User:Stricnina/sandbox

There are only two references mentioned in this article. One is a CIA factbook that doesn't even have the necessary keywords (i.e. "Manila" AND "battle"). The other one has a faulty format for a source and that alone makes it unverifiable as it is not clear what "Brunei for history (2009)" is supposed to be. This leaves us with only one source which is irrelevant to the topic of the Wiki article, making the claims of the article technically unreferenced. In other words, it suffers the same issues with Battle of Manila (1365) and Battle of Manila (1405) as suggested earlier. I've also looked at the potential reliable sources that can be used to justify the existence of this Wiki entry.

Sultan Bolkiah is mentioned in W.H. Scott's book entitled "Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society" on page 191:

"The chiefdom of Manila, located in the present Intramuros district, was probably founded as a Bornean trading colony about 1500, with a royal prince marrying into the local ruling family. This was a common practice by which Islam spread throughout insular Southeast Asia[...] The Manila ruler known to the Spaniards as Rajah Matanda was the grandson of Sultan Bulkeiah of Brunei, the Saripara whom Pigafetta had met there fifty years earlier. Brunei folk history identifies Bulkeiah as Nakhoda Ragam, the reputed conqueror of the Philippines, and tradition even names the cannon with which he was said to have taken Manila - Si Gantar Alam, "Earthshaking Thunderer.""

- W.H. Scott

The source states that a certain Nakhoda Ragam conquered the Philippines, according to Brunei folk history. It was not stated as an incontrovertible fact, but it was stated as as folk history. W.H. Scott didn't really describe that a Battle of Manila took place in 1500s, the quote above is not very clear on which year or century the conquest happened. Did it happen before 1500, during the year 1500, or after 1500? On the other hand, in the book "Raiding, Trading. and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms" by Laura Lee Junker (page 392):

"The Brunei rulers of this period, as well as later recorded Bornean epics, claim that both Sulu and Manila were political dependencies of Brunei. As summarized by Scott: “Brunei tradition identifies Bulkeiah as folk hero Nakhoda Ragam, believed to have conquered the Philippines in an expedition during which he gave the name of one island to each of a ganta [prehispanic standardized measure] of pepper seeds. In the popular Bornean epic, Sha’er Awang Semaun, these conquests are all made by head-taking hero Semaun, and produce tribute from Sulu and Manila in the form of Chinese porcelain” (1994:178). While some scholars readily accept this interpretation of Brunei sovereignty (e.g., Scott 1994), a more skeptical view sees this as propaganda of the Bornean elites. Frequent interactions between the two polities, including elite intermarriage, trade, and military skirmishes, would promote the flow of Islamic ideologies and aspects of elite culture, but cultural emulation does not imply political domination."

- Laura Lee Junker

This statement doesn't tell exactly whether a Battle of Manila took place in the 1500s. We do know from the quote above that the "political domination" of Brunei over Manila and Sulu is straight up being challenged as propaganda by scholar/s. Laura Lee Junker expresses her skepticism regarding the Bruneian hold on Sulu and Manila altogether. Another scholar named Isaac Donoso, in his Spanish article entitled "Manila y la empresa imperial del Sultanato de Brunei en el siglo XVI" (2014) also shares Laura Lee Junker's sentiments by stating that Brunei's thalassocratic expansion was "based not on military conquest" (original Spanish: cifrada no en la conquista militar) but on the creation of spheres of influence through attracting the elites of the neighboring entrepots (through strategic marriages between the Bruneian elite and the elites of the neighboring polities like Manila and Sulu, monopolizing trade and distribution of Chinese products, etc.)

"En efecto, de forma entusiasta se califica como “Imperio de Brunéi” al gobierno del quinto sultán, Sultán Bulqya / السلطان البلقية A(1485-1524). Aunque ciertamente los límites son exagerados en lo concerniente a expansión territorial, sí es cierto que con las reglas del juego de la política en el Sudeste Asiático ―la talasocracia―, Brunéi alcanzó una preeminencia significativa a comienzos del siglo XVI:
 * The fifth sultan, Bolkiah, has entered Brunei legend as Nakhuda Ragam, the Singing Admiral […], whose reign saw the expansion of Brunei to its greatest extend: the re-establishment for the third time of that thalassocracy which embraced the trading ports of Borneo, Sulu, and the Philippines.

Con el título que fue preeminente en el mundo marítimo heredado de la ruta transoceánica islámica, como Nājudā / ناخذا (almirante), el Sultán Bulkya desarrolló una acción de expansión talasocrática, cifrada no en la conquista militar, sino en la creación de una esfera de poder a través de la atracción de las élites de los entrepôts (factorías comerciales) vecinos. Por medio de comerciantes, de la monopolización de la distribución de productos chinos, de una política mercantil cada vez más agresiva, Brunéi irá estableciendo matrimonios monárquicos y una red clientelar."

- Isaac Donoso

A student publication will also repeat the same sentiments of the archeologist-historian Laura Lee Junker and the scholar on Islamic studies Isaac Donoso. A certain Steven James Fluckiger published a student article entitled "The Will to Trade: The Bruneian Incorporation of the Pre-Hispanic Manila Region" (2018). He has written a paper with the main purpose of proving that Luzon was not conquered by Brunei but the former voluntarily agreed to become integrated into the Bruneian sphere of influence:

"Manila, shortly before the advent of the Spanish, became a satellite of the Brunei Sultanate. However, while some historians speculate that Brunei conquered Manila, historical, archeological, and other sources suggest otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to show that the Luzones in reality agreed to become a Bruneian satellite."

- Steven James Fluckiger

From these multiple sources, it is clear that scholars do not really agree Brunei conquered Manila at all. Of course, we can edit the article and call the battle "legendary", however discussions regarding this "legendary conquest" of Manila by Brunei has very few scholarly articles. The rest was focused more on what really happened historically and not on the fictional details. Nevertheless, from these multiple points of view, it is clear that the consensus is that Brunei didn't really conquer Manila. The battle of Manila (1500s), in other words, has no historical basis.

I'd like your opinion on this, Mimihitam. What should we do with the page Battle of Manila (1500)? All I can say is that the Battle of Manila led by Sultan Bolkieah is fictional according to scholarly consensus and it must be treated as legendary, and I'd argue that because of the scant sources regarding the details of the battle in question, it makes the legendary Battle of Manila itself not notable enough to deserve its own article, For example, we have very few sources to work on regarding when the battle happened (not clear, I have not encountered a source that states it happened in 1500), who were the leading people on the two sides of the conflict, etc. Stricnina (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Baybayin
Baybayin is the Tagalog term used to refer to their indigenous alphasyllabary belonging to the family of the Brahmic scripts and that was widely used in Luzon and other parts of the Philippines during the 16th and 17th centuries before being supplanted by the Latin alphabet. "Baybayin" is also the term used by the Unicode Standard for the Tagalog block of the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP), proposed to be encoded in 1998 by Michael Everson together with three other known indigenous scripts of the Philippines present in Palawan, Mindoro and Pampanga. Another widely known term used to refer to the script, albeit a more recent coinage, is Alibata, derived from the first three letters of the Arabic script and coined for the first time in 1914 by Paul R. Versoza, presumably under the erroneous assumption that Baybayin is derived from the Arabic script. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Baybayin survived and evolved into the forms of Tagbanwa script of Palawan, Hanuno'o and Buhid scripts of Mindoro, and the modern Kulitan script of the Kapampangan.

Gender-marked suffixes
Though Tagalog like most Austronesian languages originally lacked grammatical gender, the massive influx of gender-marked words from Spanish has resulted in the emergence of marginal gender in Tagalog, characterized by cases of gender agreement within an otherwise genderless language. According to Thomas Stolz, this phenomenon is constrained by three factors, namely that gender only applies to Spanish loanwords, agreement is restricted to human nouns as controllers and gender distinctions are neutralized in the plural. While Ekaterina Baklanova agrees in general with the observations of Stolz, she also concluded, based on the analysis of a corpus of Tagalog literary texts and news articles published between 2011-2015 containing around 18,000 unique words, that gender not only applies to Spanish loanwords, but also to any word with Spanish-derived gender-sensitive suffixes. In fact, these suffixes have become mildly-productive in Tagalog, thus allowing the formation of gender-marked neologisms. Below is the list of Spanish-derived gender-sensitive suffixes that have become mildly-productive in modern Tagalog morphology: