform cultures in Luzon (Except Pangasinan (Caboloan)). So Why I will refrain ? even the reliable sources are not reliable for User:Stricnina. As of you , i think its a type of Personal (the way you removing infobox in the page without consent or any reason is a form of Violation , Personal views cannot be accepted here in wikipedia) hope you understand. to remind you all that wikipedia is not a democracy. indeed its academic. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC))

Theseeker2016, it appears most of the sources specifically mentioned in this section ARE NOT ACADEMIC. Stop being mentally dense and understand what I'm talking about. I've read works from W.H. Scott and Ambeth Ocampo and no one amongst them mentioned Rajah Alon or personal union with Namayan or the expansion of the Kingdom of Tondo to Ilocos and Bicol. In the future, I'll be deleting unverified claims and might actually add new content. I can't do it right now because we're in the Easter holidays. Stricnina (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Un reliable ? The LCI (which is a 900 Ad almost a millennia-old artifacts and works of Scholars are arent enough? and The Blogs you called are a tertiary and Secondary sources with the backing of the Reliable Sources from the names of Filipino and Dutch anthropologist available its sites which contain information and its free as you know (Based on academic works i mentioned) even the Chinese and Spanish written records are unreliable too? Un-Accademic? may i remind everyone No one can remove until the Consensus has created and i shall follow it. WP CONSENSUS.(Theseeker2016 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC) I mean if we have to clean up, We must make sure that we have a proper reading of the Reliable sources , and before we add maintenance stubs make sure we put in the right areas (otherwise, it will only look stubbish) and not good for an article, and Before we Remove we must Follow WP CONSENSUS thank you (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC))

I am not against the LCI, Theseeker2016. I am specifically against SPECULATIONS from blogs from GLOBALSECURITIES written by anonymous people. Stop being mentally dense and understand what I'm talking about. Half the citations in this webpage are UNREACHABLE sites, personal blogs from anonymous authors and low-quality content. I want scholarly sources from people who spent the rest of their PhD years researching Philippine history. Please read again all the sources I've SPECIFICALLY mentioned here and you'll notice they are webpages with unverified content. Stricnina (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I want this, Theseeker2016: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research

Theseeker2016, you are not addressing the fact that there are NO sources that prove Rajah Alon's existence, for example. You're evading the argument altogether with your wordy paragraphs. I insist on ACADEMIC and PEER-REVIEWED sources. Anonymous blogs are NOT academic sources and Wikipedia is supposed to NOT tolerate original research without proper citations. Stricnina (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

But i see you before, i warned you three times (along with the other editors)if you want to remove the dubious facts why you dont just remove it alone? not the entire infobox without any reason? in that infobox their are parts of it contain the ACADEMIC and PEER-REVIEWED sources so removing the infobox without any consent is a violation so that's why i said read the entire sources before we remove anything so its not a dense mentality(11:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)).

Right now I'm only removing the specific dubious content (not entire sections) and I'm tagging the statements without proper citations. Theseeker2016, I am only going to remove the specific parts of the webpage with no PROPER sources from W.H. Scott, Nick Joaquin, Ambeth Ocampo, Jocano and friends. I'm also going to suggest you to stop removing the tags I'm putting on every dubious sentence, phrase or content of this webpage. This article is appalling with all the unverifiable sources or sources from blogs without proper academic backup. Stricnina (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Another site that is cited as a source but is unreachable: http://mb.com.ph/articles/362013/philippinesthailand-diplomatic-relations-day#.UQjTox03uVI The site is supposed to verify the Philippine-Thailand relations but it is down now. Theseeker2016, Darwgon0801 and friends, if in the future I decide to remove statements that cite this unverifiable source, I would like you all to stop interfering with the clean-up. Thank you very much. Stricnina (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Right now i will help to check the References of these clean ups so i must see if the removed sources are valid or not? (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

Take note Manila Bulletin is a news paper,and news Paper is a form of RELIABLE sources as long it had a related topics (like i.e History of particular topics) on its Content (WP:Verifiability), And until the "proper" WP:CONSENSUS, removing main parts are violation. thank you! .(Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

Take note, Theseeker2016 and friends: unreachable sites ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. Everything here that uses 404 sites as sources will be deleted in the absence of further verification. This webpage is appalling and every contributor in this Wikipedia article should have noticed it by now. Stricnina (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Another site on 404: http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm . I will suggest to everyone ( Theseeker2016 and friends) to use multiple citations from reliable secondary and primary sources (academic and PEER-REVIEWED, preferably books) to avoid multiple sources on 404 in the future. Stricnina (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

An unrelated site is being used as a source for the following sentence: Initially the kingdom revered Buddhist-Hindu influence as the predominant religion. The said site is the following: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10771/pg10771-images.html I suggest to my fellow armchair historians like Theseeker2016 and friends to STOP citing completely unrelated websites to an unfounded statement. Use a reliable secondary or primary source which is ON POINT. In the absence of further verification, that sentence will be removed or reformulated based on available reliable sources. Thank you very much. Stricnina (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Another site without verifiable sources and citations: http://www.buddhist-tourism.com/countries/philippines/buddhism-in-philippines.html The site is written by an anonymous author with no academic background whatsoever. Stop citing a blog without citations from the works of known historians such as Nick Joaquin, Ambeth Ocampo, W.H. Scott, etc.! Every statement that dares cite the website as a source will be removed in the future. Stricnina (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed and support Stricnina suggestions and actions, please proceed. Gunkarta  talk  12:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• • wikipedia is not a Democracy(Theseeker2016 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC))

As previously stated, I support the move towards removing any sources that are not either academic/peer-reviewed or recognized by an official entity such as the National Historical Institute (or at least rewriting them so their assertions are clearly marked as conjecture, and by whom). Which means I generally side with Stricnina on this, although perhaps not in the case of all edits. I'll make a new discussion section, I'll identify a few sources whose reliability has been ruled on by the community in the past. Thanks. (BTW, folks, if you're tagging others in your posts, it may be helpful to put a dash before the tildes that autosign your signature, so that your singnature is marked off from other names. :D Just a suggestion.) - Alternativity (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Previous community discussions establishing consensus on the reliability of certain sources used here

As promised in the previous section, I'm placing a summary and list of links to previous community discussions establishing consensus on the reliability of certain sources.

Source	Summary of Consensus	Discussion
watawat.net	A discussion on the reliability of watawat.net was already discussed and resolved in 2011.	The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#.22Lakandula.27s_Flag.22_is_speculative
globalsources.org as a source for Philippine prehistory and protohistory	A discussion on the reliability of globalsources.org as a source for Philippine prehistory and protohistory took place in December 2016, and the consensus was that while globalsources.org is often a reliable source for contemporary military topics, it isn't generally reliable as a source for Philippine history. The specific page "History-Tondo" was noted unreliable given it didn't cite its sources and seemed to use dated language.	The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_217#globalsecurity.org_as_a_source_on_Philippine_Prehistory_and_Protohistory
"The Soils of the Philippines" By Carating,Rodelio B., Raymundo G. Galanta, and Clarita D. Bacatio.	This was brought up with the Philippine Wikimedia community in 2017, with the consensus that it should NOT be used as per WP:CIRCULAR.	The discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive40#.22The_Soils_of_the_Philippines.22_as_a_History_of_the_Philippines_Source

I hope this helps! Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Another site without any useful content is cited by this Wikipedia article: http://vedicempire.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=26 I suggest Theseeker2016, Alternativity and friends to STOP citing a webpage that is down and has its "domain name in sale". Thank you very much.Stricnina (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

For those they called them selves "Orthodox", Make sure it wont end up to a page similar to the article Fiasco 2010's which contains "nothing" ..because some of editors here are planing to return this page on the previous version that is little or almost to no- information at all i hope it wont end up to that.(Theseeker2016 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC))

That's the problem: the academic consensus is that we know very little for sure. And according to wikipedia's rules, you can't say anything unless reliable sources. Meaning: academic consensus. NOT popular belief, but academic consensus based on a careful system of PEER REVIEW. If you really want to help, get these theories published in peer reviewed academic journals. Or at least, academic grey literature.

Or if you want a place that's less strict, find a place like wikipilipinas, which was created PRECISELY because they thought Wikipedia was too strict. Or go write a blog. I'd love to read it. To be honest, this is why I don't write on wikipedia as much any more - there are so many things that make sense to me, but which haven't been mentioned by the journals. And there are even things I'm sure of as a social scientist (I'm not a history academic though, so that's for different articles), but which I haven't had published in a referreed journal. So I can't say them on wikipedia. It simply isn't allowed. No matter how sure I am, and no matter how much it makes sense. (For example, does the Ermitanyo creek in San Juan and Mandaluyong retain its name once it crosses wack-wack and the borders of Pasig City? That's been driving me crazy for YEARS.) Come on, people. Respect the historian's craft and the process of scientific consensus. And respect wikipedia's CORE principle of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. - Alternativity (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S., Stricnina, as far as I recall I had nothing to do with the use of vedicempire.com as a source. And I've strongly supported the call for the use academic sources all the way, so I don't appreciate being lumped in there. Pardon me if I'm a bit offended by the implication. I'll also remind everyone that wikipedia has a No Personal Attacks policy. Let's stick to specific issues and polite discourse as much as possible, please? - Alternativity (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This source can be classified as a primary source: http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/directory/sumita/5A-161/volume05.html It is being used as a citation for the existence of a certain "Lakan Suko". Since according to Wikipedia guidelines, "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", I'm going to ask every contributor here to verify the source or preferably cite a reliable peer-reviewed or academic secondary source that specifically mentions the very existence of Lakan Suko. In the absence of such evidences, the statements about Lakan Suko might be removed for lack of citations. Stricnina (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Salafi-mainstremist ...pffft My statements are already in above, im afraid that this article which become from senseless and became relevant and now it might senseless again, So my point was Review every Sources please before you decide on anything plus i will consult for a reviews for it (according WP:VERIFIABILITY) if found it has a removed legit sources, it will be restored. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC))

Whatever. Do note that WP:VERIFIABILITY is further fleshed out in WP:Reliable Sources. If your source flunks WP:RS standards, it will be deleted. Maybe not immediately, maybe not by me or anyone presently in this conversation. But certainly by anyone protecting the scholarly quality of Wikipedia. - Alternativity (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

./. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

Name calling and being uncivilized is not helping your cause, only do harm for it. What it has to do with salafism amd mainstreamist? irrelevant. Agree with WP:Reliable Sources. Some references are not even mentioned the said quoted sentences. I will scan this through, and restore some tags. If the history of Tondo is unclear, scarce or you said "senseless" so be it, at least that the fact. It did not warrant to made up (invent) history. Gunkarta  talk  06:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

i watching what so called improvements sorry for the term salafi but a ultra-mainstreamism i meant , irrelevant? that was the way here im still civil on that mood. if i find out any flaws here it will be restore if they called me uncivilized for my term then so be it ...at least i will give this page an appropriate place according to Proper links and references plus , i will prevent this page to become 0-info at all! but i dont believe it will turn to that momentum. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Theseeker2016, you've been removing the inline tags on uncited sources on the Religion section. The section requires more scholarly sources when it comes to the description of the religion of Tondo. As of now I have William Henry Scott's "Barangay" book and I'm looking for Jocano's book and probably other reliable sources. In the meantime, REFRAIN from removing the inline tags since there are no reliable cited sources that indicate that the highlighted statements are supported by evidence. For example, this site is being cited for information regarding Tondo's religion: http://www.buddhist-tourism.com/countries/philippines/buddhism-in-philippines.html, except the site did not discuss anything about the Kingdom of Tondo AND the website didn't cite academic and peer-reviewed articles/books. The claims about the main religion of Tondo are totally uncited and requires citations. So I urge Theseeker2016 to stop interfering with the cleanup. Stricnina (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh read the sources first before you do anything you just a sort of Hard-line mainstreamist , you know the rules Its not a Blog it have references so i have to do my job here (Theseeker2016 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

if you know the term Read and understand the context of what they being discuss there, the spread of Hindu-Buddhist faith (Theseeker2016 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

or maybe it will like what as i said that some of clean ups and scholar was Just a Pretext (Theseeker2016 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

Theseeker2016, if you have peer-reviewed sources (not BLOGS without academic citations), you should have been citing them by now instead of wasting time writing useless stuff here. If you have peer-reviewed sources, cite them as per Wikipedia Guidelines. Stop the useless banter and cooperate by following the guidelines. Remember that I fully support WP:VERIFIABILITY and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and I do not tolerate uncited statements in this Wiki page. Stricnina (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I've read http://www.buddhist-tourism.com/countries/philippines/buddhism-in-philippines.html and the site mostly talks about contemporary Buddhism in the Philippines and doesn't mention anything about the religion of Ancient Tondo. The website can't be used as a citation for historical statements about Tondo's supposed religion. It's also a stretch to say that people of Ancient Tondo are primarily Hindu-Buddhists, not to mention following specific schools of Buddhism, using that site as a source. I suggest Theseeker2016 to use proper sources that mentions ancient Tondo or ancient Tagalog region instead of pandering to useless sources. Stricnina (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Useless for you so be it! i will keep monitoring this (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

that was a tertiary supporting references fiasco 2011 so i will add the add you called scholarly beliefs here but remember i ain't buying the Pretexed intentions of your friends here (Theseeker2016 (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

Broad community consensus on such matters can be achieved by raising the matter up at the Reliable sources noticeboard. If some editors reject the standards set by the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources policy, then none of us have any choice but to bring this up there, and to present arguments based on the standards set in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. - Alternativity (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This has gone too far.

Ughk. Forgive me for ranting, but this incessant promoting of fringe theories and rejection of scholarly neutrality (as expresed in Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy) is really getting on my nerves.

We just went through the whole nine yards of disproving(Scott, '84; Go '05) that Tondo was politically dependent on China. Now people are trying to make it look like Tondo was somehow a subject of India (Which is ridiculous because no thassalocratic empire of that period the naval capabilities necessary to project their political power THAT far)?

Aren't the universally-acknowledged (but indirect! see Scott, 84; Scott, '94; Potet '13; Jocano '01; Go '05) political influence of the Southeast Asian thassalocracies enough?

What is this obsession with being slaves to some empire?!?! What is this refusal to acknowledge the scholar-acknowledged consensus that these were fully indpendent political entities (Scott, 84; Scott, '94; Potet '13; Jocano '01; Go '05; Alejandro '04; Harper '04; Odal-Devora '04) with their own fully-formed although foreign-influenced cultures and economies? Why this willingness to swallow contemporary propaganda? And why do today's edits in particular make it sound as if anitism/animism is somehow inferior to Hinduism and Buddhism?

I'm sorry, but given the rejection of academic orthodoxy, these are clear cases of anti-nativist lies, and I have to call this out for what it is, whether the editors concerned realize it or not: imperialist propaganda. - Alternativity (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And before you start citing your supposed "sources", yes I've read them. And almost without exception they say tehre was cultural and economic influence (true enough, no debates there), not political or military dependence (which is just so ridiculous scholars don't even bother discussing it). And whether you like it or not, political or military structural control is what is implied by your insistence on the description "indianized kingdom" in the lead pargraph section. - Alternativity (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alternativity not as what you think, being part of an greater indian cultural sphere doesn't mean we are a under control ( politically and military) by the empires around, and its not anti-nativist propaganda as you think , yes we are fully independent polity or kingdom what so ever it was , But remember, The words from sanskrit and the Rankings of the Maharlika nobility such as Rajah (a sanskrit word for a King) are came from indian /sanskrit word! even maharlika word it self came from Malayo-Sanskrit. proof which we are sharing cultural sphere with our neighbors were not isolated. that's the way as the Descriptions of the written sources available! the whole point of those sources weather you like it or not we are being part of Indian and chinese culutural Sphere as what you said By the Influence of our Neighbor and Hindu-buddhist religion are gained prominence in philippine islands and it's not what you think that Animism are inferior, they are contemporaneously existed with Animism. The Laguna Copperplate Inscription is one the proof of hindu-Buddhist Religion and Culture sphere of india . and that was the sources speaking tho,(Theseeker2016 (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

So as what i said Cultural sphere From Burma Thailand Cambodia Indonesia Malaya up to Philippines Even Tibet and Afganstan are Part of the Greater india and that identiy was stick up to roots of Filipinos specially in Tundun (tondo) By Names (in reference in LCI note the names of ministers are mentioned are in sanskrit), food..almost of aspects , That was the gateway to be a Part of greater india Culturaly not the way as you think (As the descriptions of the written records or should i say Scholarly). (Theseeker2016 (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

That is what your sources are saying, but that's not what the article says the way it's currently written. The paragraph structure on the article - largely because of the insistence on catchphrases - implies political control, rather than just cultural influence. If you don't mean that, then the text (as it is on the page right now) is saying something you don't want it to say. People would not be so mad if you please phrased your edits more carefully and neutrally, and followed the strict rules set in WP:Reliable sources. In this case, for example: if you want to talk about Indian cultural influence, discuss it in a new section about cultural influences, not in the lede paragraph where you're supposed to summarize the most fundamental (meaning political) characteristics of the article's subject. Me, I acknowledge the cultural influence of India, and in fact, I want to write a section on that, but I have to study the texts carefully first and double check the reliability of sources. Adding new sections and new information isn't bad. In fact there's a lot of material in the various journals that aren't here yet. But you have to put them in very carefully and screening your sources for academic rigor or you'll end up either (a) misrepresenting the ideas in the articles, or (b) citing propaganda articles (see Fringe theories). That's why cleaning up takes so long. Careful quality control is all we ask for. (And better sentence writing and paragraph structure would be a big help.) - Alternativity (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And for the record regarding the way your edit description implies the inferiority of animism. Your edit description said "Tondo is part of the Greater India in Partial influence not only an animist tribe" uses the word "only." And the word "only", whether you intended it or not, implies that "animist" is an inferior religion relative to the "Indian infleucnce." Also, "Tondo is part of the Greater India" implies political subjugation because you didn't provide context. If it says what you claim you wanted it to say, it should have been written like: "Tondo was part cultural sphere influence that [source must be named to show that this is opinion, not directly observable fact] refers to as "Greater India", and India influenced Tondo's religeous culture alongside other beliefs such as animism." - Alternativity (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I do not "think that." I said that YOU implied that (whether you intended to do so, or you were simply not choosing your words carefully). - Alternativity (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

i only speaking according to the acts of users here so not only you but those users yes we want all a Scholarly content , but some of the editors are turning to be a hard line (too much).(Theseeker2016 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

About that grammar, sorry for that was only a shortened rant and wording for what i trying to point out. (13:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

If you have any problems with a source being removed, I highly recommend you bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, the most appropriate venue for seeking community consensus on such disagreements. Then leave a note at the WikiProject Philippines talk page so they can comment on the RS Noticeboard too. That way more experienced wikipedians can discuss and assess the reliability of the source as per wikipedia rules. -Alternativity (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Chronology and the related polities

I see this article has soo many flaws in historiography discipline and perspective. Do we even sure that the 9th century Kingdom of Tondo mentioned in LCI was the same polity as the later 14th century Saludung or Selurong mentioned in Nagarakretagama, also the same as the 16th century Luções, and the same (continuation) of polities in pre-Islamic and pre-hispanic Philippines? Assuming that there was a solid continuous kingdom stretched from 9th century to late 16th century based on soo few evidences is outrageous in historiography discipline. This article has stretch too far by assuming that they were one solid continuous polity/kingdom/dynasty. In my Indonesian history perspective, this error is like assuming (and combining) that 4th century Tarumanagara was continued to 9th century Medang Mataram all the way to 14th century Majapahit, and think of them as one big happy family of continuous kingdom/dynasty, only based on the fact that they are located in the same Java island, in fact they weren't continuous kingdom/dynasty. We should focus and stick to the fact in the name where Tundun in LCI mentioned, and Dongdu from Chinese source. Connection with later polities/entities, may it be Seludong, Maynila, Luções, etc. are discouraged without reliable sources and peer reviewed articles. Gunkarta  talk  13:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that there was a solid continuous kingdom stretched from 9th century to late 16th century based on soo few evidences Speaking of it , In a broader perspective That was the Lusung(Zaide, Sonia M. The Philippines, a Unique Nation. p. 50) and the capital/seat of power was Tondo often called Kingdom of Tondo in the most formal way It self (it also mentioned in supporting Secondary sources which the Hard line-Mainstreamist removed), and Majapahit Eulogy of Rajah hayam warchuk -Nagarakretagama have disputed claim, these claim however may be mythical. that the most of the Philippines are under super lagre kingdom if you based on Indonesian literature.

And the name Tondo are sanskrit with the elements of Old Tagalog and Old Malay From the LCI so it is possible that its not a Chinese Name Chinese often translated names according to their way of Pinyin which is Dongdu (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC))

And Speaking of Lucoes , Actually, there is scholarly evidence that the Lucoes existed and that they came from Luzon / Lusung. Here's a quote from the University of Hawaii...

Pires [ca. 1500] twice mentions that the junks of the Malays and Javanese were not allowed to proceed to the city of Guangzhou because of the fear in which they were held, but when describing details of the fear in which they were held, but when describing details of the city he adds, "so the Lucoes [Luzons] say who have been there. These Lucoes demand some attention..."They [Luzons] have two or three junks, at most. They take the merchandise to Burney [Brunei] and from there they come to Melaka, . . . The Bruneians go to the lands of the Luzons to buy gold."....The Luzons were in fact the principal Melaka traders to China, which is difficult to understand unless they had brought with them to Melaka some knowledge of Chinese commerce and customs. It seems probable that the Luzon-Brunei connection arose when both centres were rising into commercial significance in consequence of their close connection with China in the early fifteenth century.

- Alilunas-Rodgers, Kristine, and Anthony Reid. Sojourners and Settlers: Histories of Southeast Asia and the Chinese. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, 2001, 34-5. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC))

Still, connecting those 9th century Tundun from LCI with 14th century Lusung or Selurong and 16th century Lucoes (spanning seven hundred yearsǃ), and assuming them as a continous kingdom or single entity is kind of a longshot theory bordering history fabrication, by building too much assumption. The sources you've quoted only mentioned Lucoes and their link to inhabitant of Luzon, it mention nothing about Tundun. Still do not understand my logic...? let me elaborate it by presenting one example. In Indonesia the North Sumatran Pannai kingdom has main historiography based from two historical sources that clearly mentioned "Panai", which was 11th century Tanjore Inscription from Southern India and 14th century Nagarakretagama from Java. Both mentioned Pannai or Pane span for 3 centuries (11th to 13th century). Plus actual remnant of Bahal temple ruins near Panai river valley in Sumatra. Thankfully Pannai article only based on this sources. But if some editor pouring other Sumatran polities such as Srivijaya history or later Malayu Dharmasraya into Pannai article and assuming them are one entity or kingdom is a fatal error. And that fashion I think is performed in this article. This article should concentrate only on Tondo or Dungdu. Not to later entities. For sources concerning Lusung and Lucoes, keep them in separate articles as it has been done. -- Gunkarta  talk  13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

still you don't getting it these are Not even a fabrication , Tondo or Lusung are existed from c.900 AD - 1588 (LCI and Spanish written records of their conquest) and it is possible to a kingdom to exist or to spanned in more than a hundred years , And lusones are from luzon Tondo is often called as Lusung and lucoes came the name given by the Portuguese it means "people from Lusung" and one of the name of Tundun are Lusung (Zaide, Sonia M. The Philippines, a Unique Nation. p. 50) Kingdom of Manila was only founded when the Malay Sultanate of Burnei attacked Tundun in 1500 that was a new entities co-existed with Tundun. in shorter term Lusung or Tundun are a century old contemporaries with Maynila. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

Too few resources (valid references), too many assumption. More references from credible historian please. This page desperately need to be clean up. I had started it with erasing alleged Majapahit connection. Gunkarta  talk  13:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

sounds like it was written but its not what really means yes its a desperate clean up like concluding that ph aren't influenced by india and they where isolated (Theseeker2016 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC))

Please refrain yourself from editing guerilla by retrieving doubtful section connected to Majapahit. Gunkarta  talk  15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• • the truth is written please do not conclude on alternative facts ? (Theseeker2016 (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC))

I think the name/term Selurong came from the Lobed River Mullet.Kasumi-genx (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kingdom of Tondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621051322/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121194304/http://bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Coast/7446/Ragam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929162310/http://elgu2.ncc.gov.ph/mauban/index.php?id1=3&id2=1&id3=0 to http://elgu2.ncc.gov.ph/mauban/index.php?id1=3&id2=1&id3=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Alternative names" moved down to their own section as per WP:LEADCLUTTER

Just FYI: the long list of alternative names and orthographies has been moved down to their own section (Alternative names and orthographies) as per WP:LEADCLUTTER (aka Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Separate_section_usage ), which states:

...if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

On "Kingdom" as a Mis-labeling

Hi. This response to User:Parashurama007's query on my talkpage regarding why "Kingdom" is a mislabeling, based on scholarly interpretation of the original texts.

The assertions of mislabeling aren’t mine, they’re the result of current scholarly consensus. The scholars who most directly said this are F. Landa Jocano, William Henry Scott and Laura Lee Junker, but Vicente Rafael also had important inputs. The second paragaph actually summarizes this already:

Travelers from from monarchical cultures[25] who had contacts with Tondo (including the Chinese, Portuguese, and the Spanish)[26] often initially mislabeled[25][26][6][1] it as the "Kingdom of Tondo". Early Augustinian chronicler Pedro de San Buenaventura explained this error as early as 1613 in his Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala,[21] but the label was nevertheless later adapted by the popular literature of the Spanish colonial era because of the influence of the Hispanic linguistic tradition.[14]

I’ll try to add a more expanded (but still summarized) set of points here. (Thanks to User:Sulbud by the way, for the good discussion on this subject which we had elsewhere. Also: I'm not sure about the exact year of some of the citations, since I'm typing from memory; I'll recheck them later.)

1. A Quick Clarification: the Laguna Copperplate Inscription doesn’t say anything about a king, it says “commander in chief” (pamegat senāpati).(Postma, 1992) I've seen Senāpati translated as "Admiral" (Dery, 2001), but never as "King."

2. Junker (1990, 1998) notes that Song and Ming Dynasty records were not firsthand observations
3. Junker (1998) notes that the Song and Ming Dynasty uses of the term Huang/Wang were interpretations the world was filtered through their Sinocentric worldview
4. Junker (1998) also asserts that the use of the term Huang in the Song and Ming Dynasty records seems to be a political justification for maintaining the Tondo-Maynila monopoly on Chinese trade; they used the term so that the Tondo-Maynila would sound more “acceptable” trading partners to the imperialist worldviews of the courts.

5. Scott (1994) cites San Buenaventura (1613) explaining that the tagalogs did not call their rulers “kings”. They had a term for king, which was “hari”, but this strictly did not apply to local rulers.
6. Scott (1994) also cites Rajah Sulayman (in the accounts of the 1571 Goiti expedition to Pampanga and Bulacan, mostly documented in Blair and Robertson Vol. 3) himself saying “there was no absolute king in these lands”
7. Scott (1994)cites San Buenaventura (1613) saying that “large polities consisting of several barangays” (this describes Maynila, Tondo, and Taguig) was called a Bayan.
8. Jocano (2001) asserts that the relationships that characterized the relationship of Filipino rulers with the other members of the community (lower ranked maginoo, timawa, and alipin) were more reciprocal than those in a monarchy.

9. Junker (1990, 1998) notes, by the way, that the Datus also did not fall into the categories traditionally associated with evolutionary chiefdoms; strictly speaking, they also weren’t chiefs. (When Junker uses the word "Chief", she puts it in quotation marks.)

10. We have a specific local term describing these polities: “Bayan.” We don’t need to import/introduce new western terms to describe these polities.
11. The rulers of Maynila and Tondo were called Datu, Rajah, or Lakan. They had specific titles. We don’t need to import/introduce new western terms to describe them.

12. Vicente Rafael (2005) notes that the term popular entertainers in the Spanish colonial era eventually used the term “Kingdom” because they didn’t have the words to properly describe the political structure of early Philippine societies, so this is where the mislabeling of Tondo and Maynila as “Kingdoms” began.

Some personal notes: What I'm watching out for is technically accurate operational definition of the social structure. Jocano and Junker provide significant details of how these early Philippine settlements were unique entities, which do NOT fall into convenient western categories. Scott goes into great detail about the original documents and agrees with that assessment. Other historians and historiographers say the same thing, but mostly referencing the lifework of these three. (Because the scale of the archival research they did used to take a lifetime, back when the manuscripts were not yet digitized).

I still don't actually understand why some editors seem to believe "kingdom" is somehow a more desirable description. Perhaps because of some surviving belief in nobility? But allowing such beliefs to color the text of wikipedia articles would be a violation of WP:POV, wouldn't it? I only understood this better when I ran into Vicente Rafael's 2005 explanation that the use of the term "Kaharian" was popularized in Spanish era Awit and Korido performances. So I see now that while "kingdom" might not be technically accurate for early Tagalog polities in the political or sociological sense, the term Kaharian was used in non-technical sources and venues. So I think "popular mislabelled" is a good compromise.

I've done my best to sum up my points, but I hope the sources speak for themselves. May I also seek opinions or inputs from User:Sulbud, User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, User:Stricnina, User:Gunkarta, (and maybe User:Darwgon0801 and User:Wtmitchell?) who have constructively participated in these discussions or edits before? Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alternativity , please study about my proposal to move the name of Kingdom of Tondo to "Ancient Tondo" or "Old Tondo", for the sake of Neutral POV, thank you!Palasulam-ang^talk

Hi, Mr. Alternativity. I think there's no opinion I can give since you've already explained it firmly and you have the sources I don't have. By the way, is there any chance that you'll rename this article? (specifically as "Tondo (historical polity)", also to Maynila as "Maynila (historical polity)") Since I saw your edits in Maynila and others that you seem want to redirect in that way. Or you'll just keep it since it was more popular. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank you, Alternativity, for transforming this worrisome article into a genuinely decent one, by removing the pseudo-history and fringe-theories that has gripped this article since a long while back. As for the usage of the term "Kingdom", I want to side with you and just use the term "polity" instead, however the term "Kingdom" is more popular as what Darwgon said. Wikipedia should generally reflect public consensus and unless public consensus has changed, I guess we should settle with the term "kingdom" for now, albeit there should be clarification in the article stating how that term is a misnomer. I don't really know, let's ask others for their point of view too. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alternativity's reasonings. Even the oldest transcription linked to Tundun, the Laguna Copperplate did not mention any title of raja (king), only pamegat (official), senāpati (generals), and nāyaka (local community leaders). So far no prasasti (stone stele/inscription), linga or temple ever erected and discovered in the region. By examining this inscription, could means Tundun/Tondo was not a kingdom in classical Hindu/Buddhist sense, it is more likely a local provincial polity with a touch of Hindu/Buddhist influences, probably came from outside of Philippines archipelago. Or maybe the inscription was not a royal one, only concerning lesser officials; addressed only as high as senapati and nayaka. I think Tondo was just a minor polity, not yet a kingdom in classic Hindu/Buddhist sense. —  Gunkarta  talk  16:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I also like to thank and congratulate Alternativity for your objectivity and your work on repairing this article from pseudo-history aspects put in this article (and other articles) by certain editors, especially JournalmanManila and many of his sock puppets: Theseeker2016, Jasper0070, and Cleaner880. Heads upǃ —  Gunkarta  talk  16:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of this issue of Kingdom , Polity , or even Tribe i suggest that why dont we Use the name of this kingdom as "Old Tondo" or Ancient Tondo? only for the sake of neutral POV (WP:NPOV, WP:Neutrality ) Palasulam-ang ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

But in correspondent to other side, which "mislabeled kingdom" maybe they got references based on the following:

Laguna Copperplate Inscription (LCI) -indirect- but it means to be a Ruler

The fourth day of the waning moon, Monday. On this occasion, Lady Angkatan, and her relative whose name is Bukah, the children of the Honorable Namwaran, were awarded a document of complete pardon from the Commander-in-Chief of Tundun, represented by the Lord Minister of Pailah, Jayadewa.

And he next historical reference to Tondo can be found in the Chinese Ming Shilu Annals, which record the arrival of an envoy from Luzon to the Ming Dynasty in 1373. Strong evidence stated

Her rulers, based in their capital, Tondo (Chinese: 東都; pinyin: dōngdū) were acknowledged not as mere chieftains, but as kings .

And even the Spanish written records are Early Augustinian chronicler Pedro de San Buenaventura explained this error as early as 1613 in his book Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala regard the rulers as king

And In reference to the King these are what mentioned by historians attributed to the of Etymology of "Lakandula":

Banaw was the given name of the lord of Tondo at the time of the Spanish advent, and his title "Lakan" refers to a monarch and was the equivalent of "Rajah" or "King".' This leaves the matter of the addendum "dula" to be settled.

• so it means Lakandula was a King of the palace , and infact polty was only coined by contemporary historians either. (to be in neutral).

So, this is what we need to study of these issues, to avoid the pseudo-historian (Anarchonism) content here and for the sake of Balance and Neutrality in this article (WP:NPOV) i will help to look for the further references and clean ups. Palasulam-ang^talk

Hi, Palasulam-ang, responses:

A. Regarding the LCI reference: "King" has a technical definition, and ruler is a general description. A ruler is not necessarily a king. Nobody disputes that the LCI said "Ruler," but it did NOT say King.

B. Regarding the Ming Shilu refrences, see items 2,3, and 4 listed above, plus general assertions by Jocano, Junker, Scott, and Vicente Rafael. That was an foreign interpretation that was done without even firsthand observation, and is believed to have been politically influenced; indigenous words and interpretations take precedence.

C. Regarding Pedro de San Buenaventura,where did you read that? Because it simply isn't true. The Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala said the opposite. They did NOT consider their Rajahs "hari."

D. Regarding the etymology of Lakandula: Because I have the original references in front of me right now, I know for sure that the original text was supposed to read "equivalent of "Rajah" or "PARAMOUNT LEADER"", not "equivalent of "Rajah" or "King"." Someone must have edited the text. "Paramount Leader" doesn't just mean King. In this context it means Ruler over other Datus.

E. What's the problem with "Polity"? Polity was conceived as a neutral scholarly word that was supposed to NOT have connotations. The only other neutral term I could think of is "Settlement", and "Polity" is more neutral than "Settlement", if only because "Polity" is a technical, rather than street-use word.

F. Since we're beginning to discuss alternative names, perhaps it's time to propose moves for this page and for Maynila? Will think about it and propose later tonight.

G. The problem with "Ancient" is that it's too vague, and too relative. As someone pointed out earlier on in this Talk page, the 9th Century AD is not "ancient" by most objective standards. And using it would mean endless debates about temporal perspective (ancient compared to what?).

Cheers! - Alternativity (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move names

If we're looking at more neutral names, I think the following are our options

• Tondo (historical polity) and Maynila (historical polity)
• Tondo (historical settlement) and Maynila (historical settlement)
• Tondo (historical) and Maynila (historical)
• Tondo (early Philippine history) and Maynila (early Philippine history)

I think we can dismiss "Ancient Tondo", Tondo (Chiefdom), and Tondo (village) for now, unless someone wants to make a strong argument for them.

Personally I think Tondo (historical polity) is still the academically most acceptable choice; Tondo (early Philippine history) is very long, but maybe it's the most convenient compromise. If the other suggestions don't prevail, I'll propose moves to Tondo (early Philippine history) and Maynila (early Philippine history) in a few hours. Chime in now if you want to add our initial thoughts? Other suggestions are welcome. Please note also that this will be relevant for pages that might be created at a later dates, because there are other similar, significant historical settlements whose names are still in use, such as Pila, Pililla, Taytay, and Cainta.

Thanks everyone! :D - Alternativity (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Move proposal

As per discussion

Requested move 20 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Two listing periods, and we're no closer to a definitive answer. While there's some limited consensus that another name might be appropriate, there is no consensus for the one proposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Tondo → Tondo (early Philippine history) – Current name is misleading as per current scholarly consensus (see Junker, 1990 and 1998, Scott 1984 and 1994, Jocano 2001, Abinales and Amoroso 2005, PCDSPO 2015, Rafael 2005, etc), although still used in popular media. Matter extensively discussed at Talk:Kingdom_of_Tondo#On "Kingdom" as a Mis-labelingand Talk:Datu#2017 Re-opening of "Monarchy" discussion.

A parallel (or at least closely related) move at Talk:Kingdom of Maynila has also been proposed. Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Concur with the suggestion – Seems reasonable, historically and technically correct. —  Gunkarta  talk  08:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support., as proponent - as per reasons already explained in the two sections linked to above. - Alternativity (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Also supporting "Bayan" or "Settlement" as an alternative. Upon reviewing old proposals, and No such user's comment below,am also supporting Tondo (historical settlement) or Bayan of Tondo as viable alternatives if Tondo (early Philippine history doesn't work. Kingdom is just plain academically wrong and misleading. - Alternativity (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. I support the move away from "Kingdom" as a misnomer, but please give as a sane disambiguator. What's wrong, for example, with "Bayan of Tondo"? No such user (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  P.S. In a similar vein, we have Rajahnate of Cebu, Kedatuan of Dapitan and Sultanate of Maguindanao, so if we have to choose "X of Y", where X is an obscure type of polity, at least we have WP:CONSISTENCY. No such user (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose too many names to choose like "Ancient Tondo" and take note : Rajah titles like Rajah Sulayman .Rajah was a Sanskrit term for a King (Parashurama007 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC))
• Support move - Because "Kingdom" as a misnomer, but Tondo (historical settlement) is a better name. Maynila should use Rajahnate of Maynila instead. - Juliaantengco (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support the move but strongly NOT in that name. I prefer "Tondo (historical polity)", as Mr. Alternativity personally preferred. "Ancient Tondo", as Parashumara007 stated. Or even "Bayan of Tondo", as No such user recommended. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess Tondo is the one only left problem. At least Maynila (or should I say, Rajahnate of Maynila) has now been resolved thanks to Juliaantengco. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Expanded Survey (including other proposed names

Proposed Name	Comment/Support/Oppose
Ancient Tondo (currently a redirect, proposed by Parashumara007 and supported above by Darwgon0801)	Oppose - Ancient is just too vague, and non-Filipino readers might be confused. A more acceptable version would be Historical Tondo (see below).- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose - I agree, it's too confusing. -Juliaantengco (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Bayan of Tondo (Proposed by No such user, supported above by )	Comment Support - San Buenaventura establishes Bayan as the acceptable local word, so this is directly supported by a historical source as long as the group feels we can set aside WP:Use English in Tondo's case. (If we choose this, I would prefer Historical Bayan of Tondo, see below) - Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Support - Juliaantengco (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, Bayan is not a technical term and is ambiguous with the political party Bayan. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Historical Bayan of Tondo	Comment Support - If we're going with descriptive article titles, I feel that this one is the most precise possible variant. Again, the risk here is that people might think it's some sort of historical district that still exists within modern tondo.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, Bayan is not a technical term and is ambiguous with the political party Bayan. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Historical Tondo	Comment Weak Support - A more acceptable variant of Ancient Tondo. The risk here is that people might think it's some sort of historical district that still exists within modern tondo.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Revising comment -Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Kingdom of Tondo (retain current page name, proposed by Shhhhwwww!! above)	Strong Oppose - This is simply not in keeping with current scholarship.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose - Juliaantengco (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose - Stricnina (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Old Tondo	Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Tondo (city-state)	Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Comment - Scholarship is divided on whether or not it's technically a state. Jocano argues in favor; Junker argues against; Scott just seems to avoid commenting as far as I've read; I myself take no position. - Alternativity (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Tondo (early Philippine history) (current proposal, supported by Gunkarta and Alternativity above )	Comment Weak Support - I actually proposed this because I thought it'd be a reasonable compromise, but people have a WP:Consistency and WP:Recognizability problem with it.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Revising comment -Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Tondo (historical Bayan)	Comment Strong Support - Of the current choices, I feel this is the most recognizable, least confusing version.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Support - Settlement, polity, or Bayan are all fine. Juliaantengco (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support - I think this is the most logical choice since it pretty much describes what Tondo is furthermore, it's an indigenous term, this will satisfy the more patriotic among us.-Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, Bayan is not a technical term and is ambiguous with the political party Bayan. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Tondo (historical settlement) (proposed by Juliaantengco above)	Strong Support Comment - This is a neutral variant, but people sometimes think a "settlement" is a villiage. So I don't know if it'll be useful.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Revising comment - - more clearly expressing support after reading arguments from other community members - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Support - Settlement, polity, or Bayan are all fine, although I prefer settlement. Juliaantengco (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support. Agree with User:Juliaantengco, makes the most sense. All the others except the one below have seem to have objections and settlement seems more recognizable than polity. Pero maybe it should say on the top part of the article that a settlement is a general term as was said in the discussion part below, not something meaning it's small. - Amadabecaria (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Tondo (historical polity) (currently a redirect, proposed by Darwgon0801 above)	Support - This is the absolutely totally most academically neutral possible variant, but the community seems to have WP:Recognizability problems with it, because polity is such a technical term.- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support - Settlement, polity, or Bayan are all fine. Juliaantengco (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Support - Stricnina (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Tondo (historical state)	Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Comment - Scholarship is divided on whether or not it's technically a state. Jocano argues in favor; Junker argues against; Scott just seems to avoid commenting as far as I've read; I myself take no position. - Alternativity (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

The following sectionhas been moved to the newly-created "further discussion" section

• Oppose and Suggestion Its NOT just a settlement these City-States was ruled by a Rajah and a Paramount ruler and it had a centralized form government , Ancient Tondo was far more better and fit to the nature of Tondo as a kingdom or Polity, as they compose or rajahs and lakans (Rajah is a Sanskrit term for a King and lakan is a Filipino word for a Paramount Ruler), this is based Historical and Documented facts not just a mere alternative terms it also goes to Maynila and Namayan they are centralized City-states not just a mere village either as others think. We should name this article according to the balance of Written records not only to the native oral traditions.
• Ancient Tondo
• Namayan (Polity)
• Maynila (Ancient)

(Parashurama007 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC))

Hi Parashurama007, I hope you don't mind that I created a "further discussion" section since you've already stated your opposition in the survey above. This new section will hopefully give us a separate, more orderly venue to review the arguments. I'll try to bring up my points one by one in my next edit. - Alternativity (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, for the Namayan one, just let it be as "Namayan". Tondo and Maynila are the ones that necessary to be moved. - Darwgon0801

Hi. As I said I would in the last edits, a few organized points:

