Talk:Indian influences in early Philippine polities

Featherered content

The page must be clean up with more infos which is relevant to the proper publishing of content and remove the slow-intention of the enforced narrative based from the ultra-austronesian theory (Enola gay0 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC))

Dear Enola gay0, before renaming Wikipedia pages according to your whims and preferences, you should have consulted the Wiki editor community first. The name of this article should be subject to community consensus. Also notifying other editors who left their footprint in this page for a possible discussion regarding the name of this article so that no one else would be continuously changing Wikipedia articles name for personal whims: Alternativity, Koakaulana, Austronesier...... and many others I might have missed. Stricnina (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stricnina: before we called it "personal preferences" (which isn't) i just reverted it based from the original title of the article because due to the fact that indonesian polities where brought this culture from India and spread over the Philippine kingdoms and polities and what i cleaned up was the slow burn intention of enforced optioned narratives of the ultra-austrinesianists on the said article. (Enola gay0 (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC))

Dear Enola gay0, yes, it is "personal preference" and I'll keep calling it as "personal preference" because you have not consulted the other contributors of the article. It's your personal decision. If we keep changing the name of this article without consultation but only based on personal preferences, we will keep changing its name non-stop. This article needs to have a more stable name, and in order to do that it is more proper to follow the Wikipedia guidelines as stated in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which explicitly mentions that "editors choose the best title by consensus" based on certain criteria. "Ultra-austronesianist narrative" is not a criteria to be looked upon, the criteria are: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. Before renaming articles based on personal whims, let there be a consensus. Stricnina (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Enola gay0 and Stricnina: Basically, WP does not per se require consensus for bold edits and page moves. For the latter however, consensus is clearly more advised because of the greater impact on the overall structure of the Encyclopedia, as well as the technical issues involved when (re-)reverting a page move. As Enola gay0 correctly notes, the title had been moved before (by Alternativity, and btw he did so without seeking consensus). IMO, Alternativity did so in a legitimate way, since he addressed the subject from its actual content, and carefully adpoted well-sourced material from other articles. He didn't produce a "narrative", but basically quoted state-of-the-art research from reliable sources. As a result, no-one contested that move in Feb 2019, even though personally I find it unnecessary as long as the nature of Indian influence (direct vs. indirect) is properly covered in the text of the article. On the other hand, Enola gay0 moved the page with this comment: "it was illogical [emphasis added] that Indians didn't find this island as they where skilled seafarers and traders", further using ideology-driven lingo like "narratives of the ultra-austrinesianists". Why evoke logic, when citing reliable sources would do the job? And frankly, I don't know what "ultra-austrinesianists" [sic] are. In the first place, Austronesianists are linguists specialized in Austronesian languages (and shhh pls don't tell anyone: I am one of them), so an "ultra-austrinesianist" is an ultra-linguist(?) specialized in Austronesian languages? In any case, everyone is of course always welcome to contribute with constructive edits, backed up by reliable sources, properly cited in the way the author of the source meant it, with comments and edit summaries in a language we all understand. –Austronesier (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I agree with Austronesier regarding the fact that the first change of name done by Alternativity was unnecessary but also well-justified as the article, with its citations and sources, supports his reasons for the name change. I personally also do not see anything inherently wrong with the revert to the original name done by Enola gay0 (although I personally find his reasoning lacking, especially the one related to "ultra-austronesianist narrative" which doesn't really make any sense), however I fear that the article might experience continuous name change by several editors, depending on their personal reasons, if the editors themselves don't come to an agreement as to how to name this article once and for all. It's not really far-fetched to speculate that someone else in the future might change the name of the article for the third time, and in order to prevent that, it is perhaps the time to establish a name that is properly agreed upon by the contributors. I also don't mind if we keep the current name as established by Enola gay0, as long as this decision is consensus-based. Stricnina (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I want to correct myself - the original name was "Indian cultural influences in early Philippine polities" while Enola gay0 named the article as "Indian influences in early Philippine polities" (notice the lack of the word "cultural"). I personally prefer the original name (although I fear that is not possible anymore) but I'd like the opinion of the rest of the community about this. Stricnina (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stricnina: Agree 100%. I think it would be best if we start a new section for consensus seeking. Maybe more editors will take part in this discussion if not headed "Featherererered content". The old name–if wanted per consensus–can be retrieved with the assistance of an admin at WP:Requested moves. –Austronesier (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Title

