Talk:Ma-i

Description Sinified (see Sinification) state removed

Just for reference, I removed word "Sinified" from the article lead because the "trade relations" described by the record do not constitute "assimilation into the Chinese identity" nor prove "extensive influenced by Chinese culture and language" other than the obvious exchange of material goods. If we want to describe the sinification of Mayi, I suggest it be done in a separate subsection. -- Alternativity (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources removed by community consensus

Hi. This is a list of various sources that have been removed from this page as a result of community consensus at the Wikipidia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If any sources are brought up with the noticeboard in the future, please feel free to add the links here. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 or Earlier

• 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.

February 2017

• historyofjihad.org User:Drmies removed a link on 3 February 2017, based on consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_historyofjihad.org_a_reliable_source_for_Philippine_protohistory_.28900_AD_to_1521_AD.29_articles.3F

Description in Mobile Version still says "Sinified State"

Hi. I've noticed that as of today (2 February 2017), the blurb on the mobile version of this page still says Ma-i was a "sinified state". This, despite edits on the article removing that description (which scholarly literature asserts is untrue.) Does anybody know why? And can someone do something about it, please? Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly because of the 'status' field in the infobox that says "Tributary states of China." That would have to be changed too.--RioHondo (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed just now. But the article is still showing up as "Ancient Sinified state possibly based in Southern Luzon or on the IUsland of Mindoro" in the mobile blurb :S

 Done. I changed the description in Wikidata. (See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4401176). You may want to change the description yourself if my changes are incorrect. --Jojit (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh! WikiData! Thanks, Jojit !!! :D

Streamlined the lede paragraph a bit and then revised the description. Er... you may want to check my sentence structure though. - Alternativity (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruneian Empire?

Just raising this as a concern: I don't want to delete the section on the Bruneian Empire, because I suspect this may have been true whether the sources say so explicitly or not. However, I have a copy of Scott's Barangay at home and I don't recall the book making any explicit statement that Mindoro (much less Ba-e) was under the Bruneian Empire - only general statements that its influence reached as far as Selurong/Maynila. This may have to eventually be removed as per the WP:Verifiability policy, but I want to double and triple check for viable reliable sources first. FYI folks. - Alternativity (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

huang vs. wang

Please see Talk:Philippines#huang vs. wang, where this discussion began. This edit over in the Filipinos article just caught my eye, and I've left a comment on the talk page there asking for discussion here. Looking further, I see that Huangdom of Ma-i is a redirect to this article, that there is no Wangdom of Ma-i article or redirect, and that this article currently uses both the terms Huang and Wang. This looks to me like a probable bit of confusion impacting several articles. It seems to me that all affected articles ought to have a clarifying footnote referring interested users to this article, and that this article ought to have content clarifying the situation. I urge interested parties more knowledgeable than I about this to discuss this here and come to a consensus about what, if anything, ought to be done. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

