Talk:Tondo (historical polity)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge proposal

Strong Speedy Merge. Obviously, I believe that the Luzon Empire should quickly be merged into Ancient Tondo, and Luzon empire thus deleted, as it is not in line with orthodox Philippine or Chinese history, and the sources provided for Luzon Empire do not sufficiently validate the existence of a "Luzon Empire" sponsored by the remnants of the Lesser Sung Dynasty. Alternativity (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge discussion is going on over at Luzon Empire. lk (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge performed

I am about to perform the merge, and as such I would like to document the discussion that precipitated the note. The relevant discussions can be found at:

• Talk:Luzon Empire

and discussions on the matter were also held at

• Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Luzon_Empire_vs_Ancient_Tondo and
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Luzon_Empire_and_Ancient_Tondo
• If nobody objects, I am also creating a subpage here that will document the whole conversation that led to the merge /Merge Notes

I hope that the matter has been resolved to everybody's satisfaction. Alternativity (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The WP:NOR discussion has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard/Archive_4#Luzon_Empire_and_Ancient_Tondo, and there's another relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Luzon_Empire_vs_Ancient_Tondo. -- Alternativity (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Kingdom of Tondo"? (Was:Name of merged article)

I have been reexamining the literature regarding pre-colonial Tondo and fixing links after the merger with Luzon Empire. In doing so, I have come to believe that lk is correct to say that the Kingdom of XXXX format is more appropriate than Ancient XXXX.

Even recognizing some usage of the term in early literature, however, I still have concerns about the phrase "Kingdom of Luzon" because contemporary references to this kingdom call it Tondo, not Luzon. Their choice is understandable, I suppose, given the potential confusion between the Pasig River-area territory and the whole Island.

I argued earlier that "I can think of no other non-POV name" for this kingdom. That has changed, and believe me, I'm kicking myself in the butt for not seeing it before. "Kingdom of Tondo" seems to be a more appropriate name which doesn't introduce confusion between the island and the kingdom, and which recognizes the choice of contemporary (and orthodox!) historians to call this kingdom Tondo rather than Luzon.

I thus propose that we propose a move from Ancient Tondo to Kingdom of Tondo. I would be bold and perform the move myself, but given the controversy associated with this page so far, I would like to solicit everyone's thoughts first.

I have copied the old discussion from Talk:Luzon Empire and pasted it here for reference, and I am creating a second level heading below for new discussions.

Thank you again, everyone, for your commitment and patience as we try to make the best possible encyclopedic entries for pre-colonial Philippines.

Yours, Alternativity (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Discussion copied from Talk:Luzon Empire

Note:For reference only. Please do not edit this section.

We should also discuss the name to merge to. Luzon Empire is I think POV, as it implies links to the Sung dynasty and the Chinese empire. There is only tenuous circumstantial evidence for such a link. Ancient Tondo is I feel, inaccurate. When emissaries presented themselves at the Ming court, they said that they were from Luzon, not Tondo. Like other contemporaneous South East Asian countries, the leaders probably styled themselves 'rajah' or 'sultan', if that is correct, then it would be accurate to call it the Kingdom of Luzon. Or perhaps, the page should be titled Ancient Luzon. Personally, I'm leaning towards Kingdom of Luzon, as there are many other pages about ancient kingdoms also titled Kingdom of XXXX. lk (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Luzon would also be inaccurate, as Luzon refers to and has always referred to the whole island. This kingdom covers only a small part of the whole island, specifically a Tagalog/Kapampangan one. To name this article Ancient Luzon would not only be POV but would disparage the heritage of the Ilocano, Bicolano, Zambal, Ibanag, and other kingdoms that almost certainly existed at the time, although probably with less trade opportunities and thus with limited recorded contacts with other nations. I too am rather dissatisfied with Ancient Tondo, but I can think of no other non-POV name.-- Alternativity (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Luzon refers to and has always referred to the whole island. Are you sure about this? I'm far from an expert in this of course, having just visited this issue, but it seems from the sources on this page, that the name 'Luzon' was first used to refer to this Kingdom, and then later picked up by the Europeans who came into contact with these peoples, and decided that Luzon was the name of the entire island. This is not an unusual case, for example the name Yangtze River is the name of only a small tributary of the river but was misapplied by the Europeans to the entire river, actually named "Chang Jiang" in Chinese. lk (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

Note: Please add new comments on this matter here. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are now articles named Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Namayan, I will soon move this page to Kingdom of Tondo, unless there are objections here. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So far Lenticel ^(talk) has supported this move according to his comments on his talk page. Nobody has posted any objections. I'll perform the move tomorrow night (27 October) if nobody objects. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of ... seems appropriate. I would prefer Kingdom of Luzon, as that is how they presented themselves to the Ming court, but either way seems fine. LK (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Ancient Tondo was Kapampangan or Tagalog?

I am asking this for clarrification..Kasumi-genx (talk)

Well, most of my sources (I have a sourcelist on my talkpage) don't specify. Some say Kapampangan, and some say Tagalog. But what bothers me is that my citations don't cite THEIR citations, so I can't follow the paper trail to understand the context of their claim better. Although I suppose Nick Joaquin is a credible enough source, and what he says is that there was a sort of Kapampangan-Tagalog complex, whose ruling classes were all related. Not far fetched, actually, and it seems to be a good explanation for their behavior circa the 1570s (Rajah Matanda, Rajah Mura/Rajah Sulayman, and Tarik Sulayman). But did that mean the common people too are closely related? In which case, why are their languages still so distinct? I think I still have a lot of research to do before I'm comfortable with a Kapampangan/Tagalog label on the wiki. Although I lean towards thinking it Kapampangan, with the kingdoms of Namayan and [[Kingdom of Manila|Manila}}being Tagalog... Kapampangan "shoredwellers" north of the Pasig, Tagalog "riverfolk" to the south. -- Alternativity (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think kapampangan is a prestige language in prehispanic times.Kasumi-genx (talk)

Kasumi, Kingdom of Tondo I can tell you now is most certainly Kapampangan, for starters, Pampanga was never called "Pampanga" until the colonization, let's also take into account, it makes use of terms that were highly used in the kingdom(Lakan, Laksamana), many of what we refer to as it's provinces still make up the majority of Pampanga, as well, the surrounding provinces of present day Pampanga are not ethnic Provinces(except Pangasinan, of which not sure if it spanned in that area, but it did span a big border).

Let's also take into consideration that both these civilizations are very familiar with the same script, Kulitan, unique in both the appearance and the system itself to the other scripts in the archipelago.

For more information about it, I highly suggest reading these two articles.

http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/11ical/data/11ical_Pangilinan_Assessing_the_current_status_of_the_Kapampangan.pdf

http://www.facebook.com/groups/LuzonKingdom/doc/10150330487132892/

As well, Maynila was established as a Bruneian satellite, in fear of the Kingdom's power, they had to watch it. There is nothing that disputes Kingdom of Lusung being Kapampangan.

As for Kapampangan being the prestige language, well, I have come across many who share your views, there is not enough evidence to draw a strong conclusion, as such, it is as debatable as whether the Balisong(Butterfly Knife) is French or Filipino at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangacha (talk • contribs) 06:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Kingdom" vs. "magnet"

I've reverted this edit. The revert changed the word "magnet" back to "Kingdom". Note that I'm not certain that "Kingdom" is the correct term, but "magnet" is not.

Page 256 of the cited supporting source says, re power relations among various chiefdoms, "... they all subordinated ... themselves to the ruler of Mayi, a powerful local magnet who used as many as thirty people as human sacrifices in his funeral."

As I read the supporting source, the so-called "magnet" used the people, not the ruler of the so-called "magnet". Also clearly, "Mayi" (the ruler of which is called a "magnet") is a superior entity to the so-called "chiefdoms" being discussed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can say that those subordinates are provinces that are under the Kingdom of Tondo or under the Tondo Empire.-Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Verifiability of untranslatable sources cited in support of assertions

Perhaps this should be brought up in Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, but I note in the edit summaries of these recent edits that [this cited supporting source is said to be untranslatable. WP:NONENG requires that translations of sources not in English be provided if requested. It seems to me that untranslatable sources are not verifiable and, due to that lack of verifiability, are not suitable for use as supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Other referenced names of Kingdom of Tondo

I believe this portion I added was in this specific article before, nontheless I am adding it back, because for one thing I don't see any reason to delete it, as there are a good number of kapampangans like myself who refer to the Luzon empire, and there are books on it too, if I'm not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.97.217 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite your reference, please. If it's still there, I'm taking it out, as per numerous discussions about the Luzon Empire over the last 3 years. There was once a time when I put the "Luzon Empire" claim in its own section under "Historical theories associated with Ancient Tondo." Simply because although I felt it could qualify as a fringe theory, I am hesitant to remove content. But someone else removed it because it was unreferenced. If you have credible references that explicitly state that theory, I think it would be best to revive that subsection. Without references, we can't do anything. - Alternativity (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP FALLING TO THE STEREOTYPE THAT WE WERE ALL TRIBES

Seriously, be careful of your use of the terms "chiefs" and "tribes", etc. Remember that this kingdom, is infact a kingdom, and not a tribe, and Tondo being it's capital. Stop making use of terms related to tribes unless you are referring to actual tribes.

The common stereotype thinking we were all mad people killing each other with nothing but small knives(not even swords) and wore nothing but loincloths has got to end, it was definitely not like that, if it were then why did this particular kingdom of tondo/luzon already had gun power before the spaniards came?(Fyi, the guns came through trade from Ming China)--70.134.91.223 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. People do like to slip in the word "tribe" and "chief", for some strange reason. Personally, I prefer "ruler" to king since "ruler" is free-er of cultural denotations. But yes, "King" and "Monarch" is technically accurate, and certainly better than "Chief" (See "Chieftain (disambiguation)"). I do want to point out that the stereotyping of tribes as "mad people killing each other with nothing but small knives(not even swords) and wore nothing but loincloths". Our Indigenous Peoples do refer to themselves as tribes, but do not necessarily fit that description. I suppose respect for IPs is why I don't often notice the difference between "tribe" and "kingdom." Hm. But now that I think of it, I think I prefer "state." That would spare us from having to use the term "Rajahnate" in this particular case, since the official term for Banaw was "Lakan Dula" (King/Ruler of the Palace) rather than "Rajah" as was the case for Ache and Sulayman. - Alternativity (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however why are we even going to use the term "Rajahnate" with Lakans? They were obviously not a rajahnate, it is a state however, but facts and historical records point towards a monarchy, their actions of being a thalassocracy highly suggests as such. Also I need to remind you that "Kingdom of Tondo" could be ok, but you need to know that Tondo is actually the capital, not the name of the entirety of the state. You can read Mike Pangilinan's article here http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/groups/55459742891/doc/?id=10150330487132892 But that site would require you to sign in, heres another version, not exactly the same as the one in the group, but still if you guyes want sources then here(Mike Pangilinan is an actual researcher, not some random guy off the internet) http://www.siuala.com/read_blog.php?id=14 --70.134.91.223 (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. A few points:

