Talk:Principalía

Layout and footnote system
For Johnmperry:

Thanks for the excellent fotenote system that you have contributed to make this article look more scientific. Very good job. However, I have undone your edits of the article's layout since the result made a lot of vacant spaces. Do not worry if the illustration of the silver-inlaid salakot is in the photo gallery. It need not be in the sub-section on Class Symbols. What is more important is to have a good layout. Thanks again. --94.83.253.145 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't agree it has better layout your way:
 * 1) I think a free-standing gallery is pointless in itself, and think it much better to have the photos appear within the section that talks about them.
 * 2) on my notepad, the gallery appears as one line with four pictures, and the fifth centred on a line by itself.
 * 3) there are one or two pictures whose relevance is not notable, and seem to appear just for the sake of it: in particular the leyes picture - the reference cited is unobtainable, and the whole four volumes are available online from a central archive in Peru.

John of Cromer not in China (talk) mytime= Sat 11:49, wikitime= 03:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For John of Cromer not in China:

I understand that your notepad does not present a good view of the photo gallery. However, laptops and desktops do not present any visual problem with respect to its layout.

I disagree to your opinion that the gallery is pointless:

1. The article is short. To insert the photos within the section that refer to them would overcrowd this short article. 2. It is precisely because of the difficulty in obtaining the copy of the "leyes" that the photo of it becomes relevant. I observed that you have somehow managed to identify the link of the four volumes made available online from a central archive in Peru. Thank you. That surely has its suitable place in the supporting notes. Before someone helped in employing a more systematic footnoting, what drew more attention to this article was the same photo. In fact, the same picture is included in a photo gallery of the category on nobility. 3. It was after the inclusion of this photo of the "leyes" in the gallery that a fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page on June 11, 2011. 4. The gallery would be useful and relevant to Filipino elementary and high school students, who would be interested in the subject and in the relevant images connected with it. As you know, Wikipedia caters to different kinds of users. What may not be very interesting to you, might be interesting to others. Nonetheless, I am sure that what you have contributed satisfies your interests on the subject. Other users also have their needs and interests.

Gratitude once more. Your valued opinion is appreciated.--94.83.253.145 (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How very patronising of you. So if it displays OK on your own computer, then that is sufficient.

It didn't take very much research to find online copies of the entire Recopilacion - not only scans of the original but also complete text, as well as translations. I also note that the image showing the election in Iloilo also appears on the Gobernadorcillo page, but there it appears at the head of the article, not tucked away at the end with other assorted and only peripherally relevant images. My opinion is that this is not a short article.

I might remind you too about WP:Ownership.

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 17:07, wikitime= 09:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your observations regarding the illustrations on the Gobernadorcillo page. It seems that the picture showing the election in Iloilo is the only relevant image. That appears to be the reason why it is in the article, and not in a gallery. Besides, there seems to be no sufficient relevant photos available for that article. Surely, there should better ones. Let us hope that someone could find something, and help improve the stub. --94.83.253.145 (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category
For Howard the Duck:

The additional category you labeled for this article was removed since it has not direct relevance to the subject. --94.83.253.145 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As per the article:
 * Demographics of the Philippines are records of human population in the country, including its population density, ethnicity, education level, health, economic status, religious affiliations, and other aspects of the population.
 * How can that be not directly related to the article? – H T  D  15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This article seems very well done. The references are very good. Footnoting system is excellent. Congratulations to those who actively contributed to develop it!

Would it be opportune to mark this article as an "A" entry?--TLS MMM (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know your classification criteria, but to me the gallery approach sucks John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 11:31, wikitime=  03:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional section without references.
The following addition to the article is very interesting. However, due to lack of references, I temporarily transferred it here for discussion, until such a time that enough citations would make it suitable to be included in the article. Thanks for the one who made the research:--TLS MMM (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Impact of the Political and Economic Situation during the Spanish Rule on the Marriage Cutoms of the Principales

It is not usual to hack out large chunks of an article because their citations are unclear. Instead it is normal to tag them with cn John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 16:17, wikitime= 08:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Principalia Names
This section was ommitted. This could be created as another page. To put it in this article would imply an infinite list of names that require verifications.

A similar case of the same aim could be cited for the article Datu. --Humadapnon (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

and then what?
I would like to see this article develop more of the transformation of the principalia after the end of Spanish rule. Obviously they didn't just curl up in a corner and stay quiet. I imagine their first aim was always self-preservation (like the ruling communist party in China) with consideration of "the people" a long way distant.

When the Americans arrived, it seems like they installed the same principales as mayor rather than gobernadorcillos, etc.

To what extent did the principales form the freemasons, and vice versa? And to what extent did the same principales become among the Political dynasties in the Philippines?

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 12:20, wikitime= 04:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

During the early years of the American rule, most of the Principales were appointed as Presidents (instead of Gobernadocillos) in the Presidencias (instead of the pueblos (towns). Later, during the Commonwealth Period, the terms "Mayor" and "Municipalities" were used.

By the way John of Cromer in China Philippines, would you be kind enough to fix the footnotes in the Section dealing with the Spanish dominion. An important part, using the "Recopilacion" was deleted in the process of editing, on the part of one of those who are interested with the article. I am sure you will be able to do something. --TLS MMM (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The World War II brought a lot of disaster to the whole Country, and to many of the Principales. Many centuries-old ancestral homes and businesses were destroyed, heirlooms lost, and lives cut off.

After the war, many of the Principales have recovered. But many also have languished in poverty. I believe that, after decades, probably some descendants of the Principales were able to rise again from financial disasters. It will be interesting to conduct a study on which among the political dynasties in the Philippines descend from the Principalia. This requires a lot of work, and I would like to recommend the subject for those who are conducting studies in Philippine politics and sociology.

Similar studies could be conducted on the subject in the context of the American period, and also during the brief Japanese occupation of the Islands. The challenge is that not much literature is published during the subsequent eras after the Spanish regime, which have direct references to the term Principalia or Principales.

But probably, one could start with the fact that the American Regime was noted for the rise of sugar barons in the Visayas, and similar phenomena in Luzon and other parts of the Country. In Panay and Negros, many of these were descendants of landed Families of Jaro and of other old towns. They are often referred to as the old rich or those belonging to a "Buena Familia", who have Gobernadorcillos, Dons, Donas, Capitan so and so, or Capitana so and so, as their ancestors.

Many old rich in the Capital might probably be descendants of Spaniards who remained in the Country after the colonial regime. It was noted in the article that the Principales in the capital have lost their power and significance in Manila and in neighboring provinces because of their proximity to the center of power of Spain in the Archipelago. The percentage descendants of the Principalia (either of Manila or from other parts of the Country) among them is also an interesting fact to discover.

There are also many nouveau riche in the Country. However, one could not dismiss the possibility that these too might be descendants of Principales, who have lost their fortune after the World War II. One sad fact has to be considered, that among those who lost their fortune are those who also lost records of their past.--TLS MMM (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization
User:Rathfelder,

In response to your position, I ask you to present convincing reasons why you are trying to remove the previous categorizations of the Principalia. The current categorizations are based on self-evident facts provided by published reference materials on history used in the article.

You must present more convincing historical refence materials to prove of the contrary, before removing the current categorizations. --Sulbud (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation is heirarchical. Categorization dos and don'ts. This is not an article about nobility or feudalism in general. It's about the situation in the Spanish Philippines. Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Rathfelder, The subject falls under the general topic on nobility of nation. From the very first sentence of the article, it talks about the Principalia as the noble class of the the Spanish Philippines. It does not start by presenting the situation of society during that period and it does not just dwell mainly on the sphere and context of the social situation. The development of the topic's presentation also traces the origin of the local nobility and dedicates ample space on its pre-colonial origin to the the Datu Class. Even the presentation of the subject in the context of the Spanish era focuses on nobility and the recognition of the Pricniplia's nobility by the Spanish crown. The article ends on the status of the local nobility after the Spanish rule. Nobility is the focus of this artilce.

Please note also that the article's citation reference on local Philippine nobility, i.e., Philip II's recognition of the local nobility, was Wikipedia's selected anniversaries: Selected anniversaries (June 2011); Selected anniversaries (June 2014); Selected anniversaries (June 2015); Selected anniversaries (June 2019). Please confer the base of this talk page.

But it is true that the article could also be seen as a specific topic on Spanish Philippines, particularly a sub-topic on governmental structure during that period. If your concern is the hierarchical presentation of the categories under the other possible general categorization, i.e., Spanish Philippines, then, all you could do is study how to re-arrange the order of categorization to show which sub-group of the other general topic on Spanish Philippines could the subject on local nobility fall. But you should not eliminate the categorization to which the local Philippine nobility falls under the generic categories of international nobility. Such categorization brings the studies on the local Philippine nobility, also in the international comparative studies on nobility. As you could see, other contributors gave two generic categorizations to the article: Nobility by Nation, and Spanish Empire. It will be good to consider these two facets of the subject in re-arranging the categorization in order not to lose the comprehensive view and understanding of the subject's position in the topics under both generic categorizations.

Thank you, anyway, for pointing out the other possible way of situating this specific subject on Philippine Studies. That could also be your valuable contribution in developing this article. --Sulbud (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rathfelder is correct here as it is a matter of categorization practice. With the article in the country-specific Category:Filipino nobility, of which it is a subtopic, higher-level categories such as Category:Asian nobility and Category:Nobility are overbroad and redundant and should not also be applied to this article. Restoring those category tags here again would be against consensus-supported guidelines on categorization, and constitute WP:EDITWARRING. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Editors Please read citations in previous sections
The would-be editors are requested to read carefully the whole article. Please take note and understand, also the citations in previous sections of article before you ask citations in the later sections. There are previously established facts in previous sections, if you carefully read the article, supported by reference materials cited. So, before you ask for citations read the whole article and the given reference citations first.

User talk:Myrnamyers Please refrain from altering the article if you do not have creditble citations. Please read the article in its entirely before you edit and place what you wish to contribute in the right sections so as not to alter the logical presentation of the article. Sulbud (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)