When I initially created the articles, Huangdom of Ma-i and Huangdom of Pangasinan, I spelled Wang as Huang. Unfortunately, I was mistaken since according to the wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/王), the proper standardized Mandarin spelling is "Wang". Wang means King and Ma-i and Pangasinan had tributary Kings. The term Huang is more apt for the emperor who is called the "Huangdi" and thus outranks the Wangs. I mistakenly elevated Filipino kingdoms into empires by my mistake. I just want to correct that. ^_^ Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Ma-i, I think the case of "Huangdom" is easy enough to resolve (I have no opinion whatsoever on Wang vs Huang, this is strictly about "Huangdom"): the term "Huangdom" is nowhere to be found in any of the secondary literature I've seen. Scott, Go, Odal-Devora, Ocampo, Harper, and Joaquin don't use it. Neither do Blumentritt, Rizal, Craig, or Zaide. They all use either "Country" or "Kingdom." (As far as I can tell, technical literature says "country" and popular literature sometimes uses "kingdom.") Never Huangdom. I don't see it in any reputable non-wikipedia-souced tertiary literature, either. In fact, I had never seen the term "Huangdom" in reference to a Philippine kingdom until I saw it on wikipedia, where it slowly got inserted into article after article after article, and whereupon it started getting put on mirror sites. So far that's still the only place I've seen it, (although I haven't gone as far as reading chinese journals). None of the translations of the Zhan Fu Zhi (sp?)used in Philippine Historiography seem to use it. I submit that the term is likely to be a WP:SYNTHESIS problem case. At the very least, it's a POV problem because the use of the term is not widely used in Philippine historiography. I don't believe the term should be used at all. - Alternativity (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: This, of course, is as far as Ma-i is concerned. I can say the same for the Kingdoms of Namayan, Maynila, and Tondo, and Ancient Pila. I should note that I have not read up on the historiography of Pangasinan, nor am I likely to in the immediate future. (But if you have secondary literature that definitively attributes the term huangdom in the case of Pangasinan's Historiography, I will counterargue that the fact that both are in modern-day Philippines doesn't automatically mean you get to conflate their historiogaphies.) -Alternativity (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(And don't even get me started on the WP:SYNTHESIS nightmare that was the use of the term Lakanate. - Alternativity (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Very good points Alternativity. We're better off sticking to terminologies actually used in mainstream history books, and not theorize on the possibility that it could be this or that or use outside concepts not provided in our old reliable sources from our mainstream historians. I actually have the same question regarding the use of the foreign terms Kedatuan and Mandala, whether they were in fact used commonly in our sources. I remember starting a discussion on this on WP:TAMBAY to get a consensus on what to call those ancient polities. Presently, they're all at Ancient barangays but if there's a more common and neutral terminology for them kingdoms and states, let me know. :)--RioHondo (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, to my understanding, the character Wang, or King was indeed used as a title for the tributary kings to China as recorded for Pangasinan and implied in Ma-i. As for whether those states merit to be called Wangdoms, I am open to change on that issue since it seems to be a Synthesis Problem. It's also an issue of semantics too. We readily accept foreign terms like the Arabic Sultan to describe a state ruled under such in English, as a Sultanate, yet how come it's unorthodox to adopt the Mandarin term, Wang, into English? Also, in reply to RioHondo, I think that the use of the term Kedatuan is ok since the native people themselves refer to their state as a "Kadatuan", I know this because I myself am an Visayan and we indeed use that term. Yours truly. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Muslim states are on record as themselves calling their leaders Rajah or Sultan. Sultanate and Rajahnate are therefore acceptable. Like I've said, I don't know enough about Pangasinan to know if they themselves ever called their ruler a Wang. (My suspicion is no, since none of the texts were written by them.) I know for sure that there's no surviving Ma-i text that says their ruler is a Wang, so this is automatically a Chinese assumption. (In fact, the Ma-i text doesn't describe a single ruler at all. It only describes port administrators.) Scholars thus don't use the term because it perpetuates the biased point of view of the text - in this case, the same Sinocentric view that views all non-Chinese states as "barbarian" states. The same applies to Spanish texts, viewing our ancient "heathen" states with Hispanocentric eyes. This is why WP:RS insists that we not rely on the primary texts, but always rely on (presumably peer reviewed) secondary literature for interpretations of the text.

To RioHondo: Well, having surveyed the precolonial state articles, it seems the only pressing question as far as article titles is concerned is whether the use of the term "Kedatuan" is warranted. I wouldn't know, because I haven't seen the literature cited for the use of the term yet. The rest of the articles seem to already have their own well-reasoned conventions, as follows: (1) I'm now convinced by other editors' arguments that the Pasig River kingdoms have come to be popularly referred to as "Kingdoms," and are referred to as such by Historians doing popular writing (Ocampo, Joaquin, Harper, Odal-Devora, etc.). (2) The use of Rajahnate and Sultanate in the ancient Muslim States (Butuan, Sulu, etc) is well established. (3) I'm not going to talk about Pangasinan because I haven't read enough literature, and because for personal reasons, I'm staying miles away from Northern Luzon articles. (4) I am of the opinion that States like Ma-i who have names no longer currently used, don't need a descriptor in the article name, so we only have to argue about the term we want to use in the lede section. (x) The problem is going to be any new articles that are written, for the academically significant but popularly obscure precolonial states. I'm sure someone (not me) will come up with articles for ancient Malolos and ancient Panay some day. I'm working on articles for similar states but I won't name them here yet. So as per your question: the most neutral term I've seen so far, based on the scholarly texts is "archaic state", so if pushed for an opinion, I'm abandoning my previous suggestion of "ancient polity." As far as I can tell, "archaic state" seems to be used in Oceanian, Western, AND Southeast Asian historiographies, whereas I've only seen "polity" used in the historiography of Indianized states. (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Champa... I dunno about Thailand and Vietnam.) But I must submit we should really avoid using these terms (especially in article names and section headers), if we can. Let's face it: we're having this problem because the literature is sparse, and because the scholarly conventions are in flux. As per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should be neutral regarding those conventions. So when the community decides on a convention, it needs to be clear that it's a convention of last resort. (I like WMitchell's suggestion of explanatory notes for interested readers.)

Which brings me to a different point: perhaps we should bring this up as an Philippine MOS issue already?- Alternativity (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, two points:
(1) Yeah, I seem to recall you citing a source for the use of the term Kedatuan. If the source passes WP:RS I agree the term can (and perhaps should) be used.
(2) I have to point out that as per Scott (in "Preshispanic Source Materials", 1984, page 65), it seems very clear to me that "Tributary State" ≠ "Sinified State". It indicates nothing more than diplomatic relations. And in the same text Scott notes that Ma-i technically never sent a diplomatic (aka tribute) mission (as Botuan did), so it was never even a "Tributary State" to begin with. Just another lucrative trading market. - Alternativity (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alternativity I believe we would have to, sooner or later, as there are more of these articles on pre-colonial states that would be made, and a lot of them would be needing disambiguations. I think the "plainname, where possible" convention is a good start as it is also used for articles on our former/historical provinces. For disambiguation, it's a choice between common name based on RS, or parenthetical disambiguation which we would all have to agree to.--RioHondo (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw I have no issue with the term Kedatuan, my only concern is Recognizability of our Articles titles per WP:AT. And that's what WP:COMMONNAME aims to solve, using the most common terms used in reliable sources to actually help readers, most of which aren't experts on the field, to locate their articles. Also, i find that Kedatuan is just the foreign equivalent of our Ancient barangay which were all also headed by a datu. When it comes to these things, I prefer that our own native terminologies be used. But that's just me :)--RioHondo (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... @Alternativity Considering the circumstances, I think you're right. I think that we should just avoid the labeling of Ma-i or Pangasinan with the prescriptive, Wangdom or whatever and just present it as a simple state or country.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@RioHondo. I assure you, as a person that speaks a Visayan language, that the Malay term Kedatuan is pretty much local too. There are just minor spelling variations of it in Filipino languages. In the Hiligaynon-Visayan language the word Kadatuan is akin to the Malay Kedatuan, and even the settlements under a Malay Kedatuan, a "wanua" is mostly the same to the Visayan "banua", which also has a similar spelling and meaning. I hope my comments help, guys! Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

So guys, I think we should change the description of Ma-i to just a country/nation now, NOT a Wangdom of Ma-i. However, Pangasinan as a Wangdom still remains though since it was really a tributary state to China (It sent a tribute of silver and horses, according to William Henry Scott). Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, I thought I already did that (for this article). Do you mean in links to this article? - Alternativity (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that, as of today there are still links out there saying that Ma-i is a Sinified state.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Tributary State" =/= "Sinified State" (?) -- A Discussion

(Moving this discussion here, where it makes more sense.)

Having given this matter more thought, and upon a careful reading of Scott, Go, and a few other sources, I'd like to see if we can come to an agreement regarding the core assumptions behind the use of the term "sinified state" in precolonial Philippine state articles. (I'm writing here because this template seems to be the fulcrum around which the use of the term hinges.)

1. My concern arises from Scott's exposition on the nature of a "Tributary State" in Prehispanic Source Materials, where he points out, in an extensive discussion starting on P.63, that sending a Tribute Mission is just a Yuan(? and Ming?) Dynasty prerequisite for opening diplomatic relations, which in turn would allow the tributary state to go to China to conduct trade. (This was of interest to me because he also points out here that this was not needed in Ma-i's case because during the early part of the Song dynasty, it was the Chinese who went to their trading partners instead of the other way around.) In other words, the term "Tributary State" (and the act of sending a tribute mission) wasn't an heirarchical or even cultural relationship, but an economic one.

2. My worry is that the term "sinified state" implies a level of Chinese cultural impact similar to what you find in Vietnam - profound structural political and cultural impact. To my knowledge (although I specialize mostly in the history of the Laguna de Bay area, so Pangasinan - the only remaining article labeled "sinified state" - isn't really my forte), there's no real evidence of such an impact.

