Talk:Miguel López de Legazpi

message: I don't know which is more correct, or if both are, but shouldn't his name in the article's title at least be spelt the same way as the name used in the article contents? I'm not sure whether to make a redirect or to correct the spellings in the article. --Migs 05:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legaspi vs. Legazpi 

message: It also says'in the "archives" of Indies in Spain, that Legazpi "died a poor man with a few pesos found in his personl belongings" after his death, and this is because he spent all of his fortunes for the conquest of the Philippines, such as continuosly buying weapons, hiring soldiers, horses, and foods. He had to payoff his soldiers for their long period of service between 1564-1572, the natives and the labourers who worked for him. Gonzalo  2:28 p.m, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Even if such a quote is in the archives, I question its accuracy.  Was he not the governor of the province?  Was not the province successful and profitable to the Crown and several commercial ventures?  is it likely he was savvy enough to be governor and not have an ownership interest in land or trading ventures?  If he were truly a poor governor of a successful venture, how did he support his family back in Mexico City?  Did he abandon them?  I find it unlikely that he was financially indigent and yet remained in the Philippines. Do not governors or similar positions earn a substantial salary and support?  While his cash-in-hand at death may have been little or nothing (especially after any household staff made off with what they could), it is very likely he had substantial asset ownership rights.  In other words, I find it likely he was "cash poor and asset rich".  It would be interesting to confirm any of this and find out who took over any of his assets upon death.  In the absence of of confirmation of his actual ownership and wealth, the fact alone that he was governor of a successful venture makes me question the accuracy of stating he was truly a "poor man".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Died poor and bankrupt 

message: "The Spanish burnt over a thousand years of history, and looted idols in the images of Buddhist and Hindu Gods[dubious – discuss] in gold and made it a part of the Spanish Treasury. The church tricked their new flock into giving their golden idols up by deeming them "sacrilegious" or, if met by resistance, brought the Inquisition's torture on those who are stubborn enough to resist the influence of the Catholic Church/Spain. Aside from baptizing the natives by force and giving them Christian names, the islands had also been renamed to "Filipinas" in honor of King Philip II (Felipe in Spanish). Thus, successfully eliminating a thousand years worth of culture that even surpassed the Spanish's barbaric past as Vandals[dubious – discuss]"
This section contains many many dubious statements, and claims that violate the policy established on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; such as claiming that one culture "surpassed" another.
The section referring to the looting of "idols in the images of Buddhist... gods" clearly shows a fundamental lack of understanding for Buddhist theology. The closest equivilant in Bhuddism for gods are devas, which differ from gods in many ways (for example they are not immortal, omnipotent, and do not create/shape the universe in their theology).
It is practically common knowledge that the Visigoths' kingdom in Spain was destroyed during the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. The Vandals did not establish a permanent kingdom in Spain, but rather moved through it to sack Roman cities in North Africa. The Visigoths established a kingdom in Spain, but it was destroyed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianc26 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  No one else has commented and so I have deleted the more dubious and editorializing bits. --Bruce Hall (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

text: here, I've removed some more unsupported material and I've removed the  tag. This material had its origin in this block of unsupported POV additions. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of "Role of Religion in the Expedition" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miguel López de Legazpi. 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/20160304201139/http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-1.html to http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. Just a heads up to fellow editors, there are several issues on the section regarding Legaspi in Maynila (1571) which need to be addressed.  But these are somewhat complicated and will require careful re-reading of sources, so they'll take time.  
* First, present scholarship eschews the name "Bambalito," instead identifying him only as the unnamed ruler from Makabebe.  Another more common name is Tarik Sulayman, which is the current title of his wiki article.  Bambalito was a derogatory Spanish term with which the early chroniclers described him. Perhaps what exactly to call him calls for further discussion, but the scholarship generally agrees that he shouldn't be called Bambalito.
* Second, and perhaps more critically, the article seems to conflate the Battle of Maynila (1570) with the Battle of Bankusay Channel (1571).  The first involved only De Goiti vs Sulayman, while Legaspi himself was already present for the second. In fact, the article says that the Macabebe leader started traveling downriver in late 1570, and arrived in Manila to do battle with Legaspi in mid 1571. Er... I can't tell if that's supposed to be a long river, or really slow boats. :P
* On a third note, I feel we should be really really careful about the sources used in that section.  Many of the early 20th century textbooks which describe this era (Zaide, etc, and the textbooks and magazines that copied from him) heavily dramatized their accounts, to the point of adding fictional details.  This is why so many texts mistakenly conflate Bambalito with Rajah (not Tarik) Sulayman.  Our sources should probably be either the more recent ones (roughly after 1980) published by credible publishers (academic ones like UP or Ateneo or the UofHawaii, or established ones like Anvil or New Day).
That's it for now. I'll try to do edits on my own as well, but I'm busy and others may want to get started on these fixes before I do. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarik Sulayman and the 1570 Battle of Manila vs 1571 Battle of Bankusay Channel 

message: The several mentions of Old Ache in the Luzon and the capture of Manila section of the article are confusing. I looked at the source linked in the supporting cite {) and that did not resolve the confusion. Old Ache is apparently a nickname for Rajah Sulayman (called Rajah Soliman in this article), and I see in the article on him says
All of that is also a bit confusing, especially "Young Rajah" in comparison to "Old Ache". I don't know enough about this to understand it as presented here, much less to try to make it clear for others who might be as confused as I over it. Could someone who knows more about this than I please clarify this in the article(s)? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old Ache", Rajah Soliman, etc. 

message: The Panay and Mindoro section says, "López de Legazpi transferred to Panay town on the island of Panay, where they were peacefully welcomed by the people in the Kedatuan of Madja-as." This somewhat disagrees with the Kedatuan of Madja-as article, which says, "Like the Maragtas and the Code of Kalantiaw, the historical authenticity of the confederation is disputed, [...]". This was added without support in slightly different form by an anon in this 2014 edit. This should be reconciled/clarified. (updated) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted by anonymous editor several years ago. The cited reference makes no mention of it.  I have gone ahead and deleted it. Glendoremus (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kedatuan of Madja-as