Talk:Maynila (historical polity)

From "Kingdom" to "Polity"

In order to avoid anachronistic references to the Westphalian system, I am proposing to move (as per wp:be bold) this article to Maynila (historical polity) in 48 hours unless there are objections supported by appropriate academic sources. I'm aware that ancient Maynila has often been referred to as a "Kingdom" in the past, but scholarship simply does not support this, and the use of the term is not so universal that the use of a more accurate term would be counterindicated. In the meantime, I'm leaving this note here as a request for discussion and a call for any objections. Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Alternativity. In the spirit of WP:Consistency and WP:Recognizability, i would suggest using terms that people are more familiar with and would align with the rulers' titles here. We have Rajahnate of Cebu and Rajahnate of Butuan for those that were ruled by Rajahs and Sultanate of Sulu and Sultanate of Maguindanao, those that were ruled by Sultans. That makes the article titles simpler and easier to guess, if using their common eurocentric names are an issue. There's the Lakanate and Kedatuan/Datunate? for those that were ruled by Lakans and Datus also (e.g, Kedatuan of Madja-as). Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  But not to the point of inventing words, which would be Original Research? The consensus in the discussion at the Tambayan was that Lakanate is simply not a word. That could change, of course, but until then, on the grounds of WP:NOR, and also for academic reasons,I would feel extremely uncomfortable with "Lakanate". Huh. The consensus on these decisions have to be repeated again and again. I think it's time to mine the old discussions and put all the agreements in one place, so we don't have to constantly repeat these debates. :S - Alternativity (talk)

Oh, also, please note: In light of objections to the non-familiarity of the term "polity" in non-academic circles, the term currently used on the article is "historical entity." I suppose that description is so vague that people might make the initial mistake of thinking this is a Biological entity (an ancient sea monster of some sort, maybe), for the lack of consensus on an acceptable specific word I guess we'll have to live with / tolerate this. - Alternativity (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not able to follow your discussion on Tambayan. I'll settle with whatever consensus you reached in there. Only the current title is kinda , yes vague and also confusing, like is it referring to the historic settlement called Maynila, or the historic state and its government prior to colonization.--RioHondo (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting idea, "settlement." I'm not sure if it's been proposed. Perhaps we should use this as a venue for weighing the pros and cons? I have no objection myself. My primary concern is that the (mis)leading term "kingdom" not be used.- Alternativity (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 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: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Maynila (historical entity) → Seludong – This is to disambiguate the page from modern Manila, also Seludong is the name of the historical state. Natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation as per WP:NCDAB Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Seems reasonable and follows NCDAB.--RioHondo (talk) 04:52, 3 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.

The question of common name

I know this article has been moved recently. But upon review of article links and available sources, and Google books stats between Kingdom of Maynila and Seludong, i think we might have to move this back to its old title following WP:COMMONNAME. The only problem would be the disambiguation. Check this out: Seludong: 260 results vs. Kingdom of Maynila: 1,140 results.--RioHondo (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly Support, following WP:COMMONNAME. Also, my understanding is that Seludong was its name during a very specific time period, and it was called Maynila for the majority of its history. But whichever way, it seems clear to me that this is the archaic state that we all know was called Maynila, with a recognition of the idea that "Seludong" was part of its historical continuity... just as the Province of Quezon was once called the Province of Tayabas. - Alternativity (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Addendum to my vote: The use of the word "Kingdom" is a whole different can of worms. I should state here that while I used to object to this term, I concede to the wisdom of the community, and the application of WP:COMMONNAME. - Alternativity (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The beauty of WP:COMMONNAME is that we don't have to debate whether to call one as a Huangdom/Wangdom, a Kedatuan/Kadatuan, or a Mandala, like with our discussion in Ma-i. This only covers those that need disambiguation though like Maynila and Tondo. We still have to come up with a standard (technical) term description for each in the lead though. :)--RioHondo (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Seludong → Kingdom of Maynila – The article was mistakenly moved to its alternative, albeit much older name, following natural disambiguation which ignored its WP:COMMONNAME as reflected in the article's references. The article had been created under Kingdom of Maynila by Alternativity and remained there for the longest time until changes to its disambiguation were introduced. However, the vast majority of academic sources continue to refer to it as "Kingdom of Maynila" and only few mentions of "Seludong." Kindly refer also to the above discussion and Google Books statistics. RioHondo (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Reasoning by others in favor seems persuasive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. As per my points above. - Alternativity (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 20 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to alternate proposal. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

A parallel (or at least closely related) move at Talk:Kingdom of Tondo has also been proposed. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Concur with the suggestion – Seems reasonable, historically and technically correct. —  Gunkarta  talk  08:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

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

:* Also supporting "Bayan" or "Settlement" as an alternative.- Upon reviewing old proposals, and No such user's comment below, am also supporting Maynila (historical settlement) or Bayan of Maynila or as viable alternatives if Maynila (early Philippine history doesn't work. Although I still think Maynila (historical polity) is the more neutral alternative. Kingdom is just plain academically wrong and misleading.- Alternativity (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Conceding to Rajahnate of Maynila - As per input of No such user and Juliaantengco, I'm conceding to the proposed name of Rajahnate of Maynila. I can't find any academic objection to it, and I'm sure I've seen it in popular use. It's a good, academically/technically sound name that I hadn't thought of before Juliaantengco raised it. Thaaank you. - Alternativity (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. I support the move away from "Kingdom" as a misnomer, but please give as a sane disambiguator. What's wrong, for example, with "Bayan of Maynila"? No such user (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Support Rajahnate of Maynila proposed below. No such user (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move - Because "Kingdom" as a misnomer, but I suggest Rajahnate of Maynila instead. Tondo is a complicated case, so Tondo (historical settlement) is an okay compromise there. - Juliaantengco (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that the term "kingdom" is wrong when dealing with the political make-up of precolonial Manila and the more apt term would be "Rajahnate" since Manila was ruled by a rajah.-Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• Closing comment: It is IMO borderline whether current detailed guidelines support this move, but we have a strong consensus that it will improve Wikipedia and a precedent as well, so I think it should proceed, and perhaps the guidelines should reflect this new consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Orphaned references in Rajahnate of Maynila

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rajahnate of Maynila's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Odal2000":

• From Tondo (historical polity): Odal-Devora, Grace (2000). The River Dwellers, in Book Pasig : The River of Life (Edited by Reynaldo Gamboa Alejandro and Alfred A. Yuson). Unilever Philippines. pp. 43–66.
• From Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people: Odal-Devora, Grace (2000). Alejandro, Reynaldo Gamboa; Yuson, Alfred A. (eds.). The River Dwellers. Unilever Philippines. pp. 43–66. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Reference named "Jocano2001":

• From Tondo (historical polity): Jocano, F. Landa (2001). Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage. Quezon City: Punlad Research House, Inc. ISBN 971-622-006-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• From Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people: Jocano, F. Landa (2001). Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage. Quezon City: Punlad Research House, Inc. ISBN 971-622-006-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Rajahnate vs Historical polity

I'm a bit surprised by the move away from Rajahnate, which seems to be present enough in the scholarly literature to be considered legitimate. After all, if you move Maynila to this Historical polity category, shouldn't you move Rajahnate of Cebu there too? The only reason Tondo remains in the "Historical polity" category is that there simply isn't a widely accepted term to describe the Tondo settlement's precise political structure. - Alternativity (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Major issues with references to Scott (1994)

Apologies if this isn't the right way to do this, I'm new to Wikipedia. However, having recently read the second source listed for this article, William Henry Scott's Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society (1994), there are a lot of claims in this article that use this book as its source incorrectly. I give two examples here:

Firstly, the introduction to the page suggests that "The earliest oral traditions suggest that Maynila was founded as a Muslim principality in as early as the 1250s, supposedly supplanting an even older pre-Islamic settlement. However, the earliest archeological findings for organized human settlements in the area dates to around 1500s", attributing both of these sentences to Scott. On the contrary, Scott says: "The chiefdom of Manila, located in the present Intramuros district, was probably founded as a Bornean trading colony about 1500, with a royal prince marrying into the local ruling family" (p. 191). Scott makes no mention of oral traditions or a 1250s Muslim principality. The book uses as its empirical basis Spanish accounts of encounters with Filipinos as well as Spanish dictionaries of Philippine languages; it would be strange to include oral sources. Similarly, he makes no mention of archeological findings relating to the 1500s settlement, as archeological findings are rarely if ever brought up in the book.

Secondly, under Economic Activities:

"Scott observes that while the port of Tondo had the monopoly on arriving Chinese merchant ships, it was Manila's fleet of trading vessels which in turn retailed them to settlements throughout the rest of the archipelago, so much so that Manyila's ships came to be known as "Chinese" (sinina)."

and

"The most lucrative of Tondo's economic activities involved the redistribution of Chinese goods, which would arrive in Manila bay through Tondo's port and be distributed throughout the rest of the archipelago, mostly through Maynila's extensive shipping activities."

These claims are also repeated on the separate page Tondo (historical polity), with the same source.

As far as I can see, pages 207-209 contain the only mentions of trade in Tagalog areas, and while Manila is named as the main entrepot in the archipelago, there is no mention of its primary role in the distribution of these goods to the rest of the Philippine archipelago, and the monopoly established by Tondo is not mentioned at all. Here is what Scott has to say: "At the time of Spanish advent, Manila was the main entrepot in the archipelago: here exports were accumulated and imports redistributed. A few of these goods were carried in Luzon bottoms to or from Borneo, Malacca, Atje, and the Moluccas, but most of them were handled by foreign merchants - Malay, Bornean, Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, or Cambodian, even Portuguese" (p. 207). The impression given here is not that Maynila's shipping activities were the main drivers behind the trade of foreign goods around the Philippine archipelago, but rather that a large amount of foreign merchants in combination with a few local ones bought and sold goods from many different places (not just China/Japan) in Maynila and shipped them abroad to those same places. It certainly doesn't support the idea of a Tondo monopoly.

Scott only mentions Chinese trade ships once specifically: "The Chinese sent annual junks direct to the Philippines" (p. 207). This does not support the idea that Maynila controlled the trade of Chinese goods throughout the Philippine archipelago, or that Tondo had a monopoly on Chinese trading ships.

I hope that I am mistaken and that somebody will be able to produce quotes from Scott's book that support the claims in this article, or find another, correct source for them. Perhaps they are from his 1982 book, which I have not read. As it is now, I have serious doubts about the validity of any of the claims written in this article. Ideally, every reference in the article would be fact-checked. I'm not sure what the usual course of action is here, perhaps somebody can help me out by marking these claims in the correct way or removing them if appropriate. SEA enthusiast (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)