3. In the book, Scott essentially establishes the term "Tributary State" as a piece of internal Tang Dynasty propaganda (see Sinocentrism), and all the scholarly secondary sources (see WP:Primary) correct for it. I feel we should too.

4. Having a category called "sinified state" also confuses the nature of Islamic (Islamized?) states, such as Butuan and Luzon (whatever that is), which sent Tribute Missions to China and thus are very much Tributary States. As I argued before, these states were self-labelled "Islamic States" so there's no argument that that's the label we want to use for them. But if we have a category called "sinified states", wouldn't that create an overlap such that we call Butuan a Sinified Islamic State? And wouldn't that category actually be pretty meaningles?

You see, my interest in this era is that I'm trying to get a feel for what it must be to live in those times. So as a reader, this confuses me. If it's a "sinified state," I automatically assume a) its leaders are sponsored by China b) its territory is protected by China c) its people recognize the centrality of China. Going through my basic knowledge of the geography, culture and politics of the time (sans any definite docs you might have), I sorta find that tough to believe.

I feel therefore that, unless Pangasinan or some other state is explicitly documented to be a vassal/puppet state as per any RSes you have, A. We shouldn't be using the term because it misrepresents the level of Chinese political impact on the islands; B. If we use the term "Tributary State" in the articles, it should always be accompanied by an explanation of what exactly a Tributary State is; and C. We need to reevaluate the use of the word "Wang" accordingly.

Just my two cents as I get started on the precolonial cleanup process I've been harping about. Hehe. - Alternativity (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, Pangasinan was legitimately ruled by the Chinese by the time the Spanish arrived, albeit by Chinese pirates under Warlord Limahong. Pangasinan is maybe just one out of two "Wokou" enclaves established in the Philippines, the other being Tay Fusa's Wokou enclave in Cagayan. Some history authors even said it was a full-on Japanese state in the Philippines!

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=RRmX2mAAULoC&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=Tayfusa&source=bl&ots=Dto3Tefwwj&sig=kjsfelEMycN44bi67C8BbYIZSUY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmw7Gw2KPSAhUDXLwKHQqOAUYQ6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=Tayfusa&f=false

Maybe we should replace the category "sinified" states with the more apt "Wokou" enclave.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My preference, and as far as i can recall from my history readings, is not to label them other than just being kingdoms or archaic states and only mentioning their being China-influenced or Indianized or whathaveyous for the specific time period according to sources. So that Tondo was indianized around this time, and then Islamicized by this decade, etc. If Pangasinan was sinified, mention it as only being confined to certain periods as per source, while the Urduja claim and Indianized origin for this earlier period, etc. If sources don't agree, cite both arguments so it's important not to label them as many of our archaic states have gone through different stages of influences and alliances. Just my 2 centavos hehe--RioHondo (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis in the "Mindoro as Ma-i" section

Raising the concerns I have regarding the "Mindoro as Ma-i" section, in order to explain WHY it's synthesis as per WP:SYNTH.

At the moment, the section states that "Ma-i went into decline as a result of the Bruneian raids of the late 1490s", and the citations used here to prove this point all state, more or less, that "Mindoro went into decline as a result of the Bruneian raids of the late 1490s." You'll spot the difference instantly, I hope. The fact is plainly that the articles cited in this section were discussing the history of Mindoro, NOT the history of Ma-i.

And in case someone wants to argue that this is a common-sense equivalency, let me point out that there's at least one good reason it's not: what if Ma-i was dissolved sometime between 1340 and 1498? As far as I can tell, none of them asserted that the Mindoro that went into decline late 1490s included the state of Ma-i, or was equivalent to the state of Ma-i. The fact is, we don't have ANY authoritative sources that state that Ma-i (as a political entity) survived past the mid-1300s. The Island and the State are simply not one and the same. We don't have any evidence in the other direction, either, but Science and History simply do not allow us to jump to conclusions. Nor do wikipedia policies as expressed in WP:SYNTH, which very clearly say: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

I am thus returning the SYNTHESIS cleanup tag to the appropriate section. Those two paragraphs draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions and the reason they're in that subsection alone is so that the questionable assumptions can be confined to a small part of the article while we all look for sources that discuss this matter explicitly. Barring that, we should probably shrink it down to what the sources do actually explicitly say. - Alternativity (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

• 17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

• 11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)