• • Regarding "Ancient" vs "Historical" - I actually suggested Ancient as a title The problem with Ancient is that it's a relative term. As pointed out in those previous discussions, the 15th centuries is technically not "ancient" if you're using the global standard understood by most Wikipedia users. It happened, after all, after the invention of the printing press and after the protestant reformation. That's relatively recent by most standards. The more appropriate term is "historical."
  • "Polity" is a general term, "King" is a specific term. All kingdoms were polities, but not all polities were kingdoms. Democracies are polities but not kingdoms, for example. I honestly think settlement is a general term too, but others seem to think it's a specific term. (We should discuss it if we choose settlement, but otherwise, I suppose it's a moot point.)
  • A Rajah is a Rajah. - A Rajah is a Rajah. And a realm ruled by a Rajah is a Rajahnate (which is why I conceded to someone else's suggestion that Maynila should be "Rajahnate of Maynila.") But historical Tondo was ruled by a Lakan, not a Rajah. Rulers of Tondo were only called Rajah in oral legends.
  • A Datu is a Datu. - A datu is a datu, and a datu has specific rights, responsibilities, and relationships that are different from those of a king.
  • King has a specific technical meaning. - one of the things that makes a king a king is that his subjects are morally (or divinely) obligated to obey him. As clearly indicated in the historical accounts, The Timawa and Maharlika who were under the Datus and Lakans of Tondo had a reciprocal relationship with them, not an obligatory one. (See Junker 1990, 1998; Scott 1982,1984,1994; Jocano 2001; Malacañang Presidential Museum 2015, among others.) These Timawa and Maharlika were free not to obey the Datu if they felt he was not performing under the terms their reciprocal responsibilities (meaning, if he asked beyond what kalooban demanded, or if he was not a capable leader). Also: just because it's a centralized government doesn't mean it's a kingdom. All kingdoms are polities but not all polities are kingdoms.
  • A "Paramount Ruler" outranks a king - A paramount ruler is not a king. A paramount ruler is a ruler over rulers. A lakan as a paramount ruler is a ruler over datus. The equivalent is "High King" or "King of Kings." But a datu is not a king, a datu is a datu. A lakan is a datu over datus. (See Junker, 1990)
  • Calling a Datu or Lakan a mere "king" misrepresents the rights, responsibilities, and relationships of a Datu. - Just summarizing my earlier points, and just emphasizing that Maharlika and Timawa under Datus and Lakans had more freedoms than subjects in a kindom had. (Even our Alipin had more freedoms than their European "equivalents" (slaves) did! And they had much greater social mobility. See Scott 1982, Jocano 2001.)
  • Mislabeling: firsthand observations don't describe Tondo as a kingdom. - Repeating citations I've raised in previous discussions: the Chinese never observed the political structures of Tondo and just used Huang/Wang because it was economically, politically, and linguistically convenient for them to call their trading partners kings, as explained by Junker (1990, 1998). The Spanish (Legaspi 1569, Riquel 1570, 1571, etc) used the term at first, but suddenly stopped using it (Riquel 1572 and Levazaris 1573 for example) when they realized they were wrong. This was clearly recorded by San Buenaventura (1613) and is cited by Junker (1990, 1998), Scott (1984, 1994), Jocano (2001), Abinales and Amoroso (2005), the Malacañang Presidential Museum (2015) and numerous others. References that used "Kingdom" no longer reflect current scholarship.
  • I wish we could use kedatuan but we can't. - I wish we could use the indonesian term kedatuan, or its obvious Tagalog translation, kadatuan. But it's a specific technical term, and there isn't any historical record where the Tondo locals called themselves using that exact technical term. So using that technical term would be a violation of WP:No Original Research
  • Regarding "Bayan" - I'm just worried Bayan will be confusing because "Bayan" now means municipality. I honestly think the best English translation of Bayan is Polity. If Bayan of Tondo is acceptable to the group despite WP:Use English, I'm amenable to that too.
  • Is "historical polity" better? - As Darwgon points out, my personal preference is Tondo (historical polity). The reason I didn't propose it is because of WP:Recognizability
  • Maynila should be at Rajahnate of Maynila - As expressed on the other page, I am kicking myself in the butt for not realizing that in the first place. We now only really have to worry about Tondo and any future pages that could be created.

Question: If we choose a different name than the one currently proposed, would we have to restart the nomination process all over again?

That's it for now. Cheers! - Alternativity (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mr.User:Alternativity , I think in terms of Ancient , we can preferre the southeast Asian perspective of ancient since most of southeast Asian are still called ancient in 15th century (like Siam Burma and Malay states for examples). and Tondo is really ancient because its said its in existence in 900 AD (according to the accounts of LCI) i think its in appropriate term for this City-States "fit to category" in short we need critical study for the right title but Ancient tondo is what I'm believe will be fit. (Parashurama007 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC))

PS , aside on what other members suggested I afraid nothing more can be propose, due to the fact that any other suggested are might be too much or anarchonistic terms (WP:PEACOCK) so if you would please consider the choices like "historical" "Ancient" and "polity" (Parashurama007 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC))

Expanded list of possible names: Consulting the group at large. As far as I can tell, our options seem to be:

• Bayan of Tondo
• Historical Tondo
• Tondo (early Philippine history) - (current proposal)
• Tondo (historical Bayan)
• Tondo (historical settlement)
• Tondo (historical polity) - (currently a redirect)
• Ancient Tondo - (currently a redirect)
• Kingdom of Tondo - (retain current page name)

Unless the group objects I'll put up a table/matrix in the survey section tomorrow morning, where we can post individual reasons support or oppose each? I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for expanding the number of alternatives for a name change, but a voting matrix/table seems to make sense. Additional suggestions are welcome since we'll be commenting in the table later, anyway. - Alternativity (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, what about "Lakanate of Tondo"? - Darwgon0801

If the word were currently used outside of wikipedia, it might be the most acceptable, obvious choice, actually. But I've never seen it, so using it would be a gross violation of WP:No Original Research, wouldn't it? (That also explains why we can't use Kedatuan in spite of how well it might seem to fit.) - Alternativity (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darwgon0801 it means "Lakan" or "Lakanate" still Not scholarly accepted (Parashurama007 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC))

"Lakan" is accepted, but according to Wikipedia:No Original Research, "Lakanate" is not, unless we can find a published scholarly source that uses the exact word "Lakanate". Sometimes I wish a journal would introduce the term already. That would solve all our problems. (BTW, By the same Wikipedia rule, we can't use "Kedatuan" or "kadatuan" unless we can find a published scholarly source that specifically applies it to Tondo.) - Alternativity (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Support we need a neutral name which is based on Historiography like Ancient Tondo or Tondo (Historical polity).(Hunter05 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

Just FYI, I've revised my comments on each entry so that I can more clearly support to two suggestions: either Tondo (historical polity) (which I still feel is the more technically/academically acceptable choice) or Tondo (historical polity) (which the rest of the community seems to feel is more preferrable). The others that I previously supported are still okay, IMHO, but I'm revising my position to more clearly express my preference. - Alternativity (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably late for the votation, but given the reasons posted here, I prefer the renaming of the page as Tondo (Historical Polity) and I explicitly oppose continuation of the use of "Kingdom of Tondo" as name of the article. Clarification on differences between pre-colonial Tondo, pre-colonial Manila and the Luzon mentioned in Portuguese accounts is also necessary. Alternativity,Parashurama007,Darwgon0801 and others. Stricnina (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stricnina. Doesn't seem to be too late. Care to add your vote to the matrix above? I'd also tag Parashurama007 and Hunter05 but their accounts seem to have been suspended. If there's an admin reading this, BTW, it looks like Tondo (Historical Polity) has the most arguments in its favor. How do we motion≠ to close the proposal? - Alternativity (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alternativity, I have edited the matrix. I hope the motion to close the proposal proceeds as smoothly as possible. Stricnina (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 15 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested. The discussions have been spirited and at time contentious. The energy by all is appreciated. The new title more than complies with WP:AT policies, will serve readers well and reflects the content of the article and the consensus in this discussion. Now is the time to redirect editor energy into improving the article and correcting the concerns already flagged. The article is move protected for six months. Even after that, any RM should present a “compelling case” for a title change consistent with WP:AT policy. Mike Cline (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Tondo → Tondo (historical polity) – Although there was no consensus on the previously proposed name (Tondo (early Philippine history)), I believe (a) that the discussion speaks for itself that there IS majority (although not unanimous) consensus that the current name, Kingdom of Tondo, misrepresents the topic as understood by current scholarship; and (b) that there the discussion has indicated that while the previously suggested name was problematic, another option, Tondo (historical polity) was more acceptable than both. I am thus re-proposing that this article be renamed to nomenclature more acceptable to the community, as supported in the previous discussion. Alternativity (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support and comment summarizing previous positions - I have alredy presented extensive arguments regarding the need to rename this page in the various discussions above, so I won't rehash them here. Instead, I'll try to point out that there is enough community consensus that a change is needed, resulting in this request for a move to a page name with more support from the community. This new proposed move, to Tondo (historical settlement), as discussed above, was initially suggested by Darwgon0801, and was suppprted by Myself, Juliaantengco and Stricnina, who asserted their belief that Kingdom needs to be changed to something else. Although Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, Gunkarta and Amadabecaria expressed support for a slightly different name, they also expressed agreement that Kingdom needs to be changed to something else. Even the various alleged sockpuppets of JournalmanManila (Parashumara007 and Hunter05 ) have conceded this "need for a more neutral name" at various points in the discussion. In the meantime, Shhhhwwww!! has expressed disagreement with the need to change the term "Kingdom", but expressed Tondo (historical settlement) as one of the options s/he considers acceptable if indeed a change was to take place. (Please correct me if I misunderstood anybody's position.) Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The nominator can't support their own nomination. This is simply ballot stuffing.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's discouraged and unhelpful, but the closer isn't likely to be misled. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - As I said above, this being a continuing discussion, I thought I didn't have to repeat my points since I was just taking the next step (proposing a label the community seems to find more acceptable) based on my understanding of the consensus above. (That both Kingdom and "early Philippine history", as proposed, were not acceptable terms.) But okay, I've placed some of my points in the discussion section below.- Alternativity (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I hope everyone is now okay to this. Tondo (historical settlement) is also fine to me but I think this is more appropriate. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I support the abandonment of the title "Kingdom of Tondo" and the adoption of "Tondo (historical polity)" because of the aforementioned reasons by other Wiki users here. Stricnina (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close - Forum shopping and too soon. This move has been discussed many times and the name has been more or less settled at Kingdom of Tondo. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I support the title of "Tondo (historical polity) since it's a neutral yet scholarly term for a Tondo which was not really a kingdom.-Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The question not addressed in the above is, what is the common name in reliable secondary sources? This was addressed in previous RMs and consensus was that it's Kingdom of Tondo. If that's true, we simply go with the sources. Even if we think that they're wrong and that we have better name, and even if a minority of sources support this (to us better) name, Wikipedia is not the place to fix that. If more recent sources support the proposed rename, that could be a valid case, but that's not been suggested either. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Responded below, regarding reliable sources on non-use of Kingdom, reflected in reliable sources since approximately the 90s. Google Books and Googke Scholar hits for historiographers who asserted non-use of the term kingdom (preferring a variety of neutral descriptors, namely: polity; settlement; precolonial; and prehispanic) now outnumber hits for articles that use the term "Kingdom of Tondo". - Alternativity (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• And I've replied at #Please keep it relevant below. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Name should reflect consensus of scholarship, not what Wikipedians think works best for the encyclopedia. A title not supported by secondary sources is tantamount to original research. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I'll admit I haven't read all of the supporting sources provided by the nominator but I will WP:AGF that they did their due research. "Kingdom" connotes something that isn't really supported by modern historical research and using a neutral term like "polity" certainly fits the bill and meets our article titling policy and NPOV policy. —seav (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As I said earlier/above, I thought that since this has been discussed extensively further up on this talk page, I didn't think I needed to rehash the points for why "Kingdom of Tondo" isn't a viable label for this wikipedia article. My understanding of the consensus in the previous discussion is that there was a consensus that "Kingdom of Tondo" was not an acceptable descriptor, but Tondo "(early Philippine history)" was also not viable. I thus thought the next step was to propose the name the community seemed most acceptable during that discussion.

I tried taking salient points from above discussions, but in doing so realized that some points can be expressed better. So I started just writing off the cuff again. Here, then, are some (but far from all) key points in favor of this change:

1. The only official name we have for Tondo before the Spanish was Tondo. "Kingdom of Tondo" was never an official name. That's the descriptor "Kingdom" attached to the historically known name, Tondo. (Edit: see sScott, 1994,1984; junker 1998; Jocano 1975, 2001, Malacañang Presidential Museum 2015, others)

1a. That is to say, the name for which WP:Common applies is "Tondo", not Kingdom of Tondo. Whereas Kingdom, applied to Tondo, is a historical theory/POV as I raise in point 3 below.

1b. We only have a problem right now because we need to disambiguate old, pre-colonial Tondo from modern Tondo. If Tondo were like Parañaque or Malabon which had different names before the Spanish (Palanyag and Tambobong respectively), we wouldn't be discussing this. My point being, Kingdom of Tondo was never this entity's formal name; it only sounds like a formal name of Tondo because of Wikipedia's need to disambiguate and people are extending formality to Kingdom. The PROBLEM is that Kingdom isn't an accurate descriptor. (See refs in point 1a)

2. There's no clear historical documentary support for any one descriptor. The original firsthand observation texts actually use the exact words "Village of Tondo". (Anonymous Account in Blair and Robertson) But I think it's safe to accept that this was a hispanocentric POV and treat "Village" not as a name but a descriptor. Historical sources not based on direct observation initially used "King" (the Magellan expedition and the Ming Shilu), but this was corrected as soon as direct observation was made (meaning, 1570). Another historically documented term used is "Bayan" (Documented by San Buenaventura ( in the Vocabulario de la lengua Tagala as cited by Scott in the introduction of Barangay and was recently strongly advocated by D.L. Woods in The Myth of the Barangay). (Jocano uses "Large Barangay," but nobody else has picked that up.)

3. Not my main argument, but it should be noted that "kingdom" is not a neutral term. It pushes/perpetuates the specific POV promoting a romanticized idea of benevolent authoritarianism which was pushed first by the pro-colonial post-independence generation of historians (Zaide and his contemporaries during the first postwar generation), and once again in the 70s as a propaganda background to Martial Law and Bagong Lipunan (and because Constantino,Agoncillo, and the like were considered too leftist). (Edit: See Abinales and Amoroso 2005)

4. "Kingdom" has been actively avoided by the literature ever since the rise of more objectivist critical historiography around the late 70s to the mid 90s (and even more so after the mid-90s because digitization has allowed scholars far greater access to the original sources). Instead they prefer terminology which is more generic and neutral in a manner similar to WP:NPOV. This is why the authors in the international journals (Junker, Renfew, Moody, etc) after, say, 1994 when Scott's Barangay was published, just use the neutral term "polity", or sometimes "coastal polity.

5. Why is "Kingdom" inaccurate again? Super-short version: the Datus Lakans and Rajahs did not exercise sovereignty in the way that defines a monarch. Their relationship with the people they rule is based on reciprocal obligations and social order, rather than the inherent (or divine) right of sovereign rule; and basically they didn't have to be followed (except by Alipin) if you didn't think they lived up to their part of the bargain. That's not a king, that's a boss. (see Cacique and Cacique democracy). Calling these polities "kingdoms" obfuscates their entire social and political structure. (See refs in pt 1)

6. Should we really participate in this obfuscation when, in the end, all we really need is disambiguation? I know WP: Common's call for the use of the most common name is there for a good reason. But the name of the place is Tondo. NOT Kingdom of Tondo. Kingdom is a disambiguating label which has the distinct shortcoming of NOT BEING ACCURATE and the additional downside of being POV. Isn't the first criterion of a disambiguating label that it should actually accurately describe its referent?

7. As I've said above, my understanding of the consensus in the most recent discussion is that Kingdom of Tondo remains unacceptable, but that “early Philippine history”, as proposed there, was not an acceptable label either. I have to admit that I was quick on the draw earlier. Encouraged by the discourse that seemed to be happening on the talk page, I naturally just went for the level which seemed most neutral to me, so I forgot about WP: Consistency, and of course, that proposal failed. As a result I have here re-proposed this renaming based on the label we seemed to have the most agreement about.

8. At the end of the day, what I care about is that Tondo before the arrival of the Spanish not be falsely represented as a kingdom. It’s false, and it actively distorts the of POV Philippine historical discourse.

8b. I'm sure there are people who will argue that "Neutrality is POV." Which I suppose is a valid point, but arguments in that direction make me want to jump off a bridge. For my sanity's sake, I'll try to stay away from those arguments.

There are probably a few more points to be made, and a detailed discussion of the inaccuracy of "Kingdom" can be made, if necessary. But I hope this brings up some of the more urgent points. Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is all WP:SOAP. It's good stuff and could be published, maybe even at Wikiversity as a research paper. But not here. Here we go by existing reliable secondary sources. Andrewa (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't use it for Wikiversity, it's all already in the textbooks. :D That stuff is summarized, mostly from Scott, Jocano, and Junker. Sorry for not citing but I didn't know when I wrote that how I should cite references on a talk page. The majority of reliable academic sources after approximately 1990 (the core references of which are William Henry Scott (historian) (Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, 1978; Prehispanic source materials, 1984; Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino,1992; Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Phiippine Culture and Society, 1994), Laura Lee Junker (Integrating History and Archaeology in the Study of Contact Period Philippine Chiefdoms, 1998; Raiding, Trading, and Feasting (The Political Economy Of Philippine Chiefdoms,1999; a number of other journal articles), F. Landa Jocano (Philippine prehistory: An anthropological overview of the beginnings of Filipino society and culture, 1975), and Vicente Rafael (The Promise of the Foreign: Nationalism and the Technics of Translation in the Spanish Philippines, 2005)) have stopped using "kingdom", and instead use settlement or polity (or both) or some time reference like prehispanic or precolonial in their text, referring to Tondo plainly as Tondo. (Just as a point of interest, the 90s were a turning point because the discovery of the Laguna Copperplate led to a lot of re-writing/re-thinking. Although I don't have a reference to prove that.) The academic sources that use Kingdom tend to date before 1986.(Prior to that, it was useful for the Marcos administration to promote Kingdom, since was pushing the renaming of the country to "Maharlika") These are secondary print sources, with the primary sources being the texts of Loarca, San Beunaventura, Chirino, and even an intervening generation of secondary sources such as Blair and Robertson. The problem, of course, is that I have no idea how to prove cessation of use versus old use. As for plain (non-scholar, non- google counts, a major problem is that Kingdom of Tondo has spawned a great number of circular references to the wiki, some of which copied the evolving text of the wiki page without proper citation. Many of these are blogs, many of these are mirror sites, and some of these are fictional "alternative histories" that have been written as expansions from the wiki text. I only ever recall seeing one reliable print source written past 1990 that seriously used "kingdom" (Odal, 2000), and that was in a coffee table book. - Alternativity (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, google scholar has the following results:

* Kingdom of Tondo ([1]) - 32 results

* Tondo William Henry Scott ([2]) - about 1,150 results

* Tondo F Landa Jocano ([3]) - about 71 results

* Tondo Laura Lee Junker ([4]) - about 28 results (about 173 results as LL Junker, [5])

And a quick google search of "Kingdom of Tondo" to prove my point about WP:Circular shows: first page full of either mirror sites, blogs that refer to or copy the wiki, and one fringe theory blog that also referred to early versions of the wiki text. - Alternativity (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait. Also: There's plenty of Reliable Source support (past the 90s) for the inaccuracy of "kingdom", with the cessation of its use implied. It's all over the article. I haven't been citing them here because they're already there.

These assertions of inaccuracy are key because to quote "Wikipedia's policy on article titles":

"Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. (...) When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

That's not exactly a strong statement of policy but it's nonetheless part of the policy page. And the current literature of the field clearly and overwhelmingly indicates that "kingdom" is inaccurate.

Explicit statements that Tondo was not a monarchy are in, just for a quick show of examples, the following major texts within the field:

• Rafael, Vicente L. (2005) The Promise of the Foreign: Nationalism and the Technics of Translation in the Spanish Philippines.(Rafael here explains that Kingdom was a product of Spanish Colonial Era writers' lack of vocabulary to describe precolonial political setups accurately)
• Junker, Laura Lee (1998). "Integrating History and Archaeology in the Study of Contact Period Philippine Chiefdoms". International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 2 (4).
• Abinales, Patricio N. and Donna J. Amoroso, State and Society in the Philippines. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005. (States that Polity is the accepted term to describe precolonial settlements, although since I don't own this I can't track down the exact quote)
• Jocano, F. Landa (2001). Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage. Quezon City: Punlad Research House, Inc. ISBN 971-622-006-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) (States, in a multipage discussion,that precolonial Philippine settlements were not monarchies. This is essentially a later version of the out of print Philippine prehistory: An anthropological overview of the beginnings of Filipino society and culture, 1975)
• Scott, William Henry (1992). Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino and Other Essays in the Philippine History. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN 971-10-0524-7. (States that precolonial Philippine settlements were not monarchies; states that the Spanish who initially used "king" soon corrected themselves)
• Scott, William Henry (1994). Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 971-550-135-4. (States that precolonial Philippine settlements were not monarchies)
• "Pre-colonial Manila". Malacañang Presidential Museum and Library. Malacañang Presidential Museum and Library Araw ng Maynila Briefers. Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office. 23 June 2015. Archived from the original on 9 March 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) (States that Polity is the accepted term to describe precolonial settlements. Not a "major text within the field", but still, this is the heritage unit of the Office of the President of the Philippines, so that's gotta count for something, preeminence wise)
• more to be added when I get better web and library access

And that's explicit statements of inaccuracy, not just sources that don't use kingdom. - Alternativity (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Do note that Google Books and Google Scholar Results of authors who influentially pushed non-use of the term kingdom outnumber Google Books and Google Scholar Results using the phrase "Kingdom of Tondo." (Google Books search was used as per suggestion at WP:COMMONNAME; Google News search produces no search results on any of these queries; Google Scholar search was an alternative instinct of mine)

GOOGLE BOOKS

• "Kingdom of Tondo" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 324 Results [6]
• Tondo "William Henry Scott" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 645 Results [7]
• Tondo "Vicente Rafael" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 596 Results [8]
• Tondo "Laura Lee Junker" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 89 Results [9]
• Tondo "F Landa Jocano" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 544 Results [10]

GOOGLE SCHOLAR

• "Kingdom of Tondo" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 11 Results [11]
• Tondo "William Henry Scott" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 97 [12]
• Tondo "F Landa Jocano" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 41 Results [13]
• Tondo "Laura Lee Junker" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 9 [14]
• Tondo "Vicente Rafael" -"LLC Books" -"Wikipedia" 45 [15]

These other authors use some variant or combination of neutral/generic terms, including polity, settlement, or time-references like precolonial or prehispanic. - Alternativity (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeating some of my points, old and new, with some reflections on WP Naming policy:

1. The scholarship definitively says Tondo was not a Kingdom (the precolonial Philippine polities were not monarchies), and common use does not necessarily trump accuracy, as WP:NAME points out:

Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered (...) When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

2. "Kingdom of Tondo" was NOT the place's name, even in the primary spahish sources. It's just a descriptor, albeit a common descriptor among the post ww2 writers. Non-use of the erroneous term "Kingdom" was asserted as early as the 70s, and became dominant among reliable sources since the 90s. (See Google Books and Google Scholar results, showing that authors who influentially pushed non-use of the term kingdom outnumber results using the phrase "Kingdom of Tondo", posted elsewhere on this page) And WP:NAMECHANGES points out:

Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.

3. Usage of "Kingdom of Tondo" by Wikipedia is fueling mirror-site, fringe-theory-blog, alternative-history-fiction, and student-paper usage of the term, distorting normal search results (WP:Circular, the point relevant to this discussion); but more importantly, pushing/feeding/perpetuating the myth of a european-style grandiose Philippine historiography (see works of Vicente Rafael, Scott) which the public is already emotionally inclined to believe.

As WP:HITS points out regarding the limiations of search results:

• Self-mirroring – Sometimes other sites clone Wikipedia content, which is then passed around the Internet, and more pages built up based upon it (and often not cited), meaning that in reality the source of much of the search engine's findings are actually just copies of Wikipedia's own previous text, not genuine sources.
• Popular usage bias – Popular usage and urban legend is often reported over correctness
• Popular views and perceptions are likely to be more reported. For example, there may be many references to acupuncture and confirming that people are often allergic to animal fur, but it may only be with careful research that it is revealed there are medical peer-reviewed assessments of the former, and that people are usually not allergic to fur, but to the sticky skin particles ("dander") within the fur.

I submit that it's very important to note that this topic strongly attracts proponents of fringe theories. It'll be important to consider what exactly, in this context, constitutes "Reliable Sources". (See examples problematic references cited in the relevant section above, with links to relevant WP:RS discussions.)

4. Come to think of it, when you filter for reliable sources using Google Books or Google Scholar, non-use pretty much wins the WP:COMMON argument. Refs to Scott alone manages to outstrip Refs to Kingdom. Although as explained in the previous point, raw google searches are still a wp:circular problem, and even scholarly sources are exhibiting WP:Circular problems, as exemplified in this community discussion.- Alternativity (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

STOP ALREADY THIS IDIOCY BECause irregardless of anything you say Tondo Empire was great and reigned over alost all of Luzon. Our history books explain it even extended to Bicol Peninsula! Do you think Tondo can accomplish all that without kings? This is a problem of Filipinos. Almost ever since, we have no leader! and when we did, we did not FOLLOW them. Stupid, stupid! These Manilacanyang puppets are only jealous because true Philippines history says Tondo was the superior force for so long before the Spanish. Manilacanyang puppets just lie and they should SHUT UP now. Reign05 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Reign05, those are the facts and you cannot change it. Please do not say something that isn't related to the subject. And by the way, its "Malacañang", not "Manilacanyang". Do not even try to make stupid arguments here because it is not welcome. I'm suspecting you're a sockpuppet of JournalmanManila. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please keep it relevant

What a lot of irrelevant stuff there is above. I'll say again, I think there may be a case in terms of wp:NAMECHANGES. But sorting through it all to tell is beyond me at the moment. Perhaps if I have an hour or two to spare I'll give it a go.

Or, you could have a good read of WP:AT and make a concise, logical case based on it. A look at the essays at wp:official names (which seems to me to completely demolish point 1 above) and even User:Andrewa/How not to rant (especially the section User:Andrewa/How not to rant#How not to rant) might be helpful too. Best. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Translations of Bayan

Hi. This is to begin a discussion about a previous edit which changed the translation of "Bayan" from "Country" to "Town." The edit was unsourced, but the translation is itself unsourced, as well. And I suppose it's good practice to discuss the ins and outs of this translation here. I reverted the edit on the basis of "Town" being a much more restrictive interpretation of "Bayan", which can also be used to mean mean "Nation." "Country" seems to me to have the benefit of being a similarly broad term which can apply both to "Town" and "Nation." But I realize it's a matter that deserves discussion, so I'm bringing the matter up here on the Talk page in order to seek consensus. Anybody want to comment? - Alternativity (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

hmmm. A feadtherd content.

My concern was :A king without a monarchy ? (not even a king), because "the king empire dynasty are western anarchonistic etc" while other Contemporary passed as kingdoms and Empires" i think these revisions there done by Fil-ams, non Filipinos and other uninformed on this topic , even the omissions of the titles like Rajah which means king in Sanskrit. These are rather pushing "the new theory" by the grade school level of sugar coated mislead by some of members, while fellow uninformed where goin to accept these Wikipedia infos edited by mascarading trolls , so More review and clean up! from the management. (Enola gay0 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC))

religion

There are many figurines and idols had been find scattered in batangas and isla puting bato in tondo we cannot be surely conclude about they are pure tagalog religion, some of here we

say "this is not made by the locals but rather looted" the findings of ancient smelting shop where the proof of local manufacturing. (03:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

What the editors done here was a historically and logical hijack

• these are what happened after a trolls and toxic pinoys collaborate just to undermine the Philippine history and its very foundations of its cultural standards. They used word swings just to emphaze professionalism on their pretext as their front to hijack the accuracy of the article , with no wonder Wikipedia as unreliable nowadays, because Wikipedia had a troll using multiple acounts and ip's to play with. By disregarding the quality and accuracy of a cited source which where against to their preferred type of information, the clean up should be done here and clarify the stated informations.

(as i saw an obviously flawed statement in the infobox, which stated anitism is the only religious beliefs of the tagalog aside on Islam, and hinduism and Buddhism where just "elements "? syncretistically adopted. Despite of the artifacts of Avalokitesvarara found in batangas and isla puting bato on Tondo itself, this is a clear signs of a revisionist ideas are intentionally placed, to fit accordingly on their preferred information to be published, the editors where avoiding the terms like esoteric form as they where avoided to show evidences about the existence of these mainland Asian regions in Philippine islands) sort of ultra-austronesian philosophy had been intentionally put on the article. These where needed to be correct and clarify. And the other flaw was the Tondo where just a settlement of tribes not even had a mornarchy because terms like these are western, this are the another type of hypocrisy did by the toxic editors , who playing as a smart guy (but in reality where just arrogant and abusive non Filipinos) which is contrary to Indonesia Thailand Burma and Cambodia accepted and used the term kingdom and empires. Datus and lakan and rajahs are term for a king or a lord, a lord and king are possible signs of a monarchy not a petty tribes. (omitted just to emphasize the austronesianess). (Enola gay0 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC))

Misidentified as "Monarchy" by Foreigners

Again who ever revisioned the articles information, how come the natives here where Misidentified their own social classes ,that was a silly excuses, the revisionits who collaborate on this where intended "something" to look upon on the article based from their preferred version, Datu and a Rajah and Lakan where equivalent to king, answerable to a King, Ancient Filipinos where not unknown on this 'Monarchial system" , as i observed the author again tries to implied the "Ultra-Austronesian doctrine" on the articles, to dis associate the Philippine kingdoms, from the actual culture where it belongs , and pushing their revisionist new theory and dismissed the sources (in which not accord on their preferences as "outdated".) toxic pinoys and trolls from somewhere where in collaboration to hijack the information, what an untold atrocities .(Enola gay0 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC))

PS: I am not insulting or accusing anyone, but who ever revision this article are a type of Opportunists , who cling with the trolls just to emphasize , impose and publish his revisionist ultra-austronesian agenda here in wikipedia with the trolls who abusively using their powers to "Pa-Troll" ,using the corrupt moderators and IP address they could use, and the page where hijacked from its essence of basic logic on the Philippine history articles in safeguard and scott-free to their fellow collaborators. (Enola gay0 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

Misquoted terminologies

As i looking upon its content, i observe that there are so many misquoted terms like "misidentified " , how can the chroniclers misidentified what they had observed as they where arrived in tondo? Actually and it was feudalism, revisionism dismissed the generic terms as "anarchonistic", or "too western" (possibly they pushing their alternative version of terms based on ultra-Austronesian theory of them) and the editors who revisioned the article may seem trying to intent their preferred version as always insisting ultra-austronesianess . (Enola gay0 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC))

Irrelevant sections (since the page is too detailed)

According to the WP:IRRELEVANT guideline, information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed. Examples of irrelevant sections that make this article too long include the Austronesian origins of Tondo (which is superfluous information as majority of Insular Southeast Asians are Austronesians per default), the etymology of the word Luzon (which properly belongs to another page, perhaps in Wiki entry named Luzon instead of Tondo), the religious beliefs of the Tondo inhabitants (there are already separate pages that discusses such topic in detail, see Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people and Religion in pre-colonial Philippines). In order to make this page less cluttered and more focused on pre-colonial Tondo itself (not about Luzon, not about the beliefs of the Tagalogs), I suggest to move irrelevant content to their pertinent Wiki entries and reduce the content of this very long entry. Stricnina (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

i do concur, in that part which Examples of irrelevant sections that make this article too long include the Austronesian origins of Tondo (which is superfluous information as majority of Insular Southeast Asians are Austronesians per default. who ever revised this article, (he/she) has a intentional emphasizing motive for a ultra-austronesianess theme which can cause mislead or mislabeling, and there are already separate pages that discusses such topic since im done already fixing this misquoted terminologies. (Enola gay0 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC))

timeline

The historic period must be instated according on the world standard of dating historical eras and period's so please stop making any attempt to create a self-acclaimed dating , Asian infobox where stating what these kingdom where time these polities kingdoms belong to (if on) the antiquity , renaissance or early modern period, In tondo case , from 900 Ad- antiquity to 1578- early modern period. (maybe the some of the editors will trying to take place to include their enforced options of ultra-austronesian theory altetrnative once again for the "correct" time line for philippines) (maybe another part of intentional placing to their ultra austronesian doctrine , plus i will repeat this , flaw 1. a king without monarchy (just a tribesman) elements where just "adapted" on the asian religion (as they saying that tagalog's where just pure animists and Muslim majority). and third tagalogs (filipinos) where closely related to Samoans and Polynesians. how dare they..(their basis where from a single reference from the theory of Jocano) . this page really need to get a clean up!

PS: need to clarify the misquoted terminologies! "anarchonism" and Peacockry where just a silly excuse to place their theories / original research in accord for Austronesianess.

(Enola gay0 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

References

Requested move 29 February 2020

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Tondo (historical polity) → Tundun – WP:Concise. Name used in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Unless someone tells if Tundun means something else than this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.207.8 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Ideally, we should use archaic or indigenous names for these historical ethnic communities as a preferred disambiguation over the parenthetical title with potentially inacurrate or confusing labels as discussed at Talk:Rajahnate of Butuan. This is similar to how we treat the old Kingdom of Manila which is at Maynila and the Confederate district of Iloilo which is at Irong-Irong.--RioHondo (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - For this and for Maynila and Irong-Irong. Although the lead will need to be rewritten. - Alternativity (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: as per WP:COMMONNAME. The most common term used to refer to this polity is still Tondo, how many reliable sources do we have so far that it is called "Tundun" as to justify this name change? Has "Tundun" become the routinely used name by the academe now? This is like naming Germany "Deutschland" because that is the name used in their own documents that are as important as how the Laguna Copperplate Inscription is important to the polity of Tondo. Stricnina (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Also, the final -n in "Tundun" can just be interpreted as a relic of the writing script used in the LCI. Linguists such as Jean-Paul Potet assumed that the origin of the name "Tondo" is from the "tunduk" banana plant ("TONDOC" in the Vocabulario de la lengua tagala) and it was most likely how the natives themselves called their own polity. See page 216 of Potet's "Tagalog Borrowings and Cognates" for more information, where he writes "Tundok = the name of a village at the mouth of the Pasig River". Stricnina (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Other criteria considered for article naming is recognizability and naturalness, which the name "Tundun" doesn't satisfy. "Tundun" is not the most recognizable term of this historical polity, nor the (English) term that people will search for if they need more information about that specific polity. Add to that the numerous sources that call it "Tondo" instead of "Tundun" and it will become clear that "Tundun" doesn't even satisfy the "common name" criterion. Stricnina (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is disambiguation because we can't insist on a specific title when this topic is not the primary topic for that article title. Tondo, as it is, is commonly recognized as the district in Manila, not the historical barangay which goes by a variety of names, not even the colonial Tondo Province which came much later. Natural disambiguation is always preferred in WP over long parenthetical titles because of WP:CONCISE, and it is also WP:PRECISE enough to differentiate it from the Tondo that we know is the district of Manila, not this historical kingdom, not the province. Is it the likely search term? Maybe not (yet). But neither is its current title, because that term goes to the district of Manila by a mile. But let's see what the others think of indigenized names for historical polities as natural disambiguation, like Maynila (Manila), Irong-Irong (Iloilo), Sug/Lupah Sug (Sulu), and Sugbu (Cebu).--RioHondo (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@RioHondo: If "Tundun" is not the word most people would search when looking for the historical polity of Tondo, then the name change would be against the recognizability and naturalness criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles. Second point: the etymology I have provided here is to prove you the fact that between Tundun and Tundok, Tundok would have more right to be the name of this Wikipedia article instead of Tundun since that was most likely how the natives would have adopted as the endonym of the polity. If you are all about indigenous names, why not Tundok instead? In other words, Tundun would be in all probability the exonymic Old Malay term to refer to the Tondo settlement in the Pasig River, while the Old Tagalog pronunciation would have been "Tundok". Examples of sources that use Tundok instead of Tundun is: (1) "100 Events that Shaped the Philippines" (1999) published by the National Centennial Commission (Philippines), "Intramuros: The Beginnings" (1976) by Horacio de la Costa, while the "Nomenclature by Mispronunciation: A Footnote to Philippine Geography" by Miguel A. Bernard states that "Tondo" is the hispanicized name of "Tundok" like how "Binondo" is the hispanicized name for "Binundok" since the Spaniards had troubles pronouncing the final consonant sound "k" of those Tagalog place names. I already mentioned you the Potet source that unambiguously names the settlement in the Pasig River as "Tundok", ever since rendered as Tondo as you can see from the numerous other sources you can find in your library. Third point: it's not bad to adopt a parenthetical disambiguation approach. Examples given in the WP:TITLE that favors conciseness over detail usually are complemented with the other criteria such as recognizability and naturalness, hence, for example, why instead of "trisomy 21" it is better to adopt Down syndrome, even though the former has less letters than "Down syndrome". Bill Clinton is more concise than his complete name, and the conciseness criterion is also complemented by the recognizability and naturalness criteria. Sacrificing recognizability, naturalness, precision and consistency for conciseness should be avoided here. Stricnina (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: About the proposal of renaming these two other specific historical polities as "Maynila" and "Sugbu", I will never understand the rationale behind such a move. Those terms are just the native language equivalents of "Manila" and "Cebu" and those terms were never abandoned - in fact Tagalog and Cebuano speakers still use those terms to refer to those places. In such cases, translation is not disambiguation. You would still need to do a disambiguation. As for Irong-irong and the rest, I will refrain from commenting as I am not familiar with their academic sources. In fact, I might support them. Stricnina (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, i don't know why you're making it appear as though this topic is well covered in history when we don't even know what what to call it? A barangay? State? Kingdom? Chiefdom? Hehe! No personal preference between Tundun or Tundok. Either of the two works for me. But the age and historical significance of the LCI is more compelling if you ask me. Also, I don't know why you are protesting its Old Malay origin when we know for a fact that these historical polities had strong Malay Hindu Madjapahit and later Islamic/Brunei Empire linkages. And i thought the whole point of this exercise is to do away with eurocentric terms as discussed in the other RM page. Alas, Tondo is what the Spanish recorded as its name, hence it is also a euro term. And so are Manila and Cebu. Yes, i know Maynila and Sugbu are their native equivalents, but how likely are you gonna encounter these native terms used in English sources to refer to the present-day cities established by the Spanish in the 16th century? Or are their usage in the English literature mostly confined to the historical or pre-colonial polities? This is the English WP so it is necessary to adjust our perspectives accordingly. Btw, can you please stop pinging me in all the discussions? I read and reply when i can as you can see. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because a term is eurocentric doesn't mean we have to abandon that name (In fact, we Wikipedia editors should not base our criteria on supposed eurocentrism of certain words. We literally have other criteria to follow). Just because one primary source (no matter how you consider it as important) tells us it is named as such in a certain language doesn't mean we immediately have to adopt it. We have to abide to the criteria laid out by WP:TITLE, especially the WP:COMMONNAME. Look at the sources in general, do not focus on a single source, no matter how you think it is important. As for the English sources, you should already know the common names of those historical polities: Tondo, Manila and Cebu. I have yet to encounter a reliable source that states that translating the names of those three polities to their indigenous terms is equal to disambiguation. So, no, you still have to disambiguate for example what "Maynila" and "Sugbu" are, even in English articles and sources. PS: About the term "Tondo" itself being eurocentric, I can't even. Do we have an academic source here that voiced their opinion regarding the eurocentrism of Tondo? And even if it is eurocentric, why does that even matter here? Let the sources speak for themselves, if those sources decided to abandon "Tondo" for whatever reason, then we will follow their lead. But as long as it is "Tondo" in most reliable sources and not "Tundun" as the term used to refer to the entirety of the historical existence of that specific polity, then this name change is not justified. Stricnina (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Same with Stricnina invoking the WP:COMMONNAME. Very strong arguments. We need to rely on valid academic sources before we move this. Also, the linguistic factors must be considered too. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone who can access the reliable online sources regarding this specific historical polity would realize just how much of a drastic move would be to rename "Tondo" as "Tundun". In fact, despite the discovery of the LCI in the 1970s and its deciphering in the 1990s, many books and sources still call the historical polity as "Tondo" and they never felt the need to call that specific polity in the entirety of its historical existence as an independent polity as "Tundun". If an article named "Tundun" would arise in Wikipedia, that would need to deal only with the events mentioned in the Laguna Copperplate Inscription as I have yet to encounter a source that calls Tondo during the early European contacts as "Tundun". Stricnina (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: 1. Tundun is only attested in one primary source, the LCI, which is not even written in a local language. So we have no guarantee that this actually was the exact local name. 2. The identification of Tundun with Tondo still remains a conjecture, and is linguistically problematic. 3. Per WP:COMMONNAME, since even sources which accept Tundun=Tondo only use Tundun in the context of the LCI, but not in connection with later documented events surrounding pre-conquest Tondo. –Austronesier (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: as per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the word Tundun exists in the English language, it's a synonym for bullroarer. -Object404 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flags in the infobox

This article seems to violate MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. - Sparryx (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 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: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Tondo (historical polity) → Kingdom of Tondo – Was requested by PhilippiHistoria on the wrong page/with the wrong template because "Official Name" [16] I haven't looked into this personally. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Tondo was ruled by a Lakan; academic references avoid equating the local term "lakan" with the foreign term "king." The locally used term was "Bayan," and the translations for that could include "settlement", "polity", and "country". - Sparryx (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sparryx's concise and well-argued explanations. Preemptively, I also oppose "Lakanate of Tondo" ;) Absurd as it sounds, there is a long-standing tradition to invent terms for a realm based on the title of its rules (which essentially is a eurocentric idea). –Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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.

Kingdom term: a Peacockry ?

This issue of kingdom vs polity were in question over the past years, as im going to raise it again:

- LCI Jayadewa represented the "unnamed King" of Tondo, and compare it to the statements of the "editors guild" ,a polity (mislabled as a kingdom) because of peacockry/anachronism (as if Srivijaya Kederi brunei , Melayu uses the kingdom-empire term) and also as if the Kasumuran, Bhisruta , even Jayadewa himself "cannot understand what type of government they have that time", so these what i called "editor's circle" acting as the authority when it comes on how Filipinos and other nation should view the ancient Philippine politics. the issue here was the irony of content dispute and double standard setup. (Snopik (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC))

Dear Mr.Indra87, who added the map of JournalmanManila

I do not know if you are JournalmanManila's sockpuppet, but clearly this map File:Tondo.png - Wikimedia Commons is not credible. First, it talks about Rajah Alon, who is not a real person. Second, this map is in contrast to the information stated in this Wikipedia page, as well as all the other academic sources. It is obvious that this map is made by a conspiracy theorist or a distorian, with no legitimate basis. Let's also talk about the fact that the creator of this map uses sockpuppets: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sockpuppets_of_JournalmanManila for more information. Delirium333 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)