Being one of a party clearly leaning towards one side of this argument, I haven't wanted to be the one to do this. But perhaps it's time to do so. Thus: as per the discussion above, I am opening a separate section in which editors can discuss the choice of titles for this article, under a neutral heading. The need for a discussion under a new heading was raised by Austronesier, based on discussions in which Stricnina and Enola gay0 were also participants, which can be read in the section above, "Featherered content." That discussion asked whether this article should be named "Indian influences in early Philippine polities" or Srivijayan and Madjapahit cultural influences in early Philippine polities I will argue my points in a separate edit, since I want this edit to simply be a rationalization for the existence of this section. - Alternativity (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

My Argument in favor of "Srivijayan and Madjapahit cultural influences in early Philippine polities": As I pointed out in the edit description when I first moved this article to "Srivijayan and Madjapahit cultural influences in early Philippine polities", the argument for the title is one of scholarly accuracy:

• (1) the current scholarly consensus is that Hindu and Buddhist cultural elements arrived in the Philippines through Srivijaya and the Madjapahit, rather than directly from India.
• (2) Further, the scholarship (cited in the article, so I won't repeat it here) emphasizes that the brand of Buddhism and Hinduism brought to the Philippines was filtered through Southeast Asian (IIRC Osborne's text did use the term Austronesian here, as the Srivijaya and the Madjapahit spoke Austronesian languages) culture, such that they carried a Southeast Asian, rather than Indian cultural core.
• (3) Even in the one piece of dissenting literature I have seen that argues there may have been some physical arrivals of Indians in the country, (Churchill) the author still recognizes that the majority of the cultural "influence" came through Srivijaya and the Madjapahit, rather than directly from India.
• (4) When current consensus (as summarized by Osborne, most notably - but I acknowledge that my reading list may not be exhaustive) takes up "Indianization" in the Philippines (and North Vietnam), it does so to downplay the supposed "direct Indian" element of the cultural influence - thus the birth of the term "Indirect Indianization" (along with "Syncretistic adaptation").
• (5) I think it's very clear that Enola gay0's reason for shifting the article back to "Indian influences in early Philippine polities" is his/her belief that Indians did arrive here, bringing their culture. Thus the edit description "The sriwijayan and majapahiit cultures where sharing influences in Philippines, it was illogical that Indians didn't find this island as they where skilled seafarers and traders." This belief is simply not upheld by current consensus, even if it was a widely held apocryphal belief up to the time Jocano was first writing his "Philippine Prehistory" book in 1975. I think WP:AGE MATTERS applies here.
• (6) In fact, I am generally of the opinion that much of the historical material asserting this fact (Direct Indian Influence) in the infobox in this article are violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV at best, and pushing a WP:FRINGE Theory at worst. Just like the (Chinese) "Luzon Empire" fringe theory before it.

(7) I do realize the appeal of the belief. It's romantic, it inserts a sense of imperial grandeur to our historical narrative (although not really, when you think about it, as Nick Joaquin argues in "Culture and History"), and it fits our current experience of the world (in which European culture still wields considerable postcolonial hegemonic influence). It's something an elementary schoolkid often appreciates and feels proud about, because hey, postcolonial mythography. But it simply is not accurate from any scholarly point of view. Current scholarly consensus at best does not support it, or at worst straightforwardly refutes it.- Alternativity (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

