Open main menu

Contents

NationalityEdit

I regret to inform, but Fernão de Magalhães (or Ferdinand Magellan or whatever) was actually portuguese, not spanish. I hope this is corrected asap. —Preceding [[lapu lapu but comment

unsigned]] comment added by 202.175.72.203 (talkcontribs) 15:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but the correction you made was inaccurate--the soldiers were indeed Spanish. Only Magellan himself was Portugese. --Migs 16:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
And some Portugese and Italians--Jondel 01:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YES. Magellan is a young officer of Portugal who was requesting a soldier to be with his expidition but the king of Portugal denied the request of Magellan.later, Spain supported the Magellan for his expidition. Conrad 124.106.30.175 (talk · contribs) 04:40, April 28, 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference that states Lapu-Lapu was a Filipino by nationality as the Philippines as a country did not exist at the time in which he lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.10.126 (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Lapulapu Muslim? Was he even named Lapulapu!Edit

The claim Lapu-Lapu was a Muslim lord is a watershed in how Filipinos determine historical truth. It's in this context that I am further exploring the conversation on Mactan's chieftain's true name and identity.

Antonio Pigafetta is the only eyewitness, out of nine who wrote firsthand accounts of Magellan's voyage, who gave the name of Mactan's “lord” who is hailed today as a Filipino hero. The spelling of his name, "Caliph Lapu," the c being a cedilla (ç with a tail), the archaic spelling of s in the Romance languages, is uniform in all the four surviving codices of Pigafetta’s account of Magellan’s expedition, namely, the Italian Ambrosiana, Manuscript 5650, the Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex, and Manuscript 24224.

This singular spelling is followed in transcriptions and translations down through the centuries...even in the corrupted copies of Pigafetta’s account by Gian Battista Ramusio who garbled many parts of Pigafetta's story as to make Ramusio's editions falsifications of Pigafetta.

Even the first authentic edition of Pigafetta, Carlo Amoretti‘s 1800 transcription and rendition into modern Italian of the codex known as Ambrosiana, does not deviate from “Cilapulapu” inspite of the ex-Augustinian Amoretti's "ex cathedra" dictum that the “Ci” in names of the various chiefs in the Philippine archipelago was a prefix that was an honorific. Amoretti asserts, "…It appears that Si or Ci placed before a man's name is a title of honour." (See http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=WxsnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA288&dq=Pigafetta%27s+Voyage+Round+the+World&lr=&ei=i-0xSYDtHpuKkAS526zADQ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Pigafetta%27s%20Voyage%20Round%20the%20World&f=false) Also see Jpeg image of Amoretti annotation.

This dictum is rejected and transmogrified by the first Filipino to have read Pigafetta-—the Amoretti Italian edition-—Jose P. Rizal who broke away from the classic orthographic tradition "Cilapulapu". Rizal brushed aside Amoretti’s honorific dictum and instead assigns the “Ci” a different value, as article "si" that in many Austronesian languages precedes a name. Rizal gives no explanation for his operation, offers no argument, cites no authority, invokes no linguistic principle to support his action. He simply asserts, he did not even attempt to prove.

He for the first time spells the Mactan chieftain’s name “Si Lapulapu” in an annotation of his 1890 edition of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las islas Filipinas por el doctor Antonio de Morga, obra publicada en Méjico el an̄o de 1609. nuevamente sacada à luz y anotada por José Rizal y precedida de un prólogo del prof. Fernando Blumentritt.

Rizal's novel spelling appears in his Spanish translation of a Pigafetta passage found in Amoretti’s Italian edition. Rizal intercalates his "Si Lapulapu" in place of Pigafetta’s “Cilapulapu.” (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Lapulapu;rgn=full%20text;idno=AHZ9387.0001.001;didno=AHZ9387.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000050) Rizal does not explain his operation and fails to give a precise citation of his authority, Amoretti.

In modern historiography one cannot deviate from the exact wording of a text one is copying without explaining the alteration. One has to at the very least explain and ought to argue and justify and validate. Rizal does none of these. The change from "Cilapulapu" to "Si Lapulapu" is kind of "ex cathedra" operation--surely an an invalid operation--where the reader is asked to take it or leave it.

It took some time before Rizal’s Si Lapulapu is further transmogrified to what is today universally used, Lapulapu or Lapu-Lapu. The first I can trace this is in Paterno, Pedro A. (Pedro Alejandro). Los Tagálog. Madrid: Tipografiá de los sucesores de Cuesta, go to http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Lapulapu;rgn=full%20text;idno=AHZ9231.0001.001;didno=AHZ9231.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000017.

In the case of Amoretti’s honorific, this is falsified by the fact the most powerful king of all, Cebu's Humabon, did not have a "Ci" before his name. There were so many other chieftains, no less powerful than Cilapulapu, whose names were not prefixed, e.g., Zula, the other lord of Mactan. Rizal’s presumption “Ci” was an article is invalidated by the fact so many chieftains in Mactan and Cebu were named without the prefix, e.g., Bondara, Magalibe, Zula, Mandani, Teten, Japaa. The chief of Panaon was Cabulon; Baibai was Malegis; Butuan, Calambu; Chippit, Calanoa.

Amoretti‘s assertion would have been valid if the people of Zubu were Muslimized. But they were not. In Tausug si means sheikh, a title given to the early Arab missionaries and their descendants. In 1521, there were no Tausugs. The Tausugs were still Butuanons, inhabiting Northern Mindanao and would not make the exodus to Basilan and Sulo where they then assumed a new identity, Tausugs, an event that would happen only long after the archipelago had been colonized by conquistador Legazpi in 1565. Philippine historians mishandled this incident by erroneously reconstructing the event in this manner, "The Tausugs left Butuan and went to Basilan and Jolo where they became the reigning clan." This is akin to writing the American history this way, "The Americans left England and ruled the United States of America."

