Talk:Lakandula/Archive 1

This page is NOT a forum
Please be reminded that this page, as with other Talk pages, is for comments and suggestions aimed at improving this Wikipedia article. It is NOT a discussion of the topic itself. Please limit your edits to any comments or suggestions that will help make this article better, and refrain from discussing about the topic itself (such as whether you think you're descended from Rajah Lakandula, or if PGMA is or isn't). Thanks for your cooperation. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rajah versus Lakandula
Lakandula, like the word rajah, is a TITLE of nobility. It is not a personal name. Various scholars on Philippine history keep pointing this out. Lakandula is the hereditary title of the rulers of Tondo who, unlike the rulers of Manila, were not Muslims. Tondo was politically distinct and autonomous from Manila in the 16th century. Unlike the rulers of Manila who were heavily influenced by Brunei, the rulers of Tondo retained their indigenous titles and did not call themselves "rajahs". The two words, "rajah" and "lakandula" simply negate each other. Please check your sources. Thank you. Ushiwaka (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rajah and Lakan are both titles. So, Rajah Lakan Dula is an oxymoron. It is just like Don Mister Lopez or Miss Binibining Gloria. Either you call it Rajah Dula or Lakan Dula or Gat Dula but never Rajah Lakan Dula. Please show some respect to the Filipino pre-hispanic history.202.86.204.114 (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Title seriously needs to be changed... Rajah needs to be removed, NOW--Mangacha (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Lakandula
An article on Lakandula already exists. Any pertinent info in this article should be integrated into that article. -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lakandula article describes the title of the Tondo Rulers. Rajah Lakan Dula is a person anyway. I will remove the template. -- The Wandering Traveler WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!  05:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. As per Nick Joaquin's Manila,My Manila, the rulers of Tondo specifically did not use the term "Rajah" (as opposed to the rulers of Maynila, who did). Also, the term Rajah Lakandula was not used, as far as I've seen, in the original 16th century sources as quoted by Scott and Dery. Whereas there is an argument (IMHO a weak one) for separating the articles for Lakandula an Banaw Lakandula, Rajah Lakan Dula simply should not exist. I am going to wp:be bold now and do what I can to merge the two. - Alternativity (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We think its high time that we respect Philippine history starting on this page: 1. All citations of Lakandula should be change to Lakan Dula: Lakan is the title, Dula is the name. 2. If there is a need to write the complete name, it should be Lakan Banaw Dula not Banaw Lakandula: Title: Lakan, First name: Banaw, Surname: Dula. 3. If this is an article about Lakan Dula, then, let us write everything about him, not everything about the efforts of the PGMA family to link with him.There is a big difference between the two. 4. Any pronouncements and claims should be supported by citations, like in APA Manual, with page number or website address.There are a lot of claims here that borders on tall tales, without any citations for sources at all. 5. If this article can not comply with this simle academic rules, may we recommend a deletion of this article because this is so corrupted already.This creates a bad name for Wikipedia and the Tambayan. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.227.106 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I look at the article today and suggestions number 1 and 2 above has been complied already. Suggestion 3, partly complied, as some articles related to Lakan Dula were partly added. Some families and historians who has some bits of info/history about Lakan Dula should now show up to contribute to the article to make this comprehensive, now that the Remi Estrada de Leon, alias, Alternativity, has been declared on Wikibreak by the Wikipedia to precisely let this article to flourish freely. There are also, notations for citations on some of the claims. Lets work with Wikipedia. It has been providing knowledge to the humanity. Lets hope that the paid hackers of the Macapagal family of Lubao will not dilute or spin this article anymore towards "Lacandola of Lubao Tall Tales". They should also show respect the Philippine history and historians like William Henry Scott and the rest of the other descendants of Lakan Dula who are protecting his legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.230.180 (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I look at the article again and the above observations were again corrupted by Alternativity, so, back to the original problem..i think we should delete the article permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.246.162 (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We agree that we should just delete this article and start all over again. Also, let us take note on who are those probable paid hacks who are actually diluting this article for the Macapagal family. They have captured this article. Take note that lots of Lakan Dula descendants have boycotted this article and they are not contributing anymore, or has removed entries that talks something about their families, to this article because they know that the paid hacks of the six-counts- plunder- cases - former president will again dilute, or slant this, or delete/change all entries that are not related to their plunderer master even if it talks about Lakan Dula, the subject of this article. We are glad that the Wikipedia has already noticed this anomaly. More power to the Wikipedia community.

Lakan Dula of Tondo versus Lacandola of Lubao: Who is Real,Who is Reel?
Based on "Lacandola of Lubao" unique article, it is strongly possible that Lakan Dula of Tondo and Lacandola of Lubao are totally different persons. First proof: Philippine history would say that Lakan Dula of Tondo is a Muslim, while the "Lacandola of Lubao" unique article said that this guy Lacandola is a pagan, big difference. Second proof: Lakan Dula of Tondo is a fighter to the end, he is even referred to as Gat Dula, etc. This Lacandola of Lubao is a Spanish collaborator, according to its own article, and to be branded as a traitor is something that the legitimate descendants of Lakan Dula of Tondo will not accept without a fight, so, they will not identify with that dude Lacandola, whoever he is.Third proof: take note of the differences in the spelling: Lakan Dula is with "k" and "u".Lacandola is with "c" and "o". Fourth proof: the Spanish alphabet doesnt have letter "K" but alibata has, so, Lakan Dula is native.On the other hand, Lacandola uses "c" which is hispanic, so, they could be referring on two totally different persons in a very different time span. Fifth proof, Lakan Dula is consistent with the pre hispanic history of name system: official title (Lakan) and single name (Dula), and they are separated,like Datu Sumakwel is not spelled as Datusumakwel. We dont have surnames during the pre-hispanic era. The Lacandola guy is saying that that Lacandola is already its full name, without any title. All in all, we suggest that let the historical Lakan Dula of Tondo flourish and let that certain Lacandola dude of Lubao exists too, for whatever purpose it may serve.If its a fiction, then, let it be.But let us be clear that they are totally differrent and there is no point of linking them.However,if the article would say that Lacandola is only an adopted name because the person is a descendant of Lakan Dula of Tondo, and they are afraid of hispanic prosecution, as lots of Filipions were, according to our history that is why they hid his identity, then, thats sound more logical and historical too. But the article is not saying so. So, it is really probable that this is a case of wrong attributions to two totally different subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.100.187 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Lacandola of Lubao"? Is there such an article in the English WP? -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The "Lakandula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", which according to the neighborhood here in Lubao was based on the tall tales written by the grandfather of Gloria Arroyo. The present article now was the "Lacandola of Lubao" article, an attempt of the Macapagal to link themselves to Lakan Dula. Tina Pineda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.204.116 (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Juan Macapagal and Carlos Lacandola
Something is wrong here....Juan Macapagal is claiming his connection with Lakan Dula of Tondo thru Carlos Lacandola. But as the article admitted, Carlos Lacandola is written by Juan Macapagal. Wow, here is a case where the proof of the authenciticy was written by the one whose authenciticy is being questioned....this is a hoax.Please read the article again! Can somebody do something about this. Darius David, Guagua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.204.133 (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw this in the main page but when I clicked it, its dead: |url =http: //www .oocities .com / sinupan /magatsalamat. htm |title=Magat Salamat |author=Tomas L. |accessdate=2008-07-14}}. Is this PART OF THE HOAX? Rita Ronquillo, Lubao, Pampanga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.238.94 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to be tampering with the entries here. The quote from Luciano P.R. Santiago's monograph reads "Don Carlos Lacandola, his great-grandfather, was Lord and principal of the town of Tondo" but in this article it has been changed to "Don Carlos Candola, his great-grandfather, was Lord and principal of the town of Lubao".Siuala (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How the Macapagals Are Linked to Lakan Dula
This article is the attempt of the Macapagal to invent their link with Lakan Dula. This is not an article about Lakan Dula per se. We need an article that is purely about Lakan Dula. There used to be two articles in Wikipedia about Lakan Dula: this one, Rajah Lakan Dula and the other one is Lakandula. The Lakandula article is about the attempt of the Macapagal to link with Lakan Dula while this article used to be an article about Lakan Dula. The Lakandula article was rating very low in the Google until somebody from the Macapagal family merged their Lakandula article with this article and then slowly chaging the article into the original rejected Lakandula article which is about their family, and not being rated well by Google. They removed entries about the true Lakan Dula descendants like the Gatbontons, forcing the Gatbonton family to go around different internet forum telling the truth that the Macapagal - Lakan Dula link tall tales are  just their invention and they have proofs. What happened really is that the over eagerness of the Macapagal hackers to invent the link of Macapagals to Lakan Dula and disregarding the true descendants like the Gatbontons,are going back to them like a dreaded garbage. Its a form of justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.46.195 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article needs to change...
I don't know where to request the title to be changed, but can someone please change the title from "Rajah Lakan Dula" to "Lakan Dula"? It's very inaccurate, misleading and unappealing, I'll explain:

Detailed Version

it's already well known that titles 'Lakan' and 'Rajah' are separate titles, both meaning a monarchy, a kingdom. However a rule which has it's ruler under the title 'Lakan' is not a Rajahnate, so therfore "Rajah Lakan Dula" is wrong, it's like saying "General Shogun".

Short Version

Basically, Rajah and Lakan don't go together, neitehr Lakan Dula nor his predecessors ever ruled under a Rajahnate.

So this basically makes it essentially a Lakanate then apparently? Definitely not a Rajahnate.--Mangacha (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As per argument on the page, based on Scott (1994), I suggest instead "Lakandula" as a whole title, not separated. But I definitely agree that "Rajah" has no place in the title. But to change the title (rather, to move this article to another title), we need admin help. Perhaps someone from you can ask for help at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines? I proposed that before and it got no traction. :S - Alternativity (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Look here fellow Wikipedians, are we looking for people who are diluting this article? Here is a case in point: Negativity is suggesting to change this to Lakandula when in fact he knows that Lakan is a title, Banaw is the first name and Dula is the surname, so, it should be Lakan Banaw Dula. Why is he proposing Lakandula? because a certain gandfather of the Macapagal incidentally has a surname Lacandola and by changing this to Lakandula, it will be nearer to the surname of that dude, and therefore, it somewhat created the link.Cheap shot.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.172.22 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should delete this article and start a new one under the title Lakan Banaw Dula. Based on the edit history of this article, that guy Alternativity has virtually held us all, including Wikipedia captive. Apparently, he is working for the Macapagal family. Look at all entries, its all about Macapagal. I know personally that the Macapagal family wanted to change the universally standard Lakan Banaw Dula (title, first name, surname) into Lakandula, later Lakandola and much later Lacandola..in fact Lakan Dula High School in Tondo used the standard name of Lakan Dula but when PGMA invented an award during her term, she called it Order of Lakandula, to link the surname of one of their grandfather whose surname is lacandola, a common Filipino surname like lacanlale, lacandalo, lacanilao - with the pre hispanic king Lakan Dula. Maybe, we should ban Alternativity from editing the new article, he has been the source of problem why this article ended up with this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.46.195 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatbontons link to the Dulas...
I am a grandson of Feliza Gatbonton Corrales-Macam. The Gatbontons are not descendants of Lakan Dulas but rather a direct relative. Gatbonton (mandala) was the administrator of the rice granary of the kingdom. He was the son of Dayang Lahat, sister of Raja Sulaiman Sri lila (salalila)I. His other kin were MONMON, GATCHALIAN, GATMAITAN, MACARALAGA, GATMAITIM, MANDIC, GATDULA and DUMANDAN." note, the Gatdulas of today is not in the line of the present day Dulas. But surely of the Gatbontons as their Father was Gat Timog. the will says:"GATBONTON married MACAYABONGDILI ( in english: the one with the ladies in waiting), a sister of my father*. They had five children, namely LOVERA, MACABAT, CAPITANGAN, TAUI and PAMPALUNG (founder of the kingdom of apalit) whom they called MACAPAGAL. the name could have been used as a cover up to avoid persecution when the Gatbontons escaped Tondo for Candaba via Rio Grande River. the name was used during his youth and assumed another before he died. he had also a son named Palong Gatbonton. from this line comes the line of my great Grandmother Simeona Gatbonton-Corrales, Martha Gatbonton-kelly;grandmother of FPJ, juan Gatbonton, liborio Gatbonton, Manolo gatbonton and Zcarina gatbonton.

Regarding the Gloria quest to the lakandula thingy..I have an acquaintance whose name was Jeanne Pascal Tan her mother was a De Lacandola, she was really spanish looking though she claims that her roots were from tondo. okey...it means the surname de Lacandola really did it exist but it has no proven relation with the Dulas. since it does sound similar it created a confusion between the two. and now the Marcoses also claims that they are the descendants of Lakan Dula, remember their Maharlika illusion? from the Gutilio side, and so The Macapagals, by way of attaching their family name here and there. Rumors has it that the Arroyos are related to the Marcoses...hmmm... parang nga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperprince (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Proper Way for the Macapagal Arroyo to Link with the Lakan Dula Bloodline...
Apparently, the Macapagal Arroyo family of Lubao, Pampanga needs to be precise on their claim of ancestry with Lakan Banaw Dula of the Kingdom of Manila. Their claim lies on one of the surnames their grandmother has: Lacandola. Their initial strategy to claim their ancestry from Lakan Dula is to change the name of Lakan Banaw Dula to Lakandula and maybe later to Lacandola. They did that.When the Gloria Arroyo was the president, she initiated the Lakandula Award. Take note that it is incorrect because it should had been Lakan Dula. Then they are maneuvering to dilute historical records by saying the Lakan Banaw Dula few months before he died was later called  Don Carlos Lacandola. It was along shot.

What they failed to recognized that in order to trace their lineage with Lakan Dula, they should do it though one of his children, namely: Batang Dula, Magat Salamat, Dionisio Capulong, Felipe Salonga, Martin Lakan Dula, and Maria Poloin. Magat Salamat died early as martyr. It is not yet clear if he has children before he died. Definitely Martin Lakan Dula lineage stopped because he joined and died as a priest, so, he has no children. The best bet of the Macapagal Arroyo is to trace their roots from any among Batang Dula, Dionisio Capulong, Felipe Salonga and Maria Poloin.

What they have not explored thoroughly is the lineage of Batang Dula who has three children: David, Daba and Dola and where hidden among his relatives in places presently known as Candawid, Candaba and Candola respectively, Kan is an ancient Tagalog word for "owned". Apparently, these three children where given with tracts of land and plantations protected by armed relatives. Dola, the youngest daughter was given a big tract of farmland in what is now known as Candola in San Luis, Pampanga. If the Macapagal Arroyo family can only prove through their family history that they descended from that granddaughter of Lakan Dula in San Luis, whose descendants adopted a surname Lacandola and settled in Lubao, Pampanga, then, it could have been historically probable that their Macapagal Arroyo family descended from Lakan Dula. But their family history is not saying this. Maybe they need to research some more. What they can do is to trace the ancestors of their grand mother which has a Lacondola surname and see if their root is from Candola, San Luis, Pampanga. Maybe they should also look for their relatives there and ask some questions among the old folks.Maybe the house of Dola is still there.They can look for antique artifacts, etc. If there is no Lacandola surname in Candola, why? Is there a history of massive migration to Lubao? Because of Spanish prosecution?

One complication about the search of the Macapagal Arroyo on their link with Lakan Dula is that the Capulong and Macapagal of the historical Candaba are disowning them. They don't like the family history that the Macapagal of Lubao sided with the Spaniards against the native patriots. The Salonga lineage is also against the Macapagal, for one, Sen. Jovito Salonga led the Liberal Party of President Noynoy Aquino, a Lakan Dula descendant himself from the Sumulong side - in putting ex President Gloria Arroyo to jail. The hereditary leader of the Dulay Clan of Marikina Valley has also a bad personal experience with President Gloria Arroyo which only PGMA personal secretary Yoko Ramos can confide.

Meantime, the confusions of the Macapagal Arroyo in their desperate effort to link with the bloodline of Lakan Dula continues. Their approach for so many years is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.141.176 (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You should also take notice that Lakan Dula was not the King of Maynila, but the king of Lusung(Kingdom of Tondo)--Mangacha (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The source of mangling, diluting and corruption of this article and historical notes is the wrong way the influential Macapagal Arroyo family of Lubao are trying to established their link with the the bloodline of Lakan Banaw Dula.They want to change the name of Lakan Banaw Dula and slant the history towards the surname Lacandola, a common Filipino surname who accidentally is the surname of their grandmother. No matter how successful they are changing the name towards, eventually , Lacandola, still the question is from which children of Lakan Banaw Dula did they come from. They must show in their family history their direct link to one of the children. It is not yet too late, they should now focus their research towards this direction and not on mangling the name and historical circumstances of Lakan Banaw Dula. And just a suggestion, they should shed out in their family history their traitor image by saying that they did not actually cooperated with Spain to fight against the native patriots..it leaves a bad taste to the memory of Lakan Banaw Dula that one one family trying to link to his legacy are a lineage of traitors.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.227.107 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the paid "historians" of both Diosdado Macapagal and Gloria Arroyo are the one bungling the link of the Macapagal Family of Lubao to the bloodline of Lakan Dula of Tondo by attempting to change the name of Lakan Dula to the name of one of their grandmother who accidentally has a surname Lacandola, a common Filipino surname. They even want to change the historical circumstances of Lakan Dula to fit the invented person Don Carlos Lacandola, just to put the surname Lacandola in place.One of their major mistakes is to write the Don Carlos Lacandola "exploits" as a traitor supporting the Spanish government against the native patriots. Another blunder they have is they did not secure from which child of Lakan Dula did they came from. They did not realize that all they need to do is to research on their blood with one of the Lakan Dula children and their bloodline with Lakan Dula is secured, just like the claim of the family of Jose Rizal to the Lakan Dula bloodline through Maria Poloin, one of the children of Lakan Dula. They should also write the history of their family on the heroic side, not on the traitor side. Two generations of lies, miscalculations and mistakes of the Macapagal family paid "historians" are for all of us to see...through their own undoings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.246.162 (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Gloria Arroyo is a descendant of Lakan Dula from the Dola lineage of Candola, San Luis Pampanga thats the reason why the SUMPA NI LAKAN DULA happened on her... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.150.144 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So, because Gloria Arroyo is a descendant of Lakan Banao Dula, therefore, the curse has an effect on her. If she is not a descendant, the curse will not affect...logical.But, just the same, they have to visit the ancestral land of Dola in Candola, San Luis, Pampanga and search for their relatives there.They should listen to the stories of the old folks in Candola, San Luis why they adopted the surname Lacandola and moved to Lubao, etc..they should look for artifacts.Maybe they will also learn of some heroic deeds ( not traitors deed) of their Dola lineage...

Alternativity is back, expect a slant towards Lacandola Tall Tales..this article should be deleted already
First, Alternativity disregarded the historical citation of William Scott that Lakan is the title, which means "paramount ruler" Lakan being the title, Banao or Carlos is the first name and Dula is the surname, the name of Lakan Dula should have been Lakan Banao Dula or Lakan Carlos Dula (title, first name, surname).

The article at its present revision is a captive of Lacandola Tall Tales.....this should be deleted.Well paid "historical hackers" are now on loose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.227.107 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not the article about Lakan Dula, where Lakan Dula High School in Tondo,Manila was named after. This is an article about Lacandola, the traitor from Lubao, Pampanga. This should be deleted soonest because this is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.195.5 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)