On a tangentially related note, why is that infobox still in this article? When I try to view it as a template, it says it has been deleted under WP:G5. - Alternativity (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alternativity: There seems to be a glitch with the template at the bottom. You can view and edit it here: Template:India-related topics in Philippines. The edit link top left for some reasons leads to Template:India-related topics in Philippines topics, and this is the one that was deleted. Probably it some kind of redirect issue. Anyway, you can also completely remove it (it's {{India-related topics in Philippines}} in the source), but I think a commited purge of the template itself would also be good idea (stuff like "Alim and Hudhud of Ifugao based on Indian Hindu epics Ramayana and Mahabharta" etc). I'll come back later for the title discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Austronesier:. Hm. I do have a question, though. Do we ignore this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndian_influences_in_early_Philippine_polities&type=revision&diff=903673164&oldid=903658739 ? If it's impolite to ask, I'll delete this question. I'm just a little confused by it. - Alternativity (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alternativity: We'd better ignore it. Everyboby has the right to retreat from a statement. Sometimes it is unfortunate that WP archives everything unless it grossly violates certain policies, or the associated page gets deleted (so gone is e.g. my little rant against RBS Jr. with the deletion of "Battle of Manila (1365)"). –Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Back to the main topic: I support Alternativity's arguments, and therefore opt for:

"Srivijayan and Majapahit cultural influences in early Philippine polities", with more consistent spelling of "j" in Majapahit.

"Indian influences..." might falsely suggest that direct and indirect influence were somehow on par, which is not substantiated by current scholarship. "Indirect Indian influences..." would be more correct , but utterly awkward. And it would unnecessarily restrict the subject to the Indian-derived component of the SEA civilizations which had an impact on the Philippine Islands. Indianization essentially was part of the continuous Malayization (no, no, not in the Beyer sense!) that affected the Philippine Islands in the same way as it affected Sulawesi and the Moluccas.

(Apologies in advance for getting OR-ish now:) Many Sanskrit loanwords in Philippine languages betray a Malay origin, and more specifically a Bornean Malay origin, e.g. Tagalog halagá < Sanskrit अर्घ (argha), cf. Banjar, Brunei Malay haraga with the the same unorganic "h" and the epenthetic medial "a" (Standard Malay harga lacks the epenthetic "a"). So the Sanskrit loanwords belong to the same layer as genuine Malay loanwords such as Tagalog lagarì (cf. Banjar garagaji, Standard Malay gergaji). And btw, there is virtually no Javanese influence on Philippine languages, which shows that Majapahit influence must have been through Malay-speaking Bornean vassals.

Consequently, talking about "Indian influences..." runs equal e.g. to say that Germanic and Celtic tribes in Europe underwent "Hellenization" when in fact the main impact came from the Hellenized Romans.–Austronesier (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible argument against the name "Srivijayan and Majapahit cultural influences in early Philippine polities" I applaud Alternativity for his more detailed arguments for the support of a name that highlights the roles of both Srivijaya and Majapahit in the introduction of Indic influences in early Philippine chiefdoms. However, a possible argument against the proposed title is the fact that Srivijaya and Majapahit were most likely not the principal sources of the Indian influences in the precolonial Philippines and they were most likely not essential in the "Indianization" of the early Philippine polities. I do agree that the Indian cultural elements that have been absorbed and indigenized by the early Philippine chiefdoms were filtered by intermediaries such as Srivijaya and Majapahit. However, while reading the literature regarding specific topics, I realized that the roles of these mandalas were not essential. For example:

1) The Philippine writing scripts such as Baybayin are considered as derived from an Indic script. A quick search through the possible origins of Baybayin reveal that scholars entertained theories that never gave Srivijaya and Majapahit essential roles in the spread of Baybayin in the Philippine Islands. For example, Christopher Miller in many of his works and articles such as "A Gujarati Origin for Scripts of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the Philippines" (2010) never mentioned Srivijaya nor Majapahit but he considers the Indic Philippine scripts as derived from a proto-Sulawesi script. Interestingly, Geoff Wade proposed that the Philippine scripts like Baybayin were derived from the Cham writing script, thus hinting that the Indian influences of the early Philippine polities didn't have to necessarily come from either Srivijaya and Majapahit, as other possible "intermediaries" (like Champa) were also entertained by scholars.