The story of the Butuanon exodus is told in the historical study by Fr. Francisco Combes, S.J., Historia de Mindanao y Joló, por el p. Francisco Combés... Obra publicada en Madrid en 1667, y que ahora con la colaboración del p. Pablo Pastells ... saca nuevamente á luz W. E. Retana and starts at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Paguian%20Tindig;rgn=full%20text;idno=aqn8199.0001.001;didno=aqn8199.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000114. A. Kemp Pallesen wrote a book, Culture contact and language convergence, that provides the lexicostatistical evidence for Combes's story. The book was published in 1986 by Summer Institute of Linguistics. See http://openlibrary.org/b/OL18106522M/Culture_contact_and_language_convergence

Pigafetta gave a careful distinction between "heathens" and "Moors." In the entire Cebu incident of April-May 1521 Pigafetta specifically referred to only one "Moor," the trader from "Ciama" which could be either Champa or Siam. (Click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Siam;rgn=full%20text;idno=afk2830.0001.033;didno=afk2830.0001.033;view=image;seq=00000145)

Is it possible Magellan, out of lack of interest, did not know if the people of Cebu and Mactan and everywhere else were Muslims? But it was vital for the Spanish expedition to know who were “Mahometans”, in fact Pigafetta was particular on this point. This is further proven by the Cebuano-Butuanon "dictionary" or "vocabulary" of 150 words which Pigafetta titled, "Words of those heathen people." Furthermore, when Magellan burned the houses in a village in Mactan named Bullaia, it was explained that "a cross was erected on the spot, because it was a village of idolaters; if the inhabitants had been Moors, i.e., Mahometans, a pillar of stone would have been raised to mark the hardness of their hearts." (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.033&q1=Zubu&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=167)

As for the name, "Kalipulaku" this is the handiwork of a non-eyewitness, Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, who wrote Historia de las Indias (Valladolid: 1557). The part on Magellan and his voyage is in Book XX, Part II. Oviedo's source was Sebastian Elcano who he interviewed for his book. Not being an eyewitness report, Oviedo commits a number of errors, including his report that the Easter mass of March 31, 1521 was held at Cebu. This error is embraced by a number of amateur historians whose works are heartily adopted by Cebu propagandists and tourism writers.

From Oviedo's "Kalipulaku" it becomes "Calipulapo" in Fr. Prudencio de Sandoval's Historia de la vida y hechos del Emperador Carlos V.... Valladolid, 1604.

The name "Qari Pulako" and "Kaliph Pulaka" are spin offs of Oviedo’s “Kalipulako” made to sound Moorish. It’s propagandistic historiography, the product of imagination based on the fallacious assumption Mactan was Muslimized. “According to Sulu oral tradition, Lapu-Lapu was a Muslim chieftain, and was also known as 'Kaliph Pulaka'. The people of Bangsamoro, the Moro homeland in the Philippines, consider him to be a Muslim and a member of the Tausug ethnic group." See http://manilagalleontrade.webs.com/kalipulakoprecolonial.htm There is no provenance, as far as I can determine, outside of Oviedo's "Kalipulako". It's on the same level of imaginative history of Isidro Escare Abeto who, on his own authority, declares Mactan’s chief's real name was "Lupalupa." (See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Lapulapu;rgn=full%20text;idno=AKM8935.0001.001;didno=AKM8935.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000028) His book, Philippine history: reassessed, was published in 1989.

Is historical truth important? Or, something else? Are our Muslim brethren interested in the truth of Cilapulapu? Or, will they insist on "Qari Pulako" the Tausug lord at a time when there were no Tausugs walking on this planet earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talkcontribs) 01:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


-> the books you qoute are only "point of views" of those that wrote them, it is dangerous to presume that by the 15th century there were no muslims in the visayas. since Islam was in the Philippine islands since the 13th century. Muslims don't leav rocks to represent their strength. that again is a presumtion and stereotyping. Based on his weaponry and recognition Lapu lapu is in the sultanates of sulu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.215.81 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the rocks, it was them Christians leaving a Stone Pillar for every place they conquer to represent the conquered region as Muslim, but in this case Piggafetta wrote that they left a cross to represent the area as Pagan. If Cebu was ever Muslim why would we call Humabon as Rajah not Sultan. If there were Muslims in the Visayas they would have left some clues as to their religion. Clearly you are trying to give a high importance on the Muslims when if fact Lapu-Lapu could have been a Manobo as some Manobo claims. Another thing, if Cebu was really Islamic why didn't Humabon fought against the invaders, if he were a Muslim, he would rather die than become an idolater(because I would), but here we have Humabon gladly accepting the new religion because it was similar to the current religion of the region.Junji (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

-If your claim on christians leaving a rock on conquered muslim territory then they would have done that when they took over rajah sulayman's manila, oh yes sulayman is a muslim and a rajah, seems to be we forgot that india were also run by mughals who were muslims and they traded back and forth in the philippines before 1521. humabon was an animist and not a muslim. lapu lapu was a muslim because of his weaponry and his strong resistance against the christian religion on top of his being in lineage with the sulu sultanates. the tausugs probably are identifying him by blood after the fact that they became tausugs by identity. the only question here is why did magellan send a moor/muslim to negotiate with lapu lapu earlier before their conflict, pigafetta noted this although his claims are usually exageratted. the evidences point to lapu lapu as being more of a muslim than an animist or anythng else. no one can seem to prove he was an animist. let fact be fact. muslims are taught to fight off invaders and any attempts of conversion, this is a heavy traight among muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.151.149 (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But Manila, was different this time around the Spaniards were here to stay, why need a marker anyway, when they'll just be throwing it out to build a fort. Just because Lapu-lapu had the same weapons as that of Sulu, that makes him a Muslim? The weapons are still common to the Malay people even that of the Sri Visayan empire. The Muslims of Mindanao does not have a claim that weapons like Kris and the Kampilan is regionally their's, but it is common to all of the archipelago. Hence, even the oral traditions and the weapons does not prove Lapu-lapu was Muslim. Oral traditions here in Mactan never says he ever was. Since it has been said that the writers and historians are not from the region, let me ask this again to those claiming that Lapu-lapu is a Muslim, do you even live in Mactan, where you even born in the province of Cebu? If not, then do no attempt to write the history. Do not force your history down on the people that never have the same oral history as yours. Therefore it is best to leave the religion of Lapu-lapu as a question or a mystery. And until there are archaeological evidence that supports him being a Muslim, then he is not a Muslim and will never be. Junji (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I stand corrected on the religion of Lapu-lapu, I just bought a book written by Jovito Abellana you can have a look a the photo here http://www.baybayin.com/aginid-bayok-sa-atong-tawarik/.

