This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maynila (historical polity) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people was copied or moved into Kingdom of Tondo with this edit on 2017-08-15. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
:* 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)
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":
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Reference named "Jocano2001":
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help){{
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)
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)
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)