2) Another evidence of Indian cultural influence in the Philippine islands is the arrival of the Ramayana legend in the archipelago. An example is the "Maharadia Lawana" of the Maranao folklore, studied for the first time by Juan R. Francisco. Reading through his works related to the "Maharadia Lawana", it becomes clear that neither Srivijaya nor Majapahit were direct transmitters of this Indic epic cycle into the Philippines. Juan Francisco proposed that the "Maharadia Lawana" was related to the Malay versions of the Ramayana such as the "Fairy Tale". He placed the dating of the Malay versions of Ramayana to the historical period of the Sultanate of Malacca, and subsequently the "Maharadia Lawana" shouldn't be dated earlier than its Malay equivalents. In other words, the arrival of "Maharadia Lawana" was considered as due to contacts with the Malay sultanate and not through Srivijaya/Majapahit.

While I do agree that most Indian influences in the archipelago are indirect influences, I am not convinced that either Srivijaya nor Majapahit played important roles in the spread of these indirect Indian influences in the archipelago. Therefore, I would caution on adopting Alternativity's proposed title, because such title gives too much credit to the mandalas that most likely didn't play an important role in the Indianization of the Philippines. Aside from Alternativity, I also encourage other editors who previously participated in the previous discussions such as Enola gay0 and Austronesier to give their opinions regarding this subject. Stricnina (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: To be honest, my main concern right now is less the precise name of the article, and more the fact that it's being used to peddle the outdated theory of pervasive direct Indian influence on the cultures of the Philippine Archipelago. If we can find a more inclusive title which acknowledges the impact of Sulawesi or of Malaya (do we include Brunei, Austronesier and Stricnina, or does that come later?), I wouldn't object much to that. Perhaps "Maritime Southeast Asian cultural influences in early Philippine polities"? (To be honest, I always thought "Austronesian cultural influences in early Philippine polities" meant the same thing. But Austronesier pointed out that that term more aptly describes language specifically, rather than culture more broadly.) Hm. Perhaps also we should consider in O.W. Walters' (isbn=9781501732607) reframing of the Indian "influence" as the "localization" of Hindu and Buddhist beliefs instead? Basically he attributes the imprimatur of the cultural exchange on the peoples of Southeast Asia, seeking new ideas -- as opposed to placing the imprimatur on outsiders bringing these ideas into SEA like some sort of benevolent missionaries. - Alternativity (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've added a section discussing Wiley and Walters' thesis on Localization in MSEA. It's still pretty basic and needs expansion, but I hope it's a step in the right direction? - Alternativity (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Question: So... now are we just waiting? How do we confirm consensus - Alternativity (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to Alternativity's comment: Sorry for not replying sooner, I thought I already left a comment here. BTW, as far as I am concerned, the article as it is currently written gives more emphasis on the indirect Indian influences in the Philippines, filtered through the Maritime Southeast Asian polities like Srivijaya and Majapahit, so renaming it as "Maritime Southeast Asians cultural influences in early Philippine polities" would be premature at this point. I suggest giving more emphasis to non-Indian influences (like the Malay loanwords introduced in Tagalog and Bisaya for example) if we want the article to be renamed the way you suggested. Also, I do understand and I'm with you regarding your concern about certain users peddling certain narratives about direct Indian influence in the Philippines, however in my personal opinion the article itself sufficiently debunks those notions anyway. Also, I have no idea how do we confirm consensus here. Stricnina (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. (Reluctant) Suggestion:Would it help if we settled for "Hindu and Buddhist cultural influences in early Philippine polities" instead, and skip the geographical focus entirely? It feels like a cop-out, as if we're giving in to fringe-theory peddling. But given the contributions of closer to the Philippines than Srivijaya and Majapahit, maybe it's the most reasonable way to approach the title.- Alternativity (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

But if we do end up with the compromise title, could we please please have a more broad-reaching discussion about the fringe-theory peddling? In previous iterations, we dealt with this by initiating SPI investigations since it seemed to be the same person coming back again and again. But even if I suspect that's the case again, I'm tired of playing that game. Surely somewhere we can reach a broad consensus that there's no evidence the Indians physically brought their culture directly here. - Alternativity (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Alternativity, for having sort of abandonded this discussion. After Stricnina's comment from 1 July, I tried to think of an all-encompassing title, without little success. "Maritime Southeast Asian cultural influences..." (or "Austronesian cultural...") is a bit circular since the PI's are also part of MSEA and 100% Austronesian-speaking. And "Hindu and Buddhist cultural influences..." would still be too limiting, since even after the advent of Islam, Indian-derived epics/tales and vocabulary kept on being transmitted to the Philippines. Isn't there any catchy cover term for the Indianized states of pre-colonial Indonesia (or even beyond, cf. Stricnina's remark about the origin of writing systems)?

As for the actual content, and for our broader understanding of pre-colonial Philippine history, I fully agree with Alternativity. The cultural transmission from South Asia to the Philippines was mediated through the Indianized states of MSEA (and probably also Champa), period. And I want to add: this cultural transmission did not take place in the shape of large-scale migrations and population shifts (another pseudo-scientific myth). –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to count Champa, then don't we get "South and Southeast Asian"? The description is a bit broad, but at least it's inclusive rather than exclusive. Better for the text to clarify limitations not clear in the title, than for the title to exclude subject matter clearly covered by the text. In the meantime, yes, that would clarify how this article differs, contentwise, from the early sections of Hinduism in the Philippines, Buddhism in the Philippines, and Religion in pre-colonial Philippines. (All of which I suppose we should probably be checked for Fringe-theory-pushing after we're done here, BTW. That and the rest of the coverage of List of India-related topics in the Philippines.... Huh. I'm glad there are two linguistics wiki-specialists paying attention to this. :D ).- Alternativity (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Champa still is SEA (South Asia begins in Assam, according to some in Myanmar). Anyway, I agree that many articles still need to be checked. Every now and then, I remove the most blantant fringe-pushing whenever I come across it. I am also an advoate for terminological rigorism, because the most uncommon terminology automatically turns into default on the web the just by appearing in WP. Most amateur scholars which engage in pathetic discussions on Reddit etc. take the material here in WP for granted, which will create an additional prevalence of whatever term they adopt from WP, even if it is OR or POV-pushed. Which also puts us into the obligation to find an apt and neutral title for this article. Still thinking... –Austronesier (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I can't think of an all-encompassing term, for this reason I am at the moment more partial to the original title of the article, i.e. "Indian cultural influences in early Philippine polities", mainly because the content of the article itself talks about many of the Indian-derived influences absorbed by the precolonial Philippine culture and society. The original title was direct to the point and it answers the questions many curious enthusiasts of precolonial Philippines regarding the supposed Indian influences adopted by the precolonial Filipinos. I personally believe that the original title at least satisfies the "recognizability" plus "naturalness" criteria ("Indian cultural influences" or "Indian influences" are most likely the terms Filipinos would type in a search engine when they want to find out how the Indian influences arrived in the Philippines in the first place) and the "precision" criterion (since the article talks exactly about the cultural influences of India in the Philippines) of WP:CRITERIA. The content of the article itself will take care of debunking whether these influences arrived directly or indirectly through intermediaries such as Srivijaya, Majapahit, Sulawesi, Melaka, etc., and what cultural influences exactly arrived in the Philippine archipelago during the precolonial era.

Of course, I'm also open to alternative suggestions (and I'm willing to wait for someone to come up with a better suggestion), but in the meantime I want to express my agreement with Austronesier regarding the objections to the proposed alternative titles so far. Unfortunately, I currently can't think of a better title. Stricnina (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Stricnina: I can follow your arguments, so at the moment "Indian cultural influences..." really seems best. And you have a good point about what might be the most common search topic. This will even result in a kind of educational side-effect. –Austronesier (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

How about "Influence of Indianized cultures on early Philippine polities"? I really believe that retaining a reference to the geopolitical entity would (at worst) perpetuate the misconception at worst, or (at the least) encourage the continued fringe-pushing which we've been fighting for years now ("we" being people like Gunkarta, N0n3up and Darwgon0801, aside from you two, Stricnina and Austronesier) against fringers like JournalmanManila. By saying "Influence of Indianized cultures" rather than "Indian cultural influence", we might avoid encouraging people to draw conclusions based on having only seen the article title. - Alternativity (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Alternativity, for now I can't think of anything against your suggested title, although I personally prefer the original title for reasons I have already laid out in my previous comments. If it is true that only one person is behind the undesired edits in Wikipedia regarding the supposed "direct Indianization" of precolonial Philippine culture, then dealing with the single "vandal" should be a sufficient countermeasure to future misreadings of what really happened in pre-hispanic Philippine history and subsequent unwanted Wikipedia edits pushing for certain narratives that are already dispelled by mainstream research. I'll wait for future insights from other users (we are seeking consensus here after all) while I myself either re-think what is the better title or convince myself that your title actually is the better choice. Stricnina (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Stricnina regarding keeping the current title. Additionally, for the other influences, better to create separate articles e.g. on "Sinosphere influence on Philippines" and Malay influences etc, etc. Multiple benefits of this approach, articles remain specialized without mixing those, allows those articles to grow in future, if there is sufficiently large content then a separate summary article can be created, separate articles also allow us to see intervening/moderating effect of one on other e.g. direct transmission of Indian influence vs indirect transmission i.e. separate articles allow us/readers/editors to get into nuances.

Re: you statement based on Juan R. Francisco's work that aharadia Lawana arrived through malay polities, bear in mind pre-Islamic Malay polities were Hindu-Buddhist (titles, court rituals, Hindu liturgical language influence, etc) and Mindanao polities were earlier Indianised or had Hindu-Buddhist influences. They were converted to Islam after the Indianised Hindu-Buddhist polity of Brunei converted to Islam and they fought wars against the independent smaller principalities of disintegrating Srivijaya and Majapahits, and converted those including mandala (Sanskrit/indian term for sphere of influence) and vassals in Mindanao/Sulu, even after conversion to islam they were still Indianised (not Arabised) in many way such as their titles of kings, court practices, cultural elements. This needs to be investigated further in that context. Later Josephine Acosta Pasricha also has done translation and more work on Francisco's work, you may wanna look into her too. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, Stricnina Alternativity, interesting dicussion. Salamat po sa effort in contributing and creating the article. I will try to help/contribute from now on. You certainly can do with more help and more visibility to the article to make it future-proof (less like to be reverted/contentious) by obtaining input from a wider range of people. I will try to get additional support later. Well done for taking the initiative to create and maintain the article. I noticed heavy reliance on one on two sources, to draw quick and simplistic conclusion that the indic influence transmission was indirect and there was no/hardly non-srivihaya/majapahit/malay direct trade/influence, that is very problemtic, over simplistic, over generalization. Some of such conclusions drawn are not supported by the quote mentioned. In some instances a quote in the limited context "Vietnam and Philippines did not have direct indic influence in that era" have been applied to mean the whole Philippines across the whole pre-colonial era, when we know this statement is factually incorrect because khmer empire (spread across Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand) left their trace in the form of large Mỹ Sơn UNESCO-listed Hindu temples in central costal Vietnam. I presume all of this slant is not deliberate. I will provide detailed itemized in-depth constructive review of the article, discrepancies and their examples, actionable/remedial suggestions, etc ideally with some additional citations, which would need lots of time and effort from me, but I am willing to lend help. I am thankful to all you and am glad to have found 3 editors who share my love and passion for the history of Philippines, salamat po, mahal na mahal kita pilipinas, ingat lagi. Group yakap. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)