* I don't object at all to the fact that they were a monarchy. That much is clear enough, they were what the Europeans would call monarchs. I feel slightly less enthusiastic about the jump from "monarch"/ruler to "king." My worry being that it might bring along European connotations, especially re: their social stratification. After all, an Alipin is not a slave in the strict sense understood by Europeans, and while I can't claim an absolute understanding of what a Lakan or Maginoo is in the strictest sense, I'm worried about it picking up a European slant. (For that matter, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with my understanding of the strict term "King", with the courts and pledges by Lord-knights and so on).

* I do worry about the assertion of the sovereignty of Tondo over the entirety of the Lusong area. If so, would that range include the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Namayan? I don't know if I'm willing to accept that that these states were not absolutely sovereign, unless I see an actual stated and historian-peer-reviewed statement. In fact, I personally lean towards the theory that the commands of Sulayman the Rajah Muda of Maynila and of Banaw the Lakandula of Tondo were united under the higher office of Ache, Lakan Matanda over both kingdoms. That seems to make much more sense to me than the presence of two sovereigns over the Kingdom of Maynila. BUT that's conjecture on my part, no matter how logical it seems to me. Because I have no published/peer-reviewed references.

* I've been wanting to create an "Precolonial Lusong" article for a while now, but I can't find enough peer-reviewed/published references.

* But it's an interesting link. Is there any chance journal article reference asserting the same? I will reread his reference (Scott's Barangay is a favorite of mine anyway) to see if Scott himself draws the same conclusions. But if you know mr Pangilinan, I would sorely love to know if he has had those theories published, so that we can use them as references on this page. Otherwise, we're stuck with the limits of the rules in Wikipedia:NOR. I know, sometimes the rules suck, but it's the only way to assure quality across the entirety of Wikipedia.

* Finally, I'll write a response in the next section that you created regarding the "Lesser Song" theory.

* Quite aside from the point, I was hoping maybe I could convince you to sign up for a Wikipedia account already. It would make discussion and standardization so much easier.

Thanks! :D - Alternativity (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent) Also, if you don't mind, would it be okay if you used italics and/or boldface to give emphasis to future statements? Not only is allcaps considered rude, it's very difficult to read, and it makes even-toned discourse difficult. - Alternativity (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes actually, we're on the same page here, and perhaps I do understand I have to abide by wikipedia norms... Sorry for the heavily unorganized typing ^.^ but since wikipedia has many views and the fact that filipino history has been damaged and mislead by many more than enough, I get frustrated easily in this area. I also agree that this map posted is misleading, the Kingdom itself did not span the entire luzon island, as that would be conflicting or make other states of the time like maynila and namayan seem like enclaves(which they weren't). The kingdom did span far, but not the entirety of luzon island.--70.134.91.223 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Luzon ≠ Chinese Kingdom

Remember, just because it is named "Kingdom of Luzon" doesn't mean it was from China. IT IS IT'S OWN KINGDOM STATE, this is why it isn't named "Luzon Kingdom of China", just "Kingdom of Luzon". Luzon doesn't mean china.--70.134.91.223 (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the section above, my specific reactions to the phrase "Kingdom of Luzon":

* Kingdom of Luzon - It's the passage in the Pangilinan article you cited, which asserts that "the name Luzon (呂宋國) means "Substitute Song Empire" or "Lesser Song Empire."" that bothers me. You see, this Kingdom of Tondo entry is actually fresh out of a battle to DELETE an article named "Luzon Empire" and which was a redirect from "Lesser Song Empire." And the assertion of that article was that Luzon was supposedly founded by the deposed but surviving Emperor Bing of Song. So I suppose I misread your intent, but I spent months insisting that Tondo was local in origin and not founded by a deposed Chinese emperor, so you can understand why I would be anxious to make sure such nonsense never again sees light of day unless someone claims it in a credible (meaning peer-reviewed) venue. Just like I now never refer to the Western Philippine Sea by any other name - Aba!(trans:wow), some people draw such flimsy conclusions on the basis of nothing but a name. So I just want to be careful.

* But yes, sorry if I seemed to jump to conclusions about your assertion there.

* Regarding "呂宋", I cannot say this forcefully enough. (And I am saying it in general, not to you): Just because it reads "Backbone of Song" in Chinese doesn't mean that the word means that.

* "Kingdom" - I DO NOT object to it being called a Kingdom, as I stated in the section above.

* "of Luzon" - I'm anxious about its claim over the ENTIRETY of Lusong, which includes the sovereign Kingdom of Maynila and sovereign Kingdom of Namayan, as stated above. And when you call it the Kingdom of Lusong, then wouldn't the full implication be that Maynila and Namayan aren't fully sovereign?

* Lusong, not Luzon - If ever, I would insist on using "Lusong" rather than "Luzon", just to make the difference between precolonial Manila bay and the modern Island of Luzon clear.

* Empire/Thalassocracy - I would love to call it a Thalassocracy, except I'm not sure what the range of its territory is, and whether such an assertion could be supported by peer-reviewed references.

There. I feel a bit better now. :D - Alternativity (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah that is very true enough, I too am very confused on the matter of the true origins of "Luzon", but the articles I've given mention many other possible sources of the name, including the fact that perhaps it wasn't really "lesser song empire", but perhaps instead another chinese term, you should be aware that there is a type of cannon that also goes by the name "Lusung", and also that many chinese influence exists, especially in the Kapampangan language, of which Kapampangans are actually descendant from the Kingdom of Tondo(the fact that "Lakan" exists in the Kapampangan dictionary and the term exists in Kapampangan ancient polytheism, the fact that the kingdom itself wrote in kulitan(Kapampangan script), and many other irrefutable real life evidence that still shows today), it's very possible "Luzon"'s origins is chinese, and very much possible that it meant something completely different(btw my account on here is Mangacha, I just tend to not sign in a lot, btw why was the flag of the kingdom removed?)--70.134.91.223 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw as a sidenote, since I mentioned the Kapampangan script, I definitely think it deserves it's own article too. You can view about it here http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/11ical/data/11ical_Pangilinan_Assessing_the_current_status_of_the_Kapampangan.pdf And btw, the name "Luzon" pops up as a place name of south east asia in the Ming Shi Lu records, I am having difficulty opening this specific website though that shows it, I'll show it later when it's open. --Mangacha (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Lusong name origins

On the name, the thing is, it's speculative either way, so if we mention it at all I think it should be in the format "John De La Cruz, a (state reason for expertise) has suggested that the name Luzon might be derived from...x", if at all.

Me, the way I see it is, Ockam's razor: since there is a noun Lusong in Kapampangan which means container, correct me if I'm wrong (and apparently the Bisayan usage is similar) and a noun in Tagalog which means sudden downward slope, an adjective in Tagalog that means suddenly sloping, and a verb in Tagalog that means "to wade", I think there's a great deal of reason to believe the term was local in origin, rather than borrowed from another culture. Also, I find it in-credible that an origin "lesser song" would be obscured so thoroughly by history and legend, when the southern song empire effectively ended March 19, 1279 - not so long ago, I think. After all, we still have a collective memory of Limahong, even when no places were named after him. Stands to reason that if "Lu Song" meant "lesser song", we'd have preserved that memory somehow. Even if the memory would now be as vague as that of, say, Gat Pangil of Laguna, after whom Pangil an Pakil towns are said to have been named. - Alternativity (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I simply think that perhaps it's just another one of those names that sound alike to another's language, for example, in tagalog there are many words that sound alike to Japanese language(I asked this from a Japanese friend who also was fluent in tagalog, but for me it doesn't go the other way, I'm not fluent in Japanese so I may get some wrong translations here :P )

• Tayo: Tagalog = we Japanese= Sun
• Tae(Ta-eh): Tagalog = Feces Japanese = a name for women in Japan
• Suka: Tagalog version = vomit or vinegar(depending on your pronounciation Japanese Version = well not completely sure but there is a suka station ^_^(also note that Suka in russian literally means bitch, :infact I think I saw an article here titled "bitch wars" in russian history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch_Wars also isn't vinegar in japanese "su"?)
• Poki(I think he meant the same as our "Pu-ke", he sure sounded like he meant that hehe, I think he was trying to relate this to the Pocky snack, totally unsure as of now :P
• Inchiki and Intsik are very similar but different meaning
• The Kapampangan version of the Kampilan has two names for it, Talibong, or Katana(the aita's name for their traditional blade is also Katana ironically...), I am not sure where the name comes from as of now.
• Tama: Tagalog = to be correct Japanese = Bullet I think?
• Sabi, Wasabi(and other similar pronounciations.
• Sama: Tagalog = to include Japanese = a more respectful version of san I believe?

• There is also Kapampangan "Dai" which apparently means ancestry or clan http://bansa.org/dictionaries/pam/?dict_lang=pam&type=search&data=dai and in Japanese, I don't know the exact meaning of dai, but it's apparently a title of some sorts, like for example the Japanese empire of WWII was named "Dai Nippon Teikoku".

I believe I already made my point here hehe, needless to say there are infact a lot more that sound alike that I have not listed. Perhaps it is infact purely a local term that coincidentally in chinese means "lesser song empire"...(very clever if it was this way, lol), and hmm I think there is more different definitions of Lusung in Kapampangan, look through the articles there was more listed I believe.--Mangacha (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe in which case, I guess my point, in turn is, it doesn't merit mention here, since it's peripheral at best, and speculative and leading towards unwarranted hypotheses at worst. :D - Alternativity (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Malays used the name Selurong for Luzon instead.. Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kapampangan script

Oh, please, do create the page! :D I've gone as far as to request it at Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Requests#Requested_articles.We do need more articles on indigenous Filipino Culture - Alternativity (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I will be a little busy within a couple weeks to come, but this is definitely a good source for the majority of the article, and a great place to start. (just to let you know that I don't think there are many other sources you can find that has this much amount of information on Kulitan)

http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/11ical/data/11ical_Pangilinan_Assessing_the_current_status_of_the_Kapampangan.pdf

But it will be definitely worth it when this article sees the light ^_^ more filipinos should be aware of filipino scripts other than baybayin, hehe and try practicing our calligraphy system, pretty neat writing system we had.--Mangacha (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dula/Palace

Actually, I'm sitting on a reference myself. Since the title Lakan-dula/Lord of the Palace places such great emphasis on the palace, and it's one of the most interesting descriptions of indigenous architecture I've seen from the 16th century references, I think a section about the Lord Banaw's Palace is called for. I'm trying to find time to do it, though. - Alternativity (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Flag

Two major reasons this was agreed upon (I'm not sure where, it was in one of the precolonial pages, perhaps not here): 1. Upon examining the source and tracing it to the original text, the original text cited did not establish enough details to actually determine that the "flag" did indeed look like that (a red triangle - not, as it appeared on the photo, a red triangle on a white-rectangle background, that last was a doubly unfortunate display error. ) 2. The source also did not distinguish those flags as having any particular representational significance, except that they were displayed on the dula/palace and fortifications. It appears thus that there's a high chance that the reference to the flag as a symbol of that state might be a case of imposing European normative interpretations on a local custom/trait. I will try to find the link to the original link again. - Alternativity (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see then, now I understand, thanks for the clarification, it's good that there are still many who are involved in our history that still wants to keep everything legitimate.--Mangacha (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The map is misleading!

Argh! I just realized this: the map says the territory of the Kingdom of Tondo covers the entirety of the modern Island of Luzon, rather than the precolonial geographical area Lusong. Hm. I'm really not good with images on wikis. Someone want to tend to this? :D It'd take me a bit of a long time to figure out what to do. -Alternativity (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think what we could do is instead of giving a political map version, we could use the image in mike's article showing the land itself in what seems to be an old chinese map marking the kingdom on the island of luzon itself, and it also doesn't say anything about it spanning across the whole island :P personally I think it's our best bet for now.--Mangacha (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

King Sukwu

Interesting find by Mike Pangilinan, you can see it here in his group.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-pangilinan/%E6%9C%94%E9%9C%A7-%E5%91%82%E5%AE%8B%E5%9C%8B%E7%8E%8B/10150241687588152

"According to the Dongxi Yanggao (東西洋考) or A study of the Eastern and Western Oceans, in the 15th year of the Ming Emperor Yongle (永樂十五年: 1417), the Kingdom of Luzon (呂宋國) was ruled by a king (呂宋王) named Sukwu (朔霧) or "northern mist"."

"Acknowledgement: Thanks to Professor Kitano Hiroaki and Richard Andrew Paredes for the help in translation. Reference: 東西洋考 (A study of the Eastern and Western Oceans) [Original Chinese Texts] Kobe University Library Website: http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/directory/sumita/5A-161/index.html"

The link to the facebook group shows the han characters that tell this. We must add this know known ruler to the list of rulers of this kingdom, infact, the list present already is very misleading, disorganized, and must be corrected and fixed. Sulaiman/Mura was the rajah of Maynila...

--Mangacha (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding King Sukwu to the list of Kings, as it does explain the gap between the King who ended in 1420? and then another who started in 1430? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangacha (talk • contribs) 07:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, looks like good work, Mangacha! :D I'd like to express my appreciation. I've been busy the last few months. I'll do what I can to help further as soon as I free up. :D - Alternativity (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

References for notable rulers section

Hi folks, can we please start adding references to the "notable rulers" section, please? Personally, I'd like to see us start making articles out of those names, based on the references, and if we wish to do so, we need to know what the references are. :D Thanks! :D - Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lusung was NOT a Sultanate

Do you see any mention of a "Sultan" anywhere? Was there a ruler who took this title? No? Ok, then don't label this kingdom a Sultanate. Sulu down south is a Sultanate, not old Lusung.--LakanBanwa (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a final solution: from "Kingdom" to "Polity"

As you can see, most of the arguments on this page so far have concerned whether ancient Tondo ought to be called a "Kingdom", "Empire", "State", "Mandala", "Sultanate", and so forth. This has been ongoing because of the need to avoid anachronistic references to the Westphalian system. As a more permanent solution, I am proposing to move (as per wp:be bold) this article to "Tondo (historical polity)". I'm aware that ancient Tondo has often been referred to as a "Kingdom" in the past, but scholarship simply does not support the use of this western phrase, and the use of the term is not so universal that the use of a more accurate term would be counterindicated. On the other hand, "polity" is a broad enough description that it in no way undersells the power that these ancient states had relative to their neighbors. I'm performing the move within 48 hours unless there are objections supported by appropriate academic sources. In the meantime, I'm leaving this note here as a request for discussion and a call for any objections. Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Given there are still objections to "Polity" in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines, I'll just go with generic "Historical Entity". I don't think the "Kingdom" anachronism should be allowed to be here much longer. FYI, all. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternativity, I don't see what's so "western" about the word "kingdom", nor any problem with the use of the word "kingdom".