The book ends that Lapu-lapu left Mactan for Borneo months after they vanquished the Spaniards, he wants to fully recover in Borneo, along with him was his three wives, eleven children and 27 half Malay-Arab. I am still in the process of scanning the book I will advice when I have an electronic copy of it. I will be uploading it on facebook for scholarly criticisms. Right now I am convinced that Lapu-lapu was indeed a Muslim. These are oral stories from a Catholic and not a Muslim, hence my strong belief that Lapu-lapu is a Muslim, this way as a Catholic he has nothing to gain if Lapu-lapu was a pagan or not.

However the contemporary stories that we have differs from the book published by Jovito S. Abellana in 1998, the book was titles "Aginid Bayok sa Atong Tawarik".

For now I can only have that title, but there is an online reference of the actual book from the University of San Carlos Cebuano Studies Center, when I can get that I'll add the link here.

My apologies to our brother Muslims. Peace be unto you. Junji (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As promised here is the book http://tlc.library.usc.edu.ph/TLCScripts/interpac.dll?LabelDisplay&Config=SAMPLE&Branch=,0,&FormId=189846259&RecordNumber=206981 you can buy a book by calling Cebu Normal University Museum (63)(32)2536223 Look for the Mr. Reynaldo Inocian. The book is tagged at 125 Philippine Peso.

Although Lapu-lapu was called Sri Lapu-lapu, the end part of the book says that it was Lapu-lapu who left Opong for Borneo together with 20 plus half Arabs, his wives one of which was related to Sri Humabon and 11 children, and yes it mentions Lapu-lapu being a Muslim. Lapu-lapu in the book was wounded in the battle, he did not fight Magellan at all. I think his strength must've diminished after the battle, that he had to rest for 5 months. Anyway more info when I finish the book. Junji (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All claims that Lapu-lapu is a muslim have no proof, if he is a muslim he should have a muslim name, cebuanos are animist before muslims and spanish/christian. If muslims have come to Mactan to conquer, lapu-lapu will fight them for he is the ruler of the island. Chieftains duty to protect and to overlook his people's welfare. Tribes fight other tribe for conquering or stepping in places owned/ruled by other tribes, its common or instincts action by the ruler or Chieftains. if Muslim have come to Mactan, then muslim language will be common to 10% more percent to the island for Muslim tribe have different language different from the cebuanos, even if you say time had past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.193.53.35 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

PulakaEdit

Any source to the name Caliph Pulaka? --Jondel 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reliable source which will back up such a claim except perhaps for the self-serving revisionist websites which claim he is a Muslim. There is no historical evidence on the matter nor is there any evidence that the Visayas areas during Magellan's visit was Muslim. If at all, he may probably have been an animist. Cdvl (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


please read the rebuttal on lapu lapu being muslim, the evidences have been given that he was more a muslim then he would have been an animist. what is your evidence that he was an animist? because for centuries he is in sulu history. you'll have to give evidence that indicates he is an animist. please give it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.124.68 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Caliph Pulaka is Lapulapu too. See the net for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.24.76 (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ReligionEdit

Lapu-Lapu was not a Muslim. He was a Pagan believer who worshipped the anitos (Native Cebuano nature god). I read some of the manuscripsts Of Archive of the Indies, in a Museum in Seville. Spain. -RAMIREZ (UTC)

--> Manuscripts from spain? you believe western occupiers than the obvious evidences present infront of us? it is this colonial minded trap the spaniards have set before us tha we cant escape. why should we belive what the white man says about our own history? the accounts according to the filipino moros are very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.18.180 (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapu-lapu certainly did not worship anitos due to the fact that anitos are not Cebuano gods. They are gods from Luzon and definitely not Cebuano or Visayan for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdvl (talkcontribs) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to Religio-Political prejudice and animosities in the Philippines there is an inclination to deny Lapu-Lapu's Muslim identity, while the Moro in the South celebrate it. Such denials should be ignored and the Wiki entry should be based solely upon scholarly consensus which acknowledges his identity as a Muslim chieftain as correctly stated in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.203.254 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your historical basis for such an assertion? I will gladly accept that he was a Muslim if you can produce irrevocable proof. What "scholarly consensus" are you talking about? Please do enlight me and share references, such as in the form of "scholarly" books, theses and lectures on the matter. But for now, in the absence of such "scholarly" proof which you claim, such a statement that he was a muslim is based merely on conjecture and fantasy. History is not based on fantasy but on fact. Cdvl (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

-> just read Moro history. the evidence is clearly there. its funny we can accept the philippines isnt originally a christian country and that we had muslim defenders. some people just cant stand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.20.164 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The basis of all this talk about Lapu-lapu being Muslim has never been verified. Please give me a bibliography so I can verify your assertion that he was Muslim. If your bibliography and source amounts to nothing more than a website, then I am sorry, I shall not subscribe to such a postulate. Cite books please. But I doubt there ever IS one. Cdvl (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

--> evidences are clear and has been presented, sulu history has accounts of lapu lapu. if books are your only pieces of evidence please take into account that the story will depend on who is writing it. let us then look at evidences prepared based on his weapons,dialect,family background, bloodline, way of governance, his stature in society, and the year that he was in the philippine islands. since Islam was there around the 13th-14th century. a hundred or more years before christianity. let us base it on what facts were gathered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.124.68 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Senator Richard Gordon said - “This is a great step in recognizing the fact that we had Muslims such as Lapu-Lapu, Sultan Kudarat, Amai Pakpak, Sorongan, who kept fighting the Spaniards long before this country thought of a revolution against Spain." reference - http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090924-226695/Congress-panel-OKs-9th-ray-in-RP-flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.97.164 (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The good Senator Gordon is a Politico he will just do anything to get your vote. If Mactan island was really Muslim, then the invaders would have left a stone pillar after burning down the village here is a reference to it; [1]. If all of Mindanao was truly Islam why do we still have animist religion there, clearly Islam did not fully convert the whole of Mindanao and so goes with the Visayas if there were ever real Muslims. Here is a food for thought, if there are any Muslims out there would; you convert to Christianity or would you rather die, clearly you can see that Christianity is against both the Judaic and Islamic precepts, and is considered as IDOLATRY. But you cannot deny the plausibility that Lapu-Lapu could have been a Muslim, it just does not add up for me, so his religion still hangs and he should not be identified as Islamic.

- are you saying mactan needs to be muslim for lapu lapu to be muslim? thats rediculous, as we all know that muslims and animists lives side by side before the spaniards came. the religion the population practiced has nothing to do with a person's own religion, so are you saying there were zero muslims in the visayas at that time? if islam reached even luzon by the 15 th century, then how can it not have passed the visayas? it is against Islam to force convert people. hope that clears your ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.151.149 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are saying that the people in Mindanao went up to the Visayas and then to Luzon, that does not work that way, the Muslims in Luzon went through another route, even Northern Mindanao was not fully Muslim, if they are then why do we still have the Bagobos worshiping idols and the other tribes. The Muslim tribes in Mindanao have always been a minority, there are 40 plus more tribes there that are basically pagan. I did not say that Islam forces people to convert, but there is a propensity of treating non-Muslims differently. If truly there were any Muslims in Cebu then show me archaeological evidence, so far the archaeologists here have dug nothing that suggests there were ever Muslims, but more of the Hindu-Budhist, similar to that of Bali. Does Muslims have jade death masks and gold coins for their eyes when they are buried? Because finds like this, is in the province of Cebu. Junji (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been reading a lot of the people talking about his religion, I will be removing it or edit it as a possibility, until there are concrete proofs of it. Such claims by Muslims that Lapu-lapu was Muslim and the Christians claiming that he was heathen, is proof enough that his religion is not certain, History is always written by the victors and such claims of his religion is being used as a means of propaganda for both religions is appalling of the truth, and until then... Junji (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Lapu Lapu is Khalifa Lapu... He is Muslim... Arab scholars in arabia and other Muslim countries in the world have record of it and you Christians dont accept the fact that the Defender of Mactan and the one who fought against the Spanish Colonizers , Is a brave and courageous, and God fearing MUSLIM.... You cant change the fact that Lapu Lapu is Khalifa Lapu and He is MUSLIM rewarded by ALLAH subhana WAtta ALLAH to wage Jihad against Magellan's Force. ALLAH Huakbar!.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.9.107 (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Arabs would be very happy with someone else claiming to be a Caliph. The title of Caliph is not someone you give to just anyone who wants it. Shiites and Sunnis have fought countless wars over who is a Caliph and who is not. Ever noticed that even in the Sulu/Maguindanao/etc. Sultanates there were NO rulers who were called Caliph ever? If he was a Caliph, every single Muslim in the Philippines at that time would have to obey him. That includes all the Sultanates. Humabon wouldn't even dare to go against his wishes. He would be pretty much the equivalent of a western emperor, not a chieftain of a community in a tiny island.
Again the name Kalipulako is derived from a misreading of a c-cedilla (which is pronounced like an S even though it looks like a C), the Spanish spelling of Cebuano Salip which in turn is from Sri Paduka, as discussed in the endnote on this page. It is from Sanskrit, not Arabic "Caliph". The same as the source of terms like Datu or Ratu (from Sanskrit Raja), Merdeka (from Sanskrit Maharddhika), or Diwata (from Sanskrit Devata) and common throughout the Indianized southeast Asian nations. Etymology is a science. You don't simply claim that "Caliph" and "Kali Pulako" are the same thing just because they look the same.
Furthermore, Magellan and his crew were well aware what a Muslim was. It was the Spanish after all who gave Muslim Filipinos the name Moro because they were aware that they had the same religion as the Moors. When Magellan arrived, Spain and Portugal has just finished fighting a war to retake Spain and Portugal from Muslims. IF Lapu-Lapu was Muslim, Magellan would have known it and Pigafetta would have written about it. They didn't.
This has nothing to do with discrimination or religious persecution (notice that Christian Filipinos aren't claiming he was Christian either). This has to do with sources. NONE of the sources during his time mention his religion. Neither are there any indications that ancient Cebuanos were Muslims. Neither from Humabon or Lapu-Lapu and neither from later on when the Spaniards colonized the Visayas. Ancient Filipinos were not a united people. They were composed of various different ethnicities speaking their own languages. It's the same reason why the Lumad, even though they lived very close to Bangsamoro, did not convert to Islam. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 10:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering the c-cedilla which is pronounce as S and turning it into Salip which according to your source came from Sri Paduka. I have to mention what is obvious, no offense, Salip is closer to Sarip (a name commonly used by the Muslim community in the Philippines) which came from the word Shariff (ARABIC. also commonly used by Muslims in PH) which means "Muslim leader". Salip or Kalip? both would lead you to Arabic terminologies. There's is no discrimination, but why fight what is obvious? You have more evidences laying in front of you. Why do you keep on shoving what Pigafetta has written when he came to Philippines with Magellan? And why would he tell the world that Lapu Lapu is a Muslim when they wanted to fully de-Islamized Philippines and turn it to Christianity during their occupation? Their GOAL was to turn people into Christianity, and not to explain to the world that the Philippine hero was a Muslim. Sorry for coming in late.

Number of menEdit

hey...when magellan conquered mactan he led 60 men.,not 48..owkie???you confirm it pa in encarta and google...kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.74.14 (talkcontribs) 07:25, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be addressed over at the Battle of Mactan article. Please provide sources there if you have them. -- Satori Son 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-> 60 men? how do you even know it is 60? how can you prove this aside from the spanish's own biased acounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.18.180 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Urban legendEdit

There is also an urban legend that circulates around the Philippines of a man-to-man duel between Magellan and Lapu-Lapu with Lapu-Lapu vanqishing Magellan in a manner not unlike the biblical David and Goliath epic. Many filipinos take pride in recounting the details of this fiction believing that this indicates a superiority of the malay over the european. The ambiguous nature of the details of this story and its appeal to the impoverished have been co-opted by the contemporary Filipino oligarchy to shore-up the hapless spirits of the 80 million who are mired in the apathy and failure of one of the world's most traditionally corrupt nations.

According to the Los Angeles Chapter of Filipina writers Magellan and 8 men began rowing towards Mactan in very shallow waters that the main ship could not navigate. Because of the natural barrier they had to wade almost a mile into the shore putting them at a great distance from the main ship thus making any help from the main ship suicidal. Once ashore Magellan and his men were besiged by between 1000 and 1500 Cebuano's and the last reported sigting of Magellan was that despite being severely wounds he continuing to fight the throng until he was finally overcome and hacked to pieces. --Presko Komiker Princeton --130.33.206.68 (talk · contribs) 14:06, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

--> now from whos account was this based on? the western invader who was humiliated? ofcourse pigafetta will do all he can to cover up the truth. how do you not know that the battle didnt happen face to face? where you there?

Maybe it's high time you should make a thesis on the matter. I suggest that you do that then publish your research and findings on the matter of Lapu-lapu's "Islamic heritage". Cdvl (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

--> i dont need to, we are moro people. we have our own history backed up by centuries of conflict. you can even google about us at your convenience. lapu lapu is a datu, maybe you forgot that. you can look up malaysia and indonesia and even brunei to find out more about it as well as the kampilan the sword that datu lapu lapu uses. you should look up Islam in the Philippines to help you understand two sides of a coin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.124.68 (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shalom, I don't think the Kampilan and the typical moro weapons were exclusive to Muslims, but it was most certainly exclusive to the Malay race like you(if ever your color is brown) and I. The weapons you mentioned were clearly what the invaders usually see, unlike those in the pacified region who were clearly heathen (the newly imported religion was similar to theirs i.e. idols and idols and again more idols, that is why the heathens were easier to convert because they the heathens of the region saw the religion was similar), henceforth the weapons were banned by the invaders for fear of their(Spaniards) security, but Muslims do not agree with Christianity, because if you look at the precepts of both Islamic and Judaic; Christianity is Idolatrous, and any Muslim would probably prefer to die than become an idolater(I would die than become an idolater would you?). Which is why those Kampilans are usually referred to as weapons of Moro land, because you do not see it in the pacified regions anymore. If the whole of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao were indeed Muslim why do we still have animist practices, my question to you is are you from Mactan island, did you live out your life there or are you from Mindanao, those are your stories and they the people of Mactan have their own history and legends and stories. The title Datu does not necessarily make you Muslim, it is a common title among the Malay race for a chief or a king, or an equivalent to a British Knight, the Manobo also calls their chief Datu and the other 40++ non-Muslim tribes in Mindanao, in fact my father is a Datu, and does not make him and I a Muslim indeed not. Read the history of the Visayas here [2]. Furthermore, Indonesia has heathens, look at Bali, very Idolatrous island, and what did history also teach us? Their leaders were also called Rajah.
You are making this into a Religious Propaganda of which I find totally inappropriate. It would be best that you sign your posts with four tildes, that way it would make things more formal and good practice. Thank you. Junji (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean upEdit

I don't have time to do it, but this aticle could use some clean up, at least in the introduction. Greatersam 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

do you know what is the cause of death of lapu-lapu?Edit

DO you know what or who killed Lapu-lapu our first hero?? there were no records I could find so if you do know email me... jericho_tabug@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.33.127 (talkcontribs) 06:50, April 19, 2007 (UTC)

Battle of MactanEdit

Er.. the Battle of Mactan was a actually a battle between Rajah Humabon and Kali Pulako. Magellan was merely joining his new-found friend Humabon for a show of Spanish arms power. This breaks the popular belief that Kali Pulako defended the islands against Spanish conquest because he was actually defending his kingdom against Humabon and the Cebuanos. This is accurate since during that time there was still no concept of a "nation" or "Philippines" or "Filipinos" yet, which makes it disagreeable to make him a national hero. He was fighting for his kingdom and not of any nation. Also there was no one on one duel or fighting between Magellan and Kali Pulako. Magellan was already hurt when he arrived in the islands. He already engaged himself already in fighting off other people in the different South American areas he and his crew landed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.143.162 (talkcontribs) 10:01, July 26, 2007 (UTC)

Sources please. --seav (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding references tagEdit

The article will be vastly improved by additional references, preferably through inline citations. I've never known of a previous attribution of a year-of-birth or year-of-death for Lapu-lapu before; or that he was also known as "Khalif Pulaka". It is best that citations be added to those facts, so they could be easily verifiable. Anyo Niminus 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


A Muslim and Representative of the Sulu Sultanate?Edit

There is no evidence whatsoever in the Visayas that the region believed in the Islamic Faith or that Lapulapu was a Muslim and a Tausug. Until such a time that there are historical sources cited for such an assertion, I will continue to delete any citation and reference as regards the matter. Self-serving references claiming his membership as a Tausug tribal leader is not supported by historical fact save perhaps for the website from which it was quoted. History is not based on conjectures. It is based on facts. Not fantasy. I will reiterate that I shall continue to delete any citation and reference as regards the matter unless and until historical scholars can find proof that indeed he was a muslim and a Tausug. At most, he is a Visayan Hero and tribal leader, and he will remain as such til the contrary that he was muslim and Tausug is proven. Cdvl (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Response:

here are the evidences:

1. he is in Sulu and tausug history unless you know moro history then you havent any basis 2. He is from borneo of muslim parents 3. he weilds a muslim sword the Kampilan. the kampilan is a moro weapon. like the keris it is connected to moro history. 4. Manila Bulletin a accredite Filipino newspaper has cited him a muslim 5. He is a Datu of muslim origin 6. His father is also a datu. 7. Senator Gordon has erected a statue of Lapu Lapu and acknowledged him a muslim.

what makes you claim he is not a muslim? what are your facts that he isnt? if you cannot back it up then what have you? let us give credit to where it is due. you can go to the bangsamoro website and research properly. just claiming that hes not without evidence is racist and ignorant ofcourse you agree. show your evidence that he is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.20.164 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bangsamoro website: the "facts" stated therein are not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdvl (talkcontribs) 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
By "evidence", Cdvl meant citations to "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:V#Reliable sources for Wikipedia's standards for acceptable sources. If you have the link to the Manila Bulletin article referring to the subject as Muslim, please post here so we can evaluate it.
And please lay off the personal attacks. — Satori Son 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

---> i placed the link of the manila bulletin in the reference area for everyone to read, apparently some vandal erased it. i wasnt personally attacking probably annoyed that someone circumvents due to relgious political prejudices. ill be glad to add the link again. here: http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/04/27/OPED200404278218.html , i also gave evidences cler enough to identify him with the moros of the Philippines. he has a statue in the philippines itself that shows him weilding a kampilan. that is a muslim monarch sword. also here is another link that which the philippine government and officials awcknowledge lapu lapu as a muslim http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2008/0427_gordon1.asp i rest my case, lets us give credit to where it is due. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.124.145 (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are those the "credible" sources which you claim as basis for your assertion? A website/news item. Granting arguendo that on the basis of such article which cites an oral tradition of the Tausugs, has there been any serious study on the matter? None as far as I am aware of. Secondly, Sen. Gordon is just a politician. Come on. Let's face it, who would you rather believe? A historian with a degree in history/languages/archaeology or some politician who will probably say anything just to look good. It is beyond me why you cite such puerile sources. Oral tradition is hardly verifiable and reliable. We are not talking about religious dogma as truth. History changes in the face of verifiable fact. Such "facts" you have made mention does not even hold water in the light of sholarly work. On the matter of Sen. Gordon, he even said in a speech that the Fuente Osmena in Cebu City is a symbol of freedom, he got his facts wrong, the fountain was made to commemorate the first waterworks in Cebu City, but I digress. You see, Sen. Gordon is not a historian and may have just gotten his "facts" off a website that does not cite any verifiable sources.

--> to answer you atleast the tausugs give us a door to where lapu lapu had originated, second due to political/religious prejudices no one wants to write about lapu lapu as a whole because they have no evidence that he is an animist as opposed to the evidences that he is a muslim and from borneo. we can always look at the realities based on weapons/clothes/origin/family bloodline/stature and make comparisons. lapu lapu was a datu. and in relation to the borneo blue bloods who to this day are datus also and carry the very same weapon lapu lapu weilds : a kampilan.

--> basing senator gordon being a politician, you cannot just blindside him and say that hes a politician and would want to make muslims happy, he has no reason to do so. and he has more at stake then a professor who has half baked theories of who lapu lapu is. the facts i mentioned are the very same facts which are based on you so called 'scholarly" work, senator gordon by the way is a christian. and is based in luzon. mindanao has no plotical gain or mass affect for him claiming lapu lapu was a muslim. so your post is illegible right there. you try your best to measure senator gordon on some of his statements but i say you probably are taking his words out of context in regard to fuente osmena. i wonder why it cant be a symbol of freedom please elaborate why it cant be considered as such., also maybe you have forgotten that senator gordon probably has a team of "scholars" advicing him. of course the senate doesnt only compose senator gordon himself right? then that answers your question.


I am not shutting my doors to the fact that Lapu-lapu MIGHT be Muslim, but unless and until you can provide "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:V#Reliable sources your assertion and postulate is at best a mere assertion and a falsehood at worst. So, to set everybody's mind at ease as regards the matter, cite "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." See WP:V#Reliable sources Cdvl (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

--> the newspapers credibility is a third party source, senator gordon who has a solid reputation and ofcourse a team of scholars who study before speaking minus any potential political benefit to him is already a reliable third party source,if you wont take the moro's account on lapu lapu then maybe you would like to know that lapu lapu is in the sulu sultanantes also. he is a datu by birth. that itself. here even wikipedia confirms this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datu , you can look up the datus even to this day. it is beyond me that all these proper evidences are given, it is beyond me that no one wants to write a book about it and i suspect it is becaues of political/religious reasons not to do so. now let me ask you then and request from you any evidences that prove that lapu lapu is an animist and not a muslim. if you can prove that with proper evidence than we can discuss further.

Reboot NPOV disputeEdit

I am aware of the past discussions recorded herein, however, there seems to be no solid consensus achieved. I am therefore initiating this formal NPOV dispute by introducing the controversial lines:

Lapu-Lapu, also called Kaliph Pulaka[3] was, according to Sulu oral tradition, a native Muslim chieftain on Mactan,[4] who is known as the first native of the archipelago to have resisted Spanish colonization.

The first disputed line claims that Lapu-Lapu was also known as Caliph Pulaka; the reference is hosted by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at Northern Illinois University. I do not see any problem with citing a source from a reputable educational institution. The source has an author identified and that author lists his references in that web page.

The second disputed line claims that according to Sulu oral tradition, Lapu-Lapu was a Muslim. I would like to stress that the line does not explicitly claim that Lapu-Lapu WAS Muslim, rather it states that line according to Sulu oral tradition, which is exactly what the editorial article displays.

Hence, I am putting forth the opinion that both these lines are not violative of WP's NPOV policy. If User:Cdvl wishes to contest these lines, said user may introduce referenced lines to the fact that Lapu-Lapu was NOT Muslim. However, I object to the removal of properly referenced lines, the sources of which in my opinion are not suspect. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 02:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this an NPOV issue but is there another way of presenting the second line (the Muslim thing)? --Efe (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
How about this:
Lapu-Lapu, also called Kaliph Pulaka[3] is known as the first native of the Philippines to have resisted Spanish colonization. According to Sulu oral tradition, he was a Muslim chieftain on Mactan.[4]
KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 07:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The question is, is there any scholarly article that points to his non-Muslim heritage? --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what I hope User:Cdvl would provide. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 07:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards presentation of what is generally accepted. Academic information written in our textbooks, and the stand of the National Historical Institute on the matter (if there is) I think carries more weight than two website references, really. Does the statement "also called Kaliph Pulaka" widely presented in our history books? If not, then I think the first sentence must state only what is neutral and generally accepted definition. The Sulu oral claim can be placed in succeeding sentences. Jordz (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

SummaryEdit

Zaide's books make no mention of Lapu-Lapu's religious affiliation. Neither is Kaliph Pulaka mentioned. I'm leaning towards restructuring the initial paragraphs following Jordz's suggestions:

Lapu-Lapu was the king of Mactan, an island in the Visayas, Philippines, who is known as the first native of the archipelago to have resisted Spanish colonization. He is now regarded as the first Filipino hero.[5]
On the morning of April 27, 1521, Lapu-Lapu and the men of Mactan, armed with spears and kampilan, faced Spanish soldiers led by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan. In what would later be known as the Battle of Mactan, Magellan and several of his men were killed.
In his honor, the Cebuano people have erected a statue on Mactan and also renamed the town of Opon in Cebu to Lapu-Lapu City. A more recent statue was given as a gift to the Philippines from South Korea in 2005. It stands in Rizal Park in the national capital of Manila.[6]
According to Sulu oral tradition, Lapu-Lapu was a Muslim chieftain,[4] and was also known as "Kaliph Pulaka".[3]
References
  1. ^ http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afk2830.0001.033&q1=Zubu&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=167
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visayas
  3. ^ a b c Ang, Josiah C. "Historical Timeline of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu Including Related Events of Neighboring Peoples". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  4. ^ a b c "Lapu-Lapu and the Battle of Mactan". The Manila Bulletin Online. 2001. Retrieved 2008-07-09.
  5. ^ Zaide, Sonia M. (1994). The Philippines:A Unique Nation. All Nations Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 83–84. ISBN 971-642-005-6.
  6. ^ "Gordon, Garcia recall victory at Mactan, honor Lapu-Lapu". Retrieved 2008-07-09.

If no one objects to this revision, I will post it to the main article within 24 hours. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well then. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 10:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

More objections?Edit

--> we object, because you are basing it on one man's opinion and sadly one who is from luzon at that. so yes we object. the evidences were given and very clear, unless you can prove 100% that he is not a muslim and does not fall into that timeline and all factors evident of that then we wont object, so yes WE OBJECT because lapu lapu is a datu, fought christians who wanted to convert them. the bangsamoro even contest this. let us be fair and give credit to where it is due. yes you have to becareful with who presents and claims what just basing it on claims that have blindsided the factors such as culture,religion,history,oral history,timeline,bloodline,weaponry and every related evidence involved. as what is presented Lapu lapu is More of a Muslim than he is an Animist. gregorio zaid if he has done his research corectly would have made religious references of lapu lapu based on all that is present to even this day. either practicing or non practicing a muslim is a muslim.

We cannot allow non-filipino non-malay to judge or make claims based on no evidences. so PROVE FIRST THAT LAPU LAPU IS NOT MUSLIM. BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN THAT HE IS BY PROPER TESTIMONIAL OF GOVERNMENT,OF TIMELINE,WEAPON,STATUES,ORAL TRADITION,SULU SULTANATE RECORDS. now we ask to be given evidence and hard fact that Lapu Lapu is not a muslim. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.124.68 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article closely you may notice that it does not make any statement to the effect that Lapu-Lapu was not Muslim. It doesn't even mention that he was an animist. The most prominently cited religious affiliation of his is him being a Muslim. I don't see the logic of trying to prove that he is not Muslim. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

--> by the way there is a mistake on the new article as based on zaid's claim, datu lapu lapu is not a Filipino. he was from borneo. HE IS CONSIDERED BY THE FILIPINO'S AS THE PHILIPPINE'S FIRST NATIONAL HERO would be a good replacement. sorry for the caps. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.124.68 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

May I have the source for that claim please? — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lapu-lapu is muslim according to http://www.bangsamoro.info/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=33 that is bangsamoro.info, a site of seperatists Muslims of the Philippines. -- Felipe Aira 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh)... where were all these objectors when the NPOV dispute was ongoing? I have incorporated the reference you have provided into the Lapu-Lapu article. — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really agree with him being a Muslim but I am willing to accept it, but even the Manobos claim that he was a Manobo(Even Rizal they say was Tausog, because of his name Riz-Al, and was adopted by Christians), this is more of a propaganda, have you guys ever asked someone from Mactan, whose family have lived out for centuries, there are oral traditions not from the Muslims but from Mactan island itself and none of them refer to Lapu-lapu as Muslim, why do we allow non-Mactan islanders to dictate the history of Mactan. When oral history from what I heard was that he was not... since the history is also oral from the bangsa moro side. Lapu-lapu was a great chief he was skilled in the art of war and good at 'pangamut'(hand to hand combat), he was still heathen, you can still smell of some heathen practices here in Mactan if you know were to look, we still have our own version of voodoo or 'barang' in Bisayan or 'kulam' in Tagalog, and that is not a Muslim practice. It is also said that Lapu-lapu fought with Humabon and defeated him, that is why he wanted the Spaniards to defeat Lapu-lapu for him. And that is an answer from someone living in Mactan. Junji (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Who killed Lapu-lapu?Edit

he died beacause of his old age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.130.55 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular belief has it that, he fled when Legaspi arrive, and furthermore Legaspi's men went out to look for him and his relatives. Although this has been an oral tradition but no real proof. Junji (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Conjecture about where Lapulapu came fromEdit

This edit introduces text concerning "conjecture" about "where Lapulapu came from". Firstly, I'm not sure that we want to include conjecture in the article. Secondly, the cited reference does not say anything about where Lapulapu came from. If this is a genuine issue for mention in the article, is there a better reference, please? – Wdchk (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've commented it out for now until someone provides the references for it. It sounds like local folk etymology to me.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BRD discussion re beliefs about the Rajahnate of CebuEdit

This 22:08, December 21, 2013 edit added content saying, "Some also believe that Lapu-Lapu and Rajah Humabon were the founders of a Muslim Rajahnate of Cebu (as the "Sultanate of Cebu"), ...".

It looks like this has been in and out of the article a few times since then, but I lately noticed its removal in this 19:08, June 29, 2014 edit, by User:Solarpiece, which said, "Religion: the Rajahnate of Cebu was never Islamic but followed a mixed belief of Animism, Buddhism and Hinduism". I look at this of the "B" phase of BRD. Solarpiece, I've previously asked you to read WP:BRD. If you have not read it, please read it now.

I reverted the removal with this 06:14, June 30, 2014 edit, saying, "Religion: Revert removal because of stated disagreement with the vewpoint [sic: viewpoint] of the cited source. See WP:DUE". I look on this as the "R" phase of BRD. If there is disaagreement about this, that disagreement should be discussed here in the "D" phase of BRD.

Solarpiece reverted my reversion in this 10:11, July 1, 2014 edit, saying, "Undid revision 614937810 by Wtmitchell (talk) Rajahnate of Cebu was never Islamic" and effectively firing a shot to initiate an edit war. Solarpiece, you and I just went down this road on another article. Please do not edit war -- it can get you blocked from editing.

I just undid this latest reversion, returning the part of the article at issue to the state which it ought to be in during the "D" phase of a BRD discussion.

The disputed material does not assert that the Rajanate of Cebu was ever Islamic. The disputed material asserts that some people believe that it was, and supports that assertion by citing this book page, wherein note 34 says that historians are generally in agreement that some parts of the Philippines were under Muslim rule prior to the arrival of the Spanish, and names Lapu Lapu as the founder of what it calls a "Muslim kingdom" which it calls "the Cebu Sultanate". The book cited is Farish A. Noor (2012). Islam on the Move: The Tablighi Jama'at in Southeast Asia. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-90-8964-439-8. From information about the author, Farish A. Noor, in the WP article about him, he seems well qualified to offer an assessment regarding general agreement among historians about this. It appears to me that the disputed material meets the criteria described in WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That is your point of view, you still give in to Islamic propaganda. You think you can out edit me just because I am an amateur Wikipedia editor. Why did you set aside the beliefs of other non-Islamic people of the Philippines? to call it Islamic marginalizes the beliefs of all non-Islamic people of the Philippines which is a violation of a neutral point of view. You support Islamic propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarpiece (talkcontribs) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lapu-Lapu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


General
Info box
  • I don't think this is the appropriate template box to use considering only his flourish date is known? Wouldn't a normal picture template do?
Lead
  • The Philippines regards him as the first Filipino hero → He is regarded as the first Filipino hero
  • The Philippines regards him as the first Filipino hero because he was the first native to resist Spanish colonization through his victory over the explorer Ferdinand Magellan. → Very long sentence, needs a clause in here somewhere.
  • You've used American English dialect spelling (honor) but you're using British English language formatting of dates.
  • which happened at → which took place at
  • I can't understand why the lead has one sentence/line paragraphs?
  • You call him a ruler in the lead, but Datu in the info box, which is inconsistent.
Name
  • The historical name of Lapu-Lapu is controversial. → Says who?
  • The earliest record of his name is from the Italian explorer Antonio Pigafetta who accompanied Magellan in the Philippines. → Source?
  • I don't think saying "etc." is acceptable.
Early life
  • The only known record of Lapu-Lapu before the arrival of the Spanish was in the pre-colonial oral chronicles from the reign of the last king of Cebu, Rajah Tupas (d. 1565). → Source?
  • This was compiled and written in Baybayin in the book Aginid, Bayok sa Atong Tawarik ("Glide on, Odes to Our History") in 1952 by Jovito Abellana. → Source?
  • The chronicle records the founding of the Rajahnate of Cebu by a certain Sri Lumay (also known as Rajamuda Lumaya), who was a prince from the Hindu Chola dynasty of Sumatra. → Source?
  • His sons, Sri Alho and Sri Ukob, ruled the neighboring communities of Sialo and Nahalin, respectively. → Source?
  • The islands they were in were collectively known as Pulua Kang Dayang or Kangdaya (literally "[the islands] which belong to Daya"). → Source?
  • The islands they were in were collectively known as Pulua Kang Dayang or Kangdaya (literally "[the islands] which belong to Daya"). → Source? (See where I'm going with this)
Battle of Mactan
  • Why is there a one line/sentence paragraph near the end?
Religion
  • The religion of Lapu-Lapu is also controversial. → You can't make sweeping statements like this.
  • Indeed, the Visayans were noted → Way, way, wayyyy too conversational.
References
  • A lot of them are missing dates and access dates.
  • You've used two styles of writing the dates (20 and 39 are different, for example)
  • 40 hasn't even been formatted.
Outcome

It's really obvious that this doesn't meet GA criteria and never did. The whole article reads too informal and conversational, and does not represent what a GA is supposed to signify. I last, quick ditch attempt at some editing in between your nomination and having your other nominations revoked hasn't really paid off, either. A lot more issues are present that what I have cared to go through, because to be honest, it's not my responsibility to go through and highlight every single thing that is wrong here when no effort has been made on your part to even try and make it better in the first place. May come as no surprise, but I'm failing this article based on issues with structure, language, sourcing and formatting.  — ₳aron 18:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Evidence that Lapu Lapu could of been muslim.  
info that Muslims had also penetrated prehispanic Cebu and the Visayas, and even Mactan in particular.

"And if Magellan's survivors were correct in reporting the existence of a small Muslim settlement on Mactan called Bulaya, it was probably a Bornean outpost. At least, a Bornean who had married and settled in Cebu was an influential local figure in Legazpi's day." (p. 42) "Political aggrandizement was effected by trading networks based on intermarriage, both between ruling families and between foreign merchants and their customers in trading posts. So the son of the ruler of Manila married the daughter of the Sultan of Brunei; Francisco Serrao raised a mestizo [a child of an intermarriage between races] family in Ternate [Spice Islands]; and Tupas [the Cebu harbor prince, at the time Legazpi arrived in Cebu in 1565] was able to make use of Si Damit, Kamotuan and Bapa Silaw -- all well-informed Malay-speaking Muslims settled in Cebu. So, too, Tupas sent his own daughter to Legazpi as a concubine, but Legazpi had her baptized and married off to a Greek caulker named Andreas Perez." (p. 53)

Hence, it might look after all that Lapulapu could had been a Muslim or must had been at least influenced by Muslims.

Another thing to note is that there is not evidence of the Visayans use of long swords such as the kampilan....

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lapu-Lapu. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Move from "Lapu-Lapu" to "Lapulapu"Edit

The National Quincentennial Committee (NQC), which is a government-formed committee tasked with preparations for the 500th anniversary of Magellan's arrival, the Battle of Mactan, etc., has recently argued that "Lapulapu" is the correct historical spelling of his name, without the hyphen in between, due to Pigafetta's own original spelling of Lapu-Lapu being "Çilapulapu".

(Reference: "It's Lapulapu: Gov’t committee weighs in on correct spelling of Filipino hero’s name". ABS-CBN News. 27 April 2019.)


Should we move the page accordingly? LionFosset (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Lapu-Lapu" page.