Talk:Suyat

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 9 May 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Mid‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philippine scripts possibly derived from Cham script

Cham script

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20071506?

On the Possible Cham Origin of the Philippine Scripts Geoff Wade Journal of Southeast Asian Studies Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 44-87 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Department of History, National University of Singapore Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20071506 Page Count: 44

Page 119, A visit to the Philippine Islands By John Bowring

The book contains an example of a contract in an ancient philippines script from 1652

http://books.google.com/books?id=Je1GAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA119#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ancient Philippine scripts. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ancient Philippine scripts. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio checked at acceptence. No commercial purpose to this topic. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source and content concern

Hi Wikipedians.

One of the sources in the article appears to be an academic paper. It's extremely long at sixty six pages, and I seriously don't have time to read through the entire thing. It's an academic paper put out at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Austronesian Languages. The conference was prompted by the Institute of Linguestics, Academia Sinica. I think this may not be that reliable of a source because it isn't published in a journal...it's just a paper that was shared at a random conference.

The text which this citation is supposed to support is related to the National Script Act, specifically what it's intent was. Because someone may find a more reliable source, I'm copying the text here.

http://ical13.ling.sinica.edu.tw/Full_papers_and_ppts_July_21.htm

The bill also mandates that each community should teach the script respective to the area's ethnic peoples. The bill does not mandate the government to teach a single specific suyat script for all citizens, as that would demean the other suyat scripts of various ethnic peoples^[1]

The paper indicates it was "Presented at the “Thirteenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics”. 13-ICAL – 2015 Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan Jul.18-23, 2015"

Here is the text that will be removeD: The bill also mandates that each community should teach the script respective to the area's ethnic peoples. The bill does not mandate the government to teach a single specific suyat script for all citizens, as that would demean the other suyat scripts of various ethnic peoples.

Issue 2 This text:

The diversity of suyat scripts have also established various calligraphy techniques and styles in the Philippines. Each suyat script has its own suyat calligraphy, although all suyat calligraphy are collectively called as Filipino suyat calligraphy for the sake of nationalism. Western-alphabet and Arabic calligraphy, however, are not considered as Filipino suyat calligraphy as the alphabets used did not develop indigenously. The variety of suyat scripts is due to four main factors: the alignment of the archipelagic culture with the Indosphere; the alignment of the archipelagic culture with the Sinosphere; the alignment of the archipelagic culture with both Indosphere and Sinosphere; and non-alignment of archipelagic culture to both Indosphere and Sinosphere

This section is cited to 4 sources. I think what has happened here is someone synthesized the sources