Talk:History of the Philippines (before 1521)

1511, Europeans

Magellan, Serrano(?) and other Portuguese may have been as far as Mindanao in 1511.--Jondel 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Major Objections to "Luzon Empire" and "Caste System"

Okay, I must point out that Luzon Empire is in question for being POV, and that it has been suggested that it contradicts the entry Ancient Tondo, and that a merge proposal exists for those two articles. I hadn't noticed its insertion here before.

Second, and more vigorously, I must object to the categorization of the Datu-Timawa-Alipin class system as equivalent to a caste system. While the stratifications did exist (nobody is denying that), the proposition that it equates to a strictly enforced caste system is not supported by literature. What the literature (Scott, Jocano) does seem to suggest (I must do some reading before I can say this definitely) is that the system was based on a system of reciprocity (utang na loob) rather than religious or political differentiation.

If nobody objects, I will move that section from the main page to this talk page tonight, as I believe the content should be discussed by knowledgeable persons before it creates damage.

I'm sorry I don't have time to work on this, guys. Help, please. Help. --- Alternativity (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Who was the first high ranking Spaniard to step on the Philippine islands?

Visit the grave in Holy Trinity memorial Park in Polomolok, south cotabato to see who's the first high-ranking Spaniard to see her remains. Clue: she was a princess in spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.214.180 (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting History of the Philippines (Before 1521)

Hi. I'd like to solicit everyone's input first before making the final moves towards splitting Early Philippine History (History of the Philippines (900-1521)) from Philippine Prehistory, which would be created by renaming History of the Philippines (Before 1521) as either History of the Philippines (Before 900), or Philippine Prehistory, and then removing material from there which has already been put into History of the Philippines (900-1521).

Such a split acknowledges the existence of historical records starting with the Laguna Copperplate Inscription(LCI) in 900 AD, though that record might be sparse due to the local use of perishable materials for records. (The other written source materials about that period are from records from foreign contacts, the first being the contact between Mayi (Mindoro) and Song Dynasty in 982 AD... but then again, Pigafetta was a foreign contact too, so to select him as a starting point over the song dynasty records is sorta... I dunno, woozy?)

The setting of the beginning of Philippine History at 900 AD with the LCI has become accepted by orthodox authorities since its translation in 1989, but of course many of us took our elementary history subjects long enough ago that it wasn't part of the canon yet.

If we delineate history and prehistory by the existence of records, I'm also indicating here my preference for Philippine Prehistory rather than History of the Philippines (Before 900) because the latter, not actually being "history" in the strict sense, would be a misnomer... even though the former would be the more consitent format.

Of course by moving History of the Philippines (Before 1521) to a new name rather than simply creating a new article, we can preserve the page history. I just don't want to do that without first getting feedback first. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a nuance, but I'm starting to lean more towards Prehistory of the Philippines, which, at least to me, seems to indicate that its a prehistory of the geographic concept of the Philippine Islands or the Philippine Archipelago rather than the much more recent State entity. I'd like to get moving on this soon because the existence of both History of the Philippines (Before 1521) and History of the Philippines (900-1521) is going to lead to confusion. Also, the links to the "before 1521" article would have to be examined to see if they fall into the "before 900" or "900-1521" category, and I'd like to get to work on that soon. Still awaiting comments... I was hoping to act 24 hours after posting this note, and that has passed... but I think I'll give it a bit more time before I take such a dramatic action. -- Alternativity (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Something from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines:

The best solution here is for the 900-1521 and pre-900 articles to be a subarticle of the pre-1521 article. –Howard the Duck 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to undertake that too, as I believe both the 900-1521 and pre-900 articles have a lot of room for growth considering the amount of available material in print sources, but I also feel that this would eventually make the pre-1521 article superfluous eventually and might lead to an afd on that basis... if that happens, we wouldn't be able to transfer the page history of the pre-1521 article to the pre-900 article later.... I'm sorta eager to get to work on pre-900, but there's plenty of work still to be done on 900-1521 so I'll do that and wait for further comments before taking any further action.... If you don't mind, I'll also copy this conversation onto Talk:History of the Philippines (Before 1521), for the sake of other editors there, okay? -- Alternativity (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There'll be summaries of both pre-900 and 900-1521 on the pre-1521 article. See WP:SUMMARY, the original article stays even though it has several daughter articles already.

The history of the Philippines is generally divided into different eras, before the Spaniards came (pre-1521), Spanish colonization (1521-1898), American colonization (1898-1946), the Third Republic (I'd prefer 1946-71, although Wikipedia has a 1946-65 article), the martial law and the Fourth Republic (I'd prefer 1971-86, although Wikipedia has a 1965-86 article), and the Fifth Republic (1986-present). It's like the 1521-1898 article having subarticles on the Cavite Mutiny, Philippine Revolution, etc. In pre-1521's case, there's the pre-900 and the 900-1521 articles, plus the Laguna Copperplate Inscription, etc.

I'd like it to be split this way:

1. pre-1521 (pre-colonization)
   1. Pre-900 (pre-history)
      1. Article about pre-900 #1 (like Tabon Man)
      2. Article about pre-900 #2, etc.(like Angono Petroglyphs)
   2. 900-1521 (early history)
      1. Article about 900-1521 #1 (like Sultanate of Sulu)
      2. Article about 900-1521 #2, etc. (like Laguna Copperplate Inscription)
2. 1521-1898 (Spanish colonization)
   1. Under New Spain
      1. Article about 1521-1898 #1 (like Philippine insurrections against Spain)
   2. General articles about Spanish colonization
   3. Under direct Spanish rule
      1. Article about 1521-1898 #2, etc. (like Philippine Revolution)
3. 1898-1946 (American colonization, World War II, Japanese conquest, restoration of American rule)
   1. Territory of the Philippine Islands (Under U.S. military rule, governors-general)
      1. Article about TotPI #1
   2. Commonwealth of the Philippines
      1. Article about CotP #1
   3. Military history of the Philippines during World War II
      1. Article about WWII #1 (like Battle of Leyte Gulf)
4. 1946-1971 (Third Republic)
   1. General articles about 1946-71 (like HUKBALAHAP)
   2. Under Roxas
      1. Article about RP during Roxas' time
   3. Under Quirino
      1. Article about RP during Quirino's time
   4. Under (insert president here)
      1. Article about RP during (insert president here)'s time
5. 1971-1986 (Martial law and the Fourth Republic)
   1. Article about 1971-86 #1 (like Ratification Cases
   2. Article about 1971-86 #2, etc. (like Philippine presidential election, 1986)
6. 1986-present (Fifth Republic)
   1. General articles about 1986-present (like Constitution of the Philippines)
   2. Under Aquino
      1. Article about RP during Aquino's time
   3. Under (insert president here)
      1. Article about RP during (insert president here)'s time

–Howard the Duck 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean now and yes, I think that might work, especially since the LCI as a line between the two periods is a very arbitrary one which might change the moment they find a document dated earlier. Although I do say that with the caveat that I would prefer that each time period except "prehistory" and "contemporary history" be named according to the characteristics of its own time, rather than be defined by what came before or after it. The would, I'm convinced, undermine the subject at hand and give undue importance to the prior or proceeding era the name refers to, thus constituting POV. (In other words, I'm saying "Pre-Colonial" is POV, even if it's currently accepted by textbooks..I wouldn't know for sure. Is it?) I know I'm at risk of sounding revisionist, but I do feel that this is simply sound history-telling. Is there a way to rephrase "pre-colonization"? I lean towards replacing with Pre-Colonial Period with Indigenous Period. - Alternativity (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I just realized that Prehistory and Early History are already top level headings in the template. Surely we don't mean to suddenly demote these headings there? The inconsistency between the separate headings there and the single pre-1521 article is what got me into action creating a 900-1521 in the first place. (I'd love input from the editor who created the headings on that table...) - Alternativity (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dang. It was done by an Anon. I thought it made sense, though, when I saw it had been changed like that. I didn't know enough to put the template on my watchlist early on so I could know what was going on. - Alternativity (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest placing History of the Philippines (until 900) and History of the Philippines (900-1521) under History of the Philippines (until 1521). –Howard the Duck 15:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As for revisionism, I'd rather use "pre-Spanish colonization". That's a fact and we can't change it. There were also several non-indigenous contacts (Chinese and Arabs) prior to 1521. In the Americas they used "pre-Columbian" but I dunno know. –Howard the Duck 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fyi, everyone, I'm also going to suggest that Ancient Philippine civilization be substantiated further by information from here, and then be moved to Prehistory of the Philippines, but not do it until tomorrow night pending objections. That done, I'm also proposing to create History of the Philippines (before 900) as a redirect to that new article. (It's either that or it be renamed Culture of Ancient Philippines or something similar. The overlap of terminology is confusing.)- Alternativity (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More work needed as of February 2011

I clearly have not been following this, as I just stumbled across the situation that the latest comment above is dated over two years ago and both the other History of the Philippines (900-1521) and this (Before 1521) article currently exist with those ambiguous date-range name disambiguations. This does not appear to me to be a desirable situation. What is the status of this splitting and/or merging and/or renaming effort? What remains to be done? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC) See below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am opening a discussion related to this at Talk:Prehistory of the Philippines#Overlapping articles Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of my removal of some material.

I've removed the material added in this edit from may of 2009, which appeared to have been pretty randomly dropped into the article with little or no regard of the surrounding context or of WP:MOS and WP:GTL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)