It's not "unscholarly" because that is exactly what the Ming annals referred to this state. If you have a problem with it, you can consult the Ming dynasty, lol.

LakanBanwa (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the English word Kingdom could be considered "western". According to Etymonline, its root, king is a late Old English contraction of cyning "king, ruler" (also used as a title), from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz (source also of Dutch koning, Old Norse konungr, Danish konge, Old Saxon and Old High German kuning, Middle High German künic, German König). By the same reasoning, Polity (1530s, from Middle French politie (early 15c.) or directly from Late Latin polita "organized government") could also be characterized as "western". Were these "Ming annals", with Ming dynasty authorship between 1368 and 1644, written in English or Chinese? Would their authorship have predated the introduction of both of these terms into the English language? Excuse my lack of scholarliness -- I'm no scholar.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Calling, Alternativity, Wtmitchell, LakanBanwa. This page has been moved to Tondo Dynasty. This page has been move with the rationale that this "kingdom" is "not just a small polity". A polity can be of any size as per its Wikipedia article. Any thoughts.203.215.120.182 (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Strongly Object for two major reasons.

• FIRST: A dynasty, as per the appropriate wiki page, "is a sequence of rulers from the same family, usually in the context of a feudal or monarchical system..." What this Tondo article describes is a state. A sovereign entity. "State" and "dynasty" are two different categories altogether.
• SECOND: the old phrasing never implied that Tondo was small, so what exactly needs to be corrected? The entire point was that the phrase used be neutral, because we don't have any objective documentation on precisely how big Tondo was. And even if we had that data, we still wouldn't have a point of reference. Large relative to WHAT exactly?
• AN ADDITIONAL NOTE: it seems to me from this comment that the reason monarchial references (Dynasty being a term mostly associated with Monarchies) keep popping up in this article is the misconception that the main implication of the term "kingdom" is that the state being described somehow has a greater size, importance, or prominence. The problem is that "kingdom" and "monarchy" also have implications in terms of the power structure between the ruler and the ruled - power structures defined largely from a eurocentric perspective. This wrongly frames this luzonian state from a european point of view.

Having said all that, I seriously believe "Tondo Dynasty" is objectively wrong enough that it needs to be corrected. So I'm moving the page to Tondo (historical state). We can continue to discuss here, but I think Dynasty is just too off-tangent for the article not to be moved. We should continue to discuss whether this terminology is appropriate, but I'll move the page there because at the very least, as far as I can tell, the term is neutral.- Alternativity (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kingdom of Tondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060906084511/http://www2.seasite.niu.edu/tagalogdiscuss/_disc2/000006b3.htm to http://www2.seasite.niu.edu/tagalogdiscuss/_disc2/000006b3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2016

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: While a move may be in order, there hasn't been a clear consensus on a target for a week. Consider a different venue (such as Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Unstable article titles of pre-colonial polities) to discuss (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Tondo (historical state) → Tondo dynasty – Concise. The parentheses are unnecessary to disambiguate it to Mondern Tondo, Manila which is a district of the city. The term "Kingdom of..." sounds more natural and normal. See also Talk:Seludong#Requested move 28 July 2016. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC) --Suggested target was changed 4 days ago. Allow a bit more time — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the article was moved to current title due to issues with eurocentrism of the old article title. I personally would think that "Kingdom of Tondo" is its common name in history books given that most of our historians have been Westerner of western educated.--RioHondo (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, I think it would be better if the article is renamed "Tondo dynasty" instead, which may be less-eurocentric but still a natural alternative. The wording of the article should be revised though if it would be renamed as "Tondo dynasty" (describing it as a dynasty that ruled parts of Luzon). Similar to approach to the dynasties of China. See Ming dynasty and an excerpt of the Tondo dynasty from Google books to get the idea of what I'm proposing.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While I support neutrality of our article titles here, im not sure that that title "Tondo dynasty" would be WP:RECOGNIZABLE to our readers, given that not a lot of history books referred to it as such. Compare on Google Books:

Tondo dynasty: 6 results

Dynasty of Tondo: 6 results

VS.

