Talk:Luzones

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Anthony Reid, in a chapter in The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, seems to be saying that Luçoes, when said in English, is Luzons. Either that or my interpretation -- not being able to speak Portuguese and all -- is completely conked. I haven't integrated this into the

Luçoes

stub yet, but I sure would like input on how to proceed with this tidbit:

The first European reports on the Tagalogs classify them as “Luzons” (Port. Lucoes), a nominally Muslim commercial people trading out of Manila, and “almost one people” with the Malays of Brunei (Pires 1515:134).

-- Alternativity (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to what is recorded, rajah Matanda is related to rajah Soliman, the latter when defeated by the Spaniards seek help from Kapampangans of the north and kins from Borneo. It was never recorded that these leaders seek help from the southern Luzon. Therefore Manila and Tondo in the 1570s was ruled by people that speak the same language as the people of Macabebe. the

Luçoes therefore were ruled by Kapampangans.

-- Gemstech —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC).[reply

Thanks. I created the page based on the sources I had (Reid, etc), who used Luçoes, which seemed to me to be the most commonly used form (Others being "Lucoes" without any diacritics at all, and Luzones which is apparently the anglicized form. I am no expert at diacritics, I'm afraid, and it took me quite a while just to figure out how to pronounce ç. I'd be glad to move this if you know what you're doing and you think that's the right thing to do. I'm just saying I followed Reid's and a few other sources' spelling. Now that I've got that out of the way... shall I move it? :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Having seen your profile I'm now quite convinced you know what you're doing. Makes me wonder about the sources, though. :-S -- Alternativity (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone here verify the some of the Statements in the

These statements go on like this: On Mainland Southeast Asia, Lusung/Lucoes warriors aided the Burmese king in his invasion of Siam in 1547 AD. At the same time, Lusung warriors fought alongside the Siamese king and faced the same elephant army of the Burmese king in the defence of the Siamese capital at Ayuthaya. So i just want to clarify if: Did Lucoes or luzung warriors did really fought on those wars ? (JournalmanManila (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Luções with this edit on 2017-10-07. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I think what Pires was saying that the people itself were folk islamic. As in the Lucos practiced their indigenous beliefs with heavy influence from Islam which is why the people of Luzon DID NOT EAT PORK.

At this point, I'm pretty convined that this page should be moved to Luzones for clarity's sake. Although the academic sources continue to use the Portuguese orthography, Luções, I'm pretty sure that the average Filipino reader will be relatively unfamiliar with the usage of the õ diacritic, resulting in the page being misread and misinterpreted as "Lucos" - it's not much of a jump from there to "Ilucos", which would be a dangerous misinterpretation. (In fact, that association was in my head when I first created this article.) On the other hand, the academic sources do continue to use the Portuguese orthography, and I find myself conflicted between the need to avoid confusion and the urge to be as faithful as possible to the technical and academic sources - especailly since this is a rather technical historical topic. Perhaps others can share their thoughts? - Alternativity (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After checking, the sources that continue to use "Luções" clearly also indicate that they are using the term in its original Portuguese orthography. See Scott's Barangay (1994) for example. Whereas those who don't include that detail (see "luzones"&ots=g_wZPQqkek&sig=FF7VYNQIk59R5Nkkm-6UqZA9SsQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="luzones"&f=false|Zabilka's Customs and Cultrue of the Philippines here, | Fluckinger's "The Will To Trade" here, and perhaps most relevantly, "luzones"&ots=NG4j2f_5p5&sig=vfjwW2vv1DodEpeyQxpFln9D0Mk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="luzones"&f=false|Woods' continued use of the term here opt for Luzones as the appropriate English orthography. I will now slowly process this article for move to "Luzones" as per the

WP:NCUE rule. - Alternativity (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]