Talk:Kingdom of Kumalarang

About the Source

About the source. The source I used is Tulay the Chinese-Filipino digest, and although it is a blog, the author of that particular blog is Go Bon Juan and he is a known journalist to the Manila Times and is a published historian and academician, here's a list of his works. (https://www.asiabookroom.com/advSearchResults.php?authorField=BON+JUAN+GO&action=search) It was written in his blog that although he based his initial perview from Wikipedia he was able to independently verify the sources from the books cited in Wikipedia. The author was also cited in the Ma-i article. I think the author by his renknown and authority is a credible source as he is listed as a credible source in other articles. User:Austronesier, I might need your input on this.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I'm in a rush (it's Saturday 😁), so I will go more into detail later. The problem is that the author of the Tulay page[1] too heavily relies on Wikipedia in that piece, which is – apart from our WP:CIRCULAR policy – a bit of a red flag in the question of whether he is a subject matter expert (a prerequisite for citing blogs and self-published or other non-peer-reviewed sources). The publication list makes him an academic expert in the topic of Chinese Filipinos (which is a sociological topic), but not history. If he's cited in other articles for historical things without supporting sources that actually pass WP:RS, we have apparently a problem that's not only come to surface here. Philippine history is an important subject and deserves to be built based on first-class sources (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). –Austronesier (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one source that covers Kumalarang's mention in the Ming annals. Here's the actual text from the annals:[2][3]. While we should use primary sources only with care, I don't object if you want to add a blockquote from the two entries in the annals here (as long as it is clear to the reader that this is a primary source). –Austronesier (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thank you for putting this up, since I was trying to find translations to English of the text cited by Bong Go but it was in Classical Chinese which I don't understand at all. I really appreciate the effort to put up this reference since I'm a bit busy in work too. I'll try to find translations once the Valentine's Work Load is over. Regards!-Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]