Kingdom of Tondo: 246 results

Tondo Kingdom: 193 results

--RioHondo (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a commonname. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Unstable article titles of pre-colonial polities to try to settle this naming issue of historical polities. IMO, it would be better to discuss this visavis other polities so we can come to a more stable title for these articles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tondo (historical state). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Coast/7446/Ragam.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.academia.edu/4023298/II._PHILIPPINES_IN_ANCIENT_TIMES. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 15:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

References and Historiography

I believe the lack of discipline in historiography of Tondo history should be addressed and acknowledged properly. Unfortunately, this kingdom produced very few historical records nor archaeological evidences, for historians to work from. No tangible temples, palace, artifacts or stone inscriptions other than Laguna Copperplate. As the result, I read some parts of this article sounds like a story bordering speculations, POV or even original research. It is important to provides well-referenced materials to back-up statements or argument. Thank you. Gunkarta  talk  12:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Majapahit liaison

I've worked quite extensively on Indonesian history articles, including Majapahit. Unlike Tondo, Majapahit produces quite a lot of historical records, artifacts, temples and archaeological sites. I came across the mutual interest in Nagarakretagama canto 14 that mentioned "Saludung" as part of the empire, which of course must be aproached wisely, without using strong words like "enslaved" whatsoever. The nature of Majapahit suzerainty relation is more complex than it seems, as many historians argue about it and not all pursued by force. Plus there is a Chinese source that mentioned Sulu pirates raided Brune and repelled by Majapahit forces. Let's stick to these available facts shall we, instead of adding or "constructing" story around this events which might bordering speculations, POV or OR. Plus, there is not enough source mentioned about Majapahit vs Tondo war (Battle of Manila (1365)), which might not take place at all. The criticism of Nagarakretagama as a eulogy that might not be neutral has been well addressed, yet it is currently an available source, but to condemned the manuscript as "mythical" is equally not accurate at all. Please write in encyclopedic style, less novel-like POV. Thank you. Gunkarta  talk  12:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2016

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 to Kingdom of Tondo  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Tondo (historical state) → Old Tondo – Natural, common name, concise. This is more parralel with the term "ancient barangay" which is related and is from the same cultural era. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• comment I think old tondo is little confusing since the district of manila which is previously the capital did not called new tondo . I suggest why don't we call it Ancient Tondo to be neutral, but its not bad to be called kingdom of tondo since it was really a kingdom, an indianized kingdom mandala. (180.191.79.145 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
• Support rename to Ancient Tondo, which is in fact the original title of the article. Old Tondo could still be ambiguous as it could mean an old area of the district, or a description of what Tondo is, an old district. Whereas Ancient Tondo is more specific as it solely refers to a historical Tondo or Tondo of an ancient era.--RioHondo (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: Another possible title is Kingdom of Tondo. See #Discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Kingdom of Tondo as Category:Former_countries_in_Southeast_Asia In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Move to Kingdom of Tondo. Looking further at the previous RM, there's evidence there that this is the most common name. And as IIO points out, it's far from the only kingdom in its category. Andrewa (talk)
• Support Kingdom of Tondo, evidently the most common name for the subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The article was moved from Kingdom of Tondo in one of many undiscussed page moves, this one with the edit summary To avoid the anachronistic reference to the Westphalian system; removing the term "Kingdom" from the article title. That's no valid rationale, but rather a POV that is in direct violation to our article title policy.

The only previous move discussion at #Requested move 14 August 2016 contains the claim that Kingdom of Tondo is the common name. If that's true, then that's a prima facie case for moving it back there. Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2016 (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.

No sources for supposed "Lakandula's Flag"

There's a LOT of ideologically-linked speculation on this page, right now, but this one is the most visible. There are NO definitive sources for any such "Flag of Lakandula," so the image displayed here is speculative at best, misleading at most. First of all, to my knowledge, there are no visual records of what anything looked like at the time, so we have no definitive proof of what this "flag" looked like. Legaspi? Riquel? de Levazaris? the anonymous other Chronicler?) Second, last I checked there are no definitive accounts that clearly mark this banner out to be any kind of political representation (aka "flag"). Third, even if the accounts describe a banner of some sort, you're going to have to show me the actual text before you convince me (or for that matter any scholar worth his mettle) that the description is thorough enough (length, width, shade of red, angle of the lines, etc) for us to develop a definitive image of the banner just based on the text. This image does NOT pass Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, let alone the basic standards of historical scholarship. - Alternativity (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• The red flag or red banner was the typical symbol of the Kingdom of Rajah Lakandula (Lacandola for the spaniards), this color follows the traditional colors adopted by the ancient rulers of the Ancient kingdoms of the filipino area.

In his account on the first expedition in Manila, Montero y Vidal * wrote :" During the battle Rajah Lacandola hoisted a white flag on his house as a sign of the fact that the action of his nephew was without his consent ." Montero y Vidal, Historia General de Filipinas, vol. I p. 36 .

• Actually Another flag of tondo was created during the Reign of Sulayman I (which a puppet muslim ruller) he created a Rectangular red flag . Its an another Indeginous flag (JournalmanManila (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

WAIT. What you're describing is not heraldry. It's communication. What Vidal described is a flag only in a Physical sense. Nothing in that reference says it REPRESENTS Tondo. Represents the INTENT of Lakandula, MAYBE. But Tondo? NOPE. A little care for historical nuance please? Please please please? - Alternativity (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, please note that this discussion would be much easier if we all simply cite our sources. We can dispute the texts based on the text themselves, not on popular conceptions or speculation. I know, it takes a lot of work. But come ON, a good wikipedian will sometimes spend weeks looking for a scholarly source before I make an edit. Please respect WP:SOURCES. - Alternativity (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: the Flag of the Qing (a Dragon) Dynasty does not represents China but the Emperor itself (dragon is the standard of the Emperor) , Spirit banner of Ikh Mongyol Ulus (or Mongol Empire) does not represent Mongolia either but Tengri and their Khan itslef And to SIGNAL calvary troops. it goes also for tondo and Banao Dula is their Lakan Simple. (JournalmanManila (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

• • Not simple. Simplistic. Unscholarly. And in this case, FALSE. - Alternativity (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Map is speculative and anachronistic

And here's yet another one: As far as I can tell, this map was created by identifying the places that were supposedly under the domain of Tondo (let's talk about sources for THAT some other time), and then creating boundaries for Tondo based on the MODERN borders of these territories. Which is inaccurate and speculative at best, misleading at most. The fact is, we do NOT know what the boundaries look like, and we are NOT justified in adding a map to this page. At the very least, this map requires sources. More likely, it ought to be deleted. - Alternativity (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think the Mapping is allowed , since the Places that tondo had been in controlled are stated clearly From illocandia - bikolandia see the map of Namayan which is also having a clear statements about its borders And Its clear that the tondo was a large kingdom Contrary to the beliefs of the "orthodox" about Polity - tribesman theories On the other hand , I observing that some of orthodox rejecting the "Kingdom" term but they accept the Polity tribesman (were just a bunch of tribes) Polity is another western term, But Kingdom is accepted in the different Asian wikipages as a generic. And again map is not anachronistic since the places are mentioned so clear.

(JournalmanManila (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

The places may have mentioned (please cite a source for EVERY fact you add!), but their boundaries were not. A list of covered areas is fine, but this is a MAP, which is visual, which means it contains data about BOUNDARIES of these areas, which is SPECULATIVE. We have no idea where the boundaries of these territories were. Maybe this level of popular interpretation is acceptable at a high school history level. It LOOKS cool. But DAGNABBIT, this kind of speculation perpetuates misconceptions that lead beginning researchers into WILD GOOSE CHASES when they get started in the field. This is why we have rules like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. We DO NOT KNOW what we DO NOT KNOW. - Alternativity (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• And its not an original research , its not against WP:OR since its in stated under the sources approved in wiki standards, See the following map that it may falls on your complaints :
• Namayan and the Map ideas are simply as that , And we can now have an idea where it borders in the places are had been traced back.

Another example is Majapahit Actually theirs no Sources about where it was really borders (Due to the place change its names and boundaries)if you talking about it . But since the Indonesians already knows the locations of cities and territories under controlled of the majapahit they can made a mappings for Majapahit empire and Look how big the majapahit was! , its also falls in the into WILD GOOSE CHASES if you call it like that , Simple .(JournalmanManila (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC))

Mentioning about Majapahit map, actually the animated gif map is based on its svg map plus the order of campaigns launched by Majapahit according to history books, which was quite well-referenced from numbers of sources (student textbooks and historical atlas). Btw, it was not defined by borders, but more likely the expansion of realm of influences. Thanks for reminding me to put the same source in its gif map. So it was not an OR, speculations, fictions nor wild goose chase. Compared to Tondo, Majapahit has a better established studies and richer sources, from ancient manuscripts Pararaton and Nagarakretagama and Ming China's Yingyai Shenglan, to modern history books based on them. Which bring us to a major problem in this Tondo article, its historiography, which I think is lack in discipline and some might bordering speculations. See this talkpage subsection #References and Historiography I've addressed previously. I suggest editors to scramble to find reliable sources and references. Student history textbook is a good place to start, I urge you not to use blogs or unreliable sites. While trying not to "invent" or add anything unreliable, and removing speculations and unsupported claims. Gunkarta  talk  20:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• • i think we can have a Task force if its possible, for about Dongdu or Tundun accuracy, if only we have some special can i say "contibute for the Improvement for tondo" and @ User talk:Gunkarta If you can find a good sources and contributions (along with ph wikipedians), That will be a great help me either idont want to be fall to a fallse speculations but before this article have some improvements, these Tondo are almost Few info to a "Neglected" page, along with the Archaic states in Philippine history But still in my stand on here ; I believe for is that tondo was a Large Kingdom, Chinese sources often called it Lusong , Not just a Bunch of tribes in a small polity. (JournalmanManila (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

Reliability of 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. If anyone wishes, we could open a new discussion for this at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In the meantime, I'm tagging these references with the appropriate inline tag. - Alternativity (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

About Lakandula Flag

I remove temporarily the Flag for the sake of Neutrality and doubts , since the Members of Ph wikipedia are debating over the Archaic epoch of the Philippine History, for What is the purpose of Lakan dulas flag? . Also To avoid the Slowly splitting of member turn to a Sterotype (orthodox) believers and non orthodox view of history that might be end up to an WP:Edit Warring. Thank you! (JournalmanManila (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 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/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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121194304/http://bibingka.com:80/dahon/lci/lci.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pasay.gov.ph/About
• 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
• 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
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9845/tech.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yifan.net/yihe/novels/history/msqztyz/ms.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Coast/7446/Ragam.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Coast/7446/Ragam.htm

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) 12:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)