Talk:Precolonial barangay

Oppose. Wow, that was fast. My intention here is to split the Barangay page into the modern entity (still at Barangay), and its now-extinct Pre-colonial predecessor, which was a very different entity. (The structure of the present entity is much more similar to the Hispanic Barrio than it was to the pre-colonial Barangay.) I would have wanted to creat a page entitled Prehispanic Barangays, but that name's list-like nature would be confusing. I have to admit, though, that I'm sitting here with two or three textbook references on the matter which I am still digesting - my act of expanding this article will take time. It will be faster of course if others help, but due to the rarity of relevant texts, Early Philippine History is a rather specialist field, so it may be difficult for me to recruit. So...I'm hoping this article will have the time to grow and prove itself worthy of being its own entity. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comment.Sigh. I suppose I'm being unimaginative in the choice of names again. I would support a move of this article to Barangay (something), but I am having difficulty coming up with one.

• "Before 15xx" would be inaccurate, as the spanish conquista proceeded gradually and we have no date to refer to as marking the end of the indigenous Barangay pattern in favor of the Spanish Barrio structure.
• "pre-colonial entity" or "before hispanization" seem awkward to me.

So basically I'm saying I feel a renaming is better than a merge, if we want to take such action. -- Alternativity (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I was going to support the merge, but if you can add enough info (especially elaborating on the differences between the present and historic barangays), I am cool with the 2 separate articles. -- P199 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Suggest 1 disambiguation at Barangay and two pages Barangay(pre colonial) and Barangay (modern)

Rather than changing the name of the current article to Barangay (modern) if the merge is not done, I'd suggest the addition of a hatnote using one of the {{otheruses}} templates. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://books.google.com/books?id=15KZU-yMuisC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Habier+Malik&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eF4XVPjrCbOBsQTO8IKQDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the References section, citations 7 and 8 are too long. The long quotes in Spanish are unnecessary since the article is in English and most people reading it will be unable to understand. Louieoddie (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Barangay which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ancient means, well, ancient. 1400s is not ancient. One could argue that it is pre-historical but pre-historical does not mean ancient. Using ancient implies that the article is about barangays from thousands of years ago, but it's not. It's about barangays from hundreds of years ago, from about the time of the Renaissance, of Columbus, of Henry VIII, of Shakespeare. "Pre-colonial" is more accurate. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barangay state. 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/20120701082957/http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html to http://www.philippinealmanac.com/2010/07/528/the-cultural-influences-of-india-china-arabia-and-japan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Barangay state and Bayan (settlement) articles appear to be about the same topic, and I propose the merger of that other article into this one. I propose this article as the merge target bacause of content here saying, "When barangays grew larger, ... [t]he Rulers of these barangays would then select the most senior or most respected among them to serve as a paramount datu. These polities sometimes had other names (such as "bayan" in the Tagalog regions) but since the terminology varies from case to case, scholars such as Jocano and Scott simply refer to them as 'larger' barangays.".

Alternatively, if there is enough difference between the two articles that they should be left separate, the snippet quoted above from this article should be expanded to include information about those differences. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is another very old merger proposal on this talk page; this proposal is not a reincarnation of that one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

    Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

After studying User:Amakuru's recent move at Tondo (historical polity), I just added a failed verification tag to the Jocano "barangay state" reference after borrowing a copy. His discussion is on pages 156-159 of the book. In it, Jocano never used the exact term "Barangay State". He argued that the Barangay "had the status of a state", and in his discussion he also acknowledged that this was in disagreement with other scholars.

"Called a Barangay State" and "the Barangay had the status of a state" are two different things. The term "Barangay state" is clarly Original Research..

Looking at previous naming arguments here, "Barangay polities", "Historical Barangay polities", "Barangay (polity)", "Barangay (historical polity)", Historical Barangay settlements", "Barangay (historical settlement)", and even "Barangay (state)" and "Barangay (historical state)" are more appropriate titles. But it should be noted that "state" is a minority opinion by Jocano, and does not reflect consensus. If we rename this, the other Historical Barangays should be renamed too. - Batongmalake (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the best name is precolonial barangay. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply