Talk:Luzon Empire

message: The article is obviously thoroughly researched and draws from Filipino, Chinese and Spanish sources. But several elements in it would leave the impression to the reader that the "Luzon Empire" is of Chinese origin, or a Chinese colonial outpost. These elements include the copious usage of the Chinese name of Luzon, the several illustrations drawn from Chinese history or Chinese culture, and the "Further information" links to the respective histories of the Ming and Song Dynasties. But reading the article in its current form, it does not establish that the Luzon Empire was a Chinese creation. At most, it states that "Zhang Shijie's fleet and the last Song emperor may have escaped to pre-colonial Philippines and established the Luzon Empire...", which admittedly is merely a conjecture. However, the "Origins" section gives greater weight to the collapse of the Song Dynasty and Zhang Shijie than the possibility that the establishment of the communities and governments in Luzon at that time had nothing to do with the Chinese. That leads to a highly weighted suggestion that the Luzon Empire derives from China. 
The rest of the article establishes that prior to the 1520s, China and its leaders perceived that there was a Luzon Empire, and dealt with it accordingly. Fair enough. But the article would be more balanced if it gives greater consideration to how the inhabitants of Luzon perceived their own culture, government or political structure. Without that native perspective, the impression left is that the people of Luzon viewed themselves in exactly the same way as the the Chinese or Japanese saw them.
The perspective from which Philippine pre-Hispanic history is taught in the Philippines is vastly different from that which informs the article, as it is more similar in tone and viewpoint as presented in the History of the Philippines (pre-1521) entry. I'm not going to insist that the local viewpoint is more accurate than a foreign one (per WP:NPOV). But it is a sensitive matter for many Filipinos to insinuate that Filipino pre-Hispanic society was somehow subservient to a foreign government or kingdom. The article does not go that far, but the use of too many non-Filipino elements (the pictures, the Japanese or Chinese characters, etc) may lead to that impression. I hope that subsequent edits to the article will keep these views in mind. Anyo Niminus (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspective

message: 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 Lower Song Dynasty. Alternativity (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if "strong and speedy" are really valid, but I'd certainly support a regular Merge. LordAmeth (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Does anyone want to do the honours? _dk (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: He has been given enough time and notification. Now, is there someone with an adequate knowledge of the history of Philippines willing to do the merge? _dk (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I was astonished to read about the existence of the Luzon Empire myself, though I don't think it's necessary at all to get emotionally uptight about a mere existence of a Chinese-based culture on the islands way back in pre-colonial times. I think there are striking unmistakable similarities between the so-called Mongoloid-type people of the Asian mainland and the Filipino people, not just in physical appearances, but culturally as well. I don't think this article was started by a Chinese national, but why would it matter anyways?  This should be an objective retrospective of true historical events, and certainly can use additional expert knowledge on the events and evidences that support what are described as circumstantial and conjecture.
I'd recommend "Luzon Empire" remain as its own article, or at least a stub, as this subject will cetainly be expanded upon in the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.160.36 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of this culture is not in question. The problem is the claim that Luzon originated from Song remnants of the Battle of Yamen, which is based on dubious sources (a blog). _dk (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an article/subject that can stand on its own and can be expanded upon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Name of merged article

message: This talk page section is for discussion of contradictions between the Luzon Empire and Ancient Tondo articles indicated by the  tags placed on the articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with another article 

message: I'm going to the library to check sources and attributions against the claims in this article. Anything I can't source is going to have to be removed, since it's all offline and in Chinese, Portugeuse and Spanish. I can read Chinese (classical is tougher) and Spanish and make my way in Portuguese, but I encourage anyone else who has access to a major library with research access to help out.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My wife reads classical Chinese fluently. Drop me a message on my talk page if you need any help with the classical Chinese. lk (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing Check