Talk:Tondo (historical polity)

message: Who is the Raja king that supposed to Lead the battle against the Muslim Bruneian empire? Supposed to be Gambang or Lontok (1430-1450), Even Dayang Kalangitan. (1450-1515)(JournalmanManila (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another flaw... 

message: May i remind everyone to review or check the sources before conducting a deletion in a particular section  And even check the Citations before you delete the entire infobox WP:VERIFIABILIY (Theseeker2016 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The map: :File:Tondov.2.png has references. Jim1138 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Unnecessary Deletions  

message: There is no justification in citing a book that cites a Wikipedia article. For example, this book is cited:
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=sY7EBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=kingdom+of+tondo&source=bl&ots=fJ3K8tTeob&sig=waGJLIKTI0NLMiv4K3ssKFMoqBk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ74W_1ebRAhUBkJQKHSnqDxI4ChDoAQgmMAU#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20tondo&f=false
Stop citing this book. You can't cite a book that cites Wikipedia. It doesn't make any sense. Theseeker2016. Stricnina (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were sources on those information based on LCI (a 900 AD doccuments mentioned the names of ministers and rulers mentioned) , and some books based on the works of , Inquirer,  Anton Podsma , Nick Joaquin and Jaime F. Tiongson, W.H. Scot,  Luis Camara Dery, by Grace Odal Devora, IIRC and Ambeth Ocampo. and supported by the Documents regarding the India (Sanskrit) Chinese influence (from Chinese / and Spanish accounts) (WP:Verifiability)  and also the what you called Blogs(although it had a backed sources support with the anthropologist/researchers i mentioned) are reliable for secondary and tertiary sources! other than the Artifacts of uniform cultures in Luzon (Except Pangasinan (Caboloan)). So Why I will refrain ? even the reliable sources are not reliable for User:Stricnina. As of you , i think its a type of Personal (the way you removing infobox in the page without consent or any reason is a form of  Violation , Personal views cannot be accepted here in wikipedia)  hope you understand. to remind you all that wikipedia is not a democracy. indeed its academic.  (Theseeker2016 (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Theseeker2016, it appears most of the sources specifically mentioned in this section ARE NOT ACADEMIC. Stop being mentally dense and understand what I'm talking about. I've read works from W.H. Scott and Ambeth Ocampo and no one amongst them mentioned Rajah Alon or personal union with Namayan or the expansion of the Kingdom of Tondo to Ilocos and Bicol. In the future, I'll be deleting unverified claims and might actually add new content. I can't do it right now because we're in the Easter holidays. Stricnina (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  I am not against the LCI, Theseeker2016. I am specifically against SPECULATIONS from blogs from GLOBALSECURITIES written by anonymous people. Stop being mentally dense and understand what I'm talking about. Half the citations in this webpage are UNREACHABLE sites, personal blogs from anonymous authors and low-quality content. I want scholarly sources from people who spent the rest of their PhD years researching Philippine history. Please read again all the sources I've SPECIFICALLY mentioned here and you'll notice they are webpages with unverified content. Stricnina (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  But i see you before, i warned you three times (along with the other editors)if you want to remove the dubious facts why you dont just remove it alone? not the entire infobox without any reason? in that infobox their are parts of it contain the ACADEMIC and PEER-REVIEWED sources so removing the infobox without any consent is a violation so that's why i said read the entire sources before we remove anything so its not a dense mentality(11:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  Right now I'm only removing the specific dubious content (not entire sections) and I'm tagging the statements without proper citations. Theseeker2016, I am only going to remove the specific parts of the webpage with no PROPER sources from W.H. Scott, Nick Joaquin, Ambeth Ocampo, Jocano and friends. I'm also going to suggest you to stop removing the tags I'm putting on every dubious sentence, phrase or content of this webpage. This article is appalling with all the unverifiable sources or sources from blogs without proper academic backup. Stricnina (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  Right now i will help to check the References of these clean ups so i must see if the removed sources are valid or not? (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Take note Manila Bulletin is a news paper,and news Paper is a form of RELIABLE sources as long it had a related topics (like  i.e History of particular topics) on its Content (WP:Verifiability), And until the "proper" WP:CONSENSUS, removing main parts  are violation. thank you! .(Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Take note, Theseeker2016 and friends: unreachable sites ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. Everything here that uses 404 sites as sources will be deleted in the absence of further verification. This webpage is appalling and every contributor in this Wikipedia article should have noticed it by now. Stricnina (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TheSeeker2016 and friends should REFRAIN from undoing edits. Thank you. 

message: Ughk. Forgive me for ranting, but this incessant promoting of fringe theories and rejection of scholarly neutrality (as expresed in Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy) is really getting on my nerves.  
We just went through the whole nine yards of disproving(Scott, '84; Go '05) that Tondo was politically dependent on China.  Now people are trying to make it look like Tondo was somehow a subject of India (Which is ridiculous because no thassalocratic empire of that period the naval capabilities necessary to project their political power THAT far)? 
Aren't the universally-acknowledged (but indirect! see Scott, 84; Scott, '94; Potet '13; Jocano '01; Go '05) political influence of the Southeast Asian thassalocracies enough?  
What is this obsession with being slaves to some empire?!?! What is this refusal to acknowledge the scholar-acknowledged consensus that these were fully indpendent political entities (Scott, 84; Scott, '94; Potet '13; Jocano '01; Go '05; Alejandro '04; Harper '04; Odal-Devora '04) with their own fully-formed although foreign-influenced cultures and economies? Why this willingness to swallow contemporary propaganda? And why do today's edits in particular make it sound as if anitism/animism is somehow inferior to Hinduism and Buddhism? 
I'm sorry, but given the rejection of academic orthodoxy, these are clear cases of anti-nativist lies, and I have to call this out for what it is, whether the editors concerned realize it or not: imperialist propaganda. - Alternativity (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And before you start citing your supposed "sources", yes I've read them.  And almost without exception they say tehre was  cultural and economic influence (true enough, no debates there), not political or military dependence (which is just so ridiculous scholars don't even bother discussing it).  And whether you like it or not, political or military structural control is what is implied by your insistence on the description "indianized kingdom" in the lead pargraph section. - Alternativity (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Alternativity not as what you think, being part of an greater indian cultural sphere doesn't mean we are a under control ( politically and military)  by the empires around, and its not anti-nativist propaganda as you think , yes we are fully independent polity or kingdom what so ever it was  , But remember, The words from sanskrit and the Rankings of the Maharlika nobility such as Rajah (a sanskrit word for a King) are came from indian /sanskrit word! even maharlika word it self came from Malayo-Sanskrit. proof which we are sharing cultural sphere with our neighbors were not isolated.   that's the way as the Descriptions of the written sources available!  the whole point of those sources weather you like it or not we are being part of Indian and chinese culutural Sphere as what you said By the Influence of our Neighbor and Hindu-buddhist religion are gained prominence in philippine islands and it's not what you think that Animism are inferior, they are contemporaneously existed with Animism. The Laguna Copperplate Inscription is one  the proof of hindu-Buddhist Religion and Culture sphere of india . and that was the sources speaking tho,(Theseeker2016 (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So as what i said Cultural sphere From Burma Thailand Cambodia Indonesia Malaya up to Philippines Even Tibet and Afganstan are Part of the Greater india and that identiy was stick up to roots of Filipinos specially in Tundun (tondo) By Names (in reference in LCI note the names of ministers are mentioned are in sanskrit), food..almost of aspects , That was the gateway to be a Part of greater india Culturaly not the way as you think (As the descriptions of the written records or should i say Scholarly). (Theseeker2016 (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

text: And for the record regarding the way your edit description implies the inferiority of animism. Your edit description said "Tondo is part of the Greater India in Partial influence not only an animist tribe" uses the word "only."  And the word "only", whether you intended it or not, implies  that "animist" is an inferior religion relative to the "Indian infleucnce." Also, "Tondo is part of the Greater India" implies political subjugation because you didn't provide context.  If it says what you claim you wanted it to say, it should have been written like: "Tondo was part cultural sphere influence that [source must be named to show that this is opinion, not directly observable fact] refers to as "Greater India", and India influenced Tondo's religeous culture alongside other beliefs such as animism." - Alternativity (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I do not "think that." I said that YOU implied that (whether you intended to do so, or you were simply not choosing your words carefully). - Alternativity (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  i only speaking according to the acts of users here so not only you but  those  users yes we want all a Scholarly content , but some of the editors are turning to be a hard line (too much).(Theseeker2016 (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  About that grammar, sorry for that was only a shortened rant and wording for what i trying to point out. (13:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This has gone too far. 

message: I see this article has soo many flaws in historiography discipline and perspective. Do we even sure that the 9th century Kingdom of Tondo mentioned in LCI was the same polity as the later 14th century Saludung or Selurong mentioned in Nagarakretagama, also the same as the 16th century Luções, and the same (continuation) of polities in pre-Islamic and pre-hispanic Philippines? Assuming that there was a solid continuous kingdom stretched from 9th century to late 16th century based on soo few evidences is outrageous in historiography discipline. This article has stretch too far by assuming that they were one solid continuous polity/kingdom/dynasty. In my Indonesian history perspective, this error is like assuming (and combining) that 4th century Tarumanagara was continued to 9th century Medang Mataram all the way to 14th century Majapahit, and think of them as one big happy family of continuous kingdom/dynasty, only based on the fact that they are located in the same Java island, in fact they weren't continuous kingdom/dynasty. We should focus and stick to the fact in the name where Tundun in LCI mentioned, and Dongdu from Chinese source. Connection with later polities/entities, may it be Seludong, Maynila, Luções, etc. are discouraged without reliable sources and peer reviewed articles. Gunkarta  talk  13:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming that there was a solid continuous kingdom stretched from 9th century to late 16th century based on soo few evidences Speaking of it , In a broader perspective That was the Lusung(Zaide, Sonia M. The Philippines, a Unique Nation. p. 50)  and the capital/seat of power was Tondo often called Kingdom of Tondo in the most formal way  It self (it also mentioned  in supporting Secondary sources which the Hard line-Mainstreamist removed),  and Majapahit Eulogy of Rajah hayam warchuk -Nagarakretagama have disputed claim, these claim however may be mythical. that the most of the Philippines are under  super lagre kingdom if you based on Indonesian literature. 
And the name Tondo are sanskrit with the elements of Old Tagalog and Old Malay From the LCI so it is possible that its not a Chinese Name Chinese often translated names according to their way of Pinyin which is Dongdu (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And Speaking of Lucoes , Actually, there is scholarly evidence that the Lucoes existed and that they came from Luzon / Lusung. Here's a quote from the University of Hawaii...
Pires [ca. 1500] twice mentions that the junks of the Malays and Javanese were not allowed to proceed to the city of Guangzhou because of the fear in which they were held, but when describing details of the fear in which they were held, but when describing details of the city he adds, "so the Lucoes [Luzons] say who have been there. These Lucoes demand some attention..."They [Luzons] have two or three junks, at most. They take the merchandise to Burney [Brunei] and from there they come to Melaka, . . . The Bruneians go to the lands of the Luzons to buy gold."....The Luzons were in fact the principal Melaka traders to China, which is difficult to understand unless they had brought with them to Melaka some knowledge of Chinese commerce and customs. It seems probable that the Luzon-Brunei connection arose when both centres were rising into commercial significance in consequence of their close connection with China in the early fifteenth century.
- Alilunas-Rodgers, Kristine, and Anthony Reid. Sojourners and Settlers: Histories of Southeast Asia and the Chinese. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai'i Press, 2001, 34-5. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Still, connecting those 9th century Tundun from LCI with 14th century Lusung or Selurong and 16th century Lucoes (spanning seven hundred yearsǃ), and assuming them as a continous kingdom or single entity is kind of a longshot theory bordering history fabrication, by building too much assumption. The sources you've quoted only mentioned Lucoes and their link to inhabitant of Luzon, it mention nothing about Tundun. Still do not understand my logic...? let me elaborate it by presenting one example. In Indonesia the North Sumatran Pannai kingdom has main historiography based from two historical sources that clearly mentioned "Panai", which was 11th century Tanjore Inscription from Southern India and 14th century Nagarakretagama from Java. Both mentioned Pannai or Pane span for 3 centuries (11th to 13th century). Plus actual remnant of Bahal temple ruins near Panai river valley in Sumatra. Thankfully Pannai article only based on this sources. But if some editor pouring other Sumatran polities such as Srivijaya history or later Malayu Dharmasraya into Pannai article and assuming them are one entity or kingdom is a fatal error. And that fashion I think is performed in this article. This article should concentrate only on Tondo or Dungdu. Not to later entities. For sources concerning Lusung and Lucoes, keep them in separate articles as it has been done. -- Gunkarta  talk  13:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: still you don't getting it these are Not even a fabrication , Tondo  or Lusung are existed from c.900 AD - 1588  (LCI and Spanish written records of their conquest) and  it is possible to a kingdom to exist or to spanned in more than a hundred years , And lusones are from luzon Tondo is often called as Lusung and lucoes came the name given by the Portuguese it means "people from Lusung" and one of the name of Tundun are Lusung (Zaide, Sonia M. The Philippines, a Unique Nation. p. 50)  Kingdom of Manila was only founded when the Malay Sultanate of Burnei attacked Tundun in 1500 that was a new entities co-existed with Tundun. in shorter term Lusung or Tundun are a century old contemporaries with Maynila. (Theseeker2016 (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Too few resources (valid references), too many assumption. More references from credible historian please. This page desperately need to be clean up. I had started it with erasing alleged Majapahit connection. Gunkarta  talk  13:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

text: sounds like it was written but its not what really means yes its a desperate clean up like concluding that ph aren't influenced by india and they where isolated (Theseeker2016 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain yourself from editing guerilla by retrieving doubtful section connected to Majapahit. Gunkarta  talk  15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology and the related polities

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 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/20150621051322/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20091011-229561/The-Indian-in-the-Filipino
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205031106/http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm to http://www.mts.net/~pmorrow/lcieng.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141121194304/http://bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/dahon/lci/lci.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Coast/7446/Ragam.htm
*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
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) 09:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just FYI: the long list of alternative names and orthographies has been moved down to their own section (Alternative names and orthographies) as per WP:LEADCLUTTER (aka Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Separate_section_usage ), which states:  ...if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alternative names" moved down to their own section as per WP:LEADCLUTTER 

message: If we're looking at more neutral names, I think the following are our options
* Tondo (historical polity) and Maynila (historical polity)
* Tondo (historical settlement) and Maynila (historical settlement)
* Tondo (historical) and Maynila (historical)
* Tondo (early Philippine history) and Maynila (early Philippine history)
I think we can dismiss "Ancient Tondo", Tondo (Chiefdom), and Tondo (village) for now, unless someone wants to make a strong argument for them.  
Personally I think Tondo (historical polity) is still the academically most acceptable choice; Tondo (early Philippine history) is very long, but maybe it's the most convenient compromise. If the other suggestions don't prevail, I'll propose moves to Tondo (early Philippine history) and Maynila (early Philippine history) in a few hours. Chime in now if you want to add our initial thoughts? Other suggestions are welcome. Please note also that this will be relevant for pages that might be created at a later dates, because there are other similar, significant historical settlements whose names are still in use, such as Pila, Pililla, Taytay, and Cainta.
Thanks everyone! :D - Alternativity (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move names 

message: * Support. Concur with the suggestion – Seems reasonable, historically and technically correct. —  Gunkarta  talk  08:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * Also supporting "Bayan" or "Settlement" as an alternative. Upon reviewing old proposals, and No such user's comment below,am also supporting Tondo (historical settlement) or Bayan of Tondo as viable alternatives if Tondo (early Philippine history doesn't work. Kingdom is just plain academically wrong and misleading. - Alternativity (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I guess Tondo is the one only left problem. At least Maynila (or should I say, Rajahnate of Maynila) has now been resolved thanks to Juliaantengco. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment -Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment -Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment - - more clearly expressing support after reading arguments from other community members - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Proposed Name                                                                                      	Comment/Support/Oppose
Ancient Tondo (currently a redirect, proposed by Parashumara007 and supported above by Darwgon0801)	
* Oppose - Ancient is just too vague, and non-Filipino readers might be confused. A more acceptable version would be Historical Tondo (see below).- Alternativity (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment -Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment -Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment - Shifting support to either Tondo (historical settlement) or Tondo (historical polity) below. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Revising comment - - more clearly expressing support after reading arguments from other community members - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Survey (including other proposed names 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support and comment summarizing previous positions - I have alredy presented extensive arguments regarding the need to rename this page in the various discussions above, so I won't rehash them here. Instead, I'll try to point out that there is enough community consensus that a change is needed, resulting in this request for a move to a page name with more support from the community.  This new proposed move, to Tondo (historical settlement), as discussed above, was initially suggested by Darwgon0801, and was suppprted by Myself, Juliaantengco and Stricnina, who asserted their belief that Kingdom needs to be changed to something else.  Although Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw,  Gunkarta and Amadabecaria expressed support for a slightly different name, they also expressed agreement that Kingdom needs to be changed to something else.  Even the various alleged sockpuppets of JournalmanManila (Parashumara007 and Hunter05 ) have conceded this "need for a more neutral name" at various points in the discussion. In the meantime,  Shhhhwwww!! has expressed disagreement with the need to change the term "Kingdom", but expressed Tondo (historical settlement) as one of the options s/he considers acceptable if indeed a change was to take place. (Please correct me if I misunderstood anybody's position.) Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - The nominator can't support their own nomination. This is simply ballot stuffing.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * It's discouraged and unhelpful, but the closer isn't likely to be misled. Andrewa (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

text: *Comment - As I said above, this being a continuing discussion, I thought I didn't have to repeat my points since I was just taking the next step (proposing a label the community seems to find more acceptable) based on my understanding of the consensus above. (That both Kingdom and "early Philippine history", as proposed, were not acceptable terms.) But okay, I've placed some of my points in the discussion section below.- Alternativity (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

text: *Comment - Responded below, regarding reliable sources on non-use of Kingdom, reflected in reliable sources since approximately the 90s.  Google Books and Googke Scholar hits for historiographers who asserted non-use of the term kingdom (preferring a variety of neutral descriptors, namely: polity; settlement; precolonial; and prehispanic) now outnumber hits for articles that use the term "Kingdom of Tondo". - Alternativity (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *And I've replied at #Please keep it relevant below. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hi. This is to begin a discussion about a previous edit which changed the translation of "Bayan" from "Country" to "Town."  The edit was unsourced, but the translation is itself unsourced, as well.  And I suppose it's good practice to discuss the ins and outs of this translation here.  I reverted the edit on the basis of "Town" being a much more restrictive interpretation of "Bayan", which can also be used to mean mean "Nation."  "Country" seems to me to have the benefit of being a similarly broad term which can apply both to "Town" and "Nation." But I realize it's a matter that deserves discussion, so I'm bringing the matter up here on the Talk page in order to seek consensus.  Anybody want to comment? - Alternativity (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations of Bayan 

message: My concern was :A king without  a monarchy ? (not even a king), because  "the king empire  dynasty  are western anarchonistic etc" while other Contemporary  passed  as kingdoms and Empires" i think these revisions there done by Fil-ams, non Filipinos and other uninformed on this topic ,  even the omissions of the titles like Rajah which means king in Sanskrit. These are rather pushing  "the new theory"  by the grade school level of sugar coated mislead by some of members, while fellow uninformed where goin to accept  these Wikipedia infos edited by mascarading trolls , so More review  and clean up! from the management. 
(Enola gay0 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: hmmm. A feadtherd content. 

message: There are many figurines and idols had been find scattered  in batangas and isla puting bato in tondo  we cannot be surely conclude  about they are pure tagalog religion, some of here we
 say "this is not made by the locals but rather looted" the findings of ancient smelting shop where the proof of local manufacturing. (03:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: religion

message: *these are what happened after a trolls and toxic pinoys collaborate just to undermine  the Philippine history and its very foundations of its cultural  standards. They used word swings just to emphaze professionalism on their pretext as their front to hijack  the accuracy  of the article , with  no wonder Wikipedia as unreliable nowadays, because  Wikipedia had a troll using multiple  acounts and ip's to play with. By disregarding the quality  and accuracy  of a cited source which where against to their preferred  type of information, the clean up should be done here and clarify the stated informations. 
(as i saw an obviously flawed statement  in the infobox, which stated anitism is the only religious beliefs of the tagalog aside on Islam, and hinduism and Buddhism  where just "elements "? syncretistically adopted.
Despite  of the artifacts of Avalokitesvarara  found in batangas and isla puting bato on Tondo itself, this is a clear signs of a revisionist ideas are intentionally placed, to fit accordingly  on their preferred information  to be published,  the editors where avoiding the terms like esoteric form as they where avoided to show evidences  about the existence  of these mainland Asian  regions in Philippine  islands) sort of ultra-austronesian philosophy had been intentionally put on the article. These  where  needed to be correct and clarify.
And the other flaw was the Tondo where just a settlement  of tribes not even had a mornarchy because  terms like these are western, this are the another  type of hypocrisy did by the toxic editors , who playing as a smart guy (but in reality where just arrogant and abusive non Filipinos) which is contrary to Indonesia Thailand Burma and Cambodia  accepted and used the term kingdom and empires. Datus and lakan and rajahs are term for a king or a lord,  a lord and king are possible  signs of a monarchy not a petty tribes. (omitted just to emphasize  the austronesianess).  
(Enola gay0 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the editors done here was a historically and logical  hijack  

message: Again who ever revisioned the articles information, how come the natives here where Misidentified their own social classes ,that was a silly excuses, the  revisionits who collaborate on this where intended "something" to look upon on the article based from their preferred version, Datu and a Rajah and Lakan where equivalent to king, answerable to a King, Ancient Filipinos where not unknown on this 'Monarchial system" , as i observed the author again tries to implied the "Ultra-Austronesian doctrine" on the articles, to dis associate the Philippine kingdoms, from the actual culture where it belongs , and pushing their revisionist new theory and dismissed the sources (in which not accord on their preferences as "outdated".) toxic pinoys and trolls from  somewhere where in collaboration to hijack the information, what an untold atrocities .(Enola gay0 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misidentified as "Monarchy"  by Foreigners  

message: As i looking  upon its content, i observe  that there are so many misquoted terms like "misidentified " , how can the chroniclers misidentified  what they had observed as they where arrived  in tondo? Actually  and it was feudalism, revisionism dismissed  the generic terms as "anarchonistic", or "too western" (possibly they pushing their alternative version of terms based on ultra-Austronesian theory of them) and the editors  who revisioned the  article  may seem trying  to intent their preferred  version as always insisting  ultra-austronesianess .  (Enola gay0 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquoted  terminologies 

message: According to the WP:IRRELEVANT guideline, information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed. Examples of irrelevant sections that make this article too long include the Austronesian origins of Tondo (which is superfluous information as majority of Insular Southeast Asians are Austronesians per default), the etymology of the word Luzon (which properly belongs to another page, perhaps in Wiki entry named Luzon instead of Tondo), the religious beliefs of the Tondo inhabitants (there are already separate pages that discusses such topic in detail, see Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people and Religion in pre-colonial Philippines). In order to make this page less cluttered and more focused on pre-colonial Tondo itself (not about Luzon, not about the beliefs of the Tagalogs), I suggest to move irrelevant content to their pertinent Wiki entries and reduce the content of this very long entry. Stricnina (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  i do concur, in that part which Examples of irrelevant sections that make this article too long include the Austronesian origins of Tondo (which is superfluous information as majority of Insular Southeast Asians are Austronesians per default. who ever revised this article, (he/she) has a intentional emphasizing motive for a ultra-austronesianess theme which can cause mislead or mislabeling, and there are already separate pages that discusses such topic since im done already fixing this misquoted terminologies. (Enola gay0 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant sections (since the page is too detailed) 

message: The historic period must be instated according on the world  standard of  dating historical eras and period's so please stop making any attempt to create a self-acclaimed dating , Asian infobox where stating what these kingdom where time these polities kingdoms belong to (if on) the antiquity , renaissance or early modern period, In tondo case , 
from 900 Ad- antiquity Earliest historical reference.
to 1578- early modern period.
(maybe the some of the editors will trying to take place to include their enforced options of ultra-austronesian theory altetrnative once again for the "correct" time line for philippines)
(maybe another part of intentional placing to their ultra austronesian doctrine , plus i will repeat this , flaw 1. a king without monarchy (just a tribesman) elements where just "adapted" on the asian religion (as they saying that tagalog's where just pure animists and Muslim majority). and third tagalogs (filipinos) where closely related to Samoans and Polynesians. how dare they..(their basis where from a single reference from the theory of Jocano) .
this page really need to get a clean up!
::PS: need to clarify the misquoted terminologies! "anarchonism" and Peacockry where just a silly excuse to place their theories / original research in accord for Austronesianess. 
(Enola gay0 (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline  

message: This article seems to violate MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. - Sparryx (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in the infobox 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure)  Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Tondo (historical polity) →  – Was requested by  on the wrong page/with the wrong template because "Official Name"  I haven't looked into this personally. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 August 2021 

message: This issue of kingdom vs polity were in question over the past years, as im going to raise it again: 
- LCI Jayadewa represented the "unnamed King" of Tondo, and compare it to the statements of the "editors guild" ,a polity (mislabled as a kingdom) because of peacockry/anachronism (as if Srivijaya Kederi brunei , Melayu uses the kingdom-empire term) and also as if the Kasumuran, Bhisruta , even Jayadewa himself "cannot understand what type of government they have that time", so these what i called "editor's circle" acting as the authority when it comes on how Filipinos and other nation should view the ancient Philippine politics. the issue here was the irony of content dispute and double standard setup. (Snopik (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom term: a Peacockry ?  

message: I do not know if you are JournalmanManila's sockpuppet, but clearly this map  is not credible. First, it talks about Rajah Alon, who is not a real person. Second, this map is in contrast to the information stated in this Wikipedia page, as well as all the other academic sources. It is obvious that this map is made by a conspiracy theorist or a distorian, with no legitimate basis. Let's also talk about the fact that the creator of this map uses sockpuppets: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sockpuppets_of_JournalmanManila for more information. Delirium333 (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Mr.Indra87, who added the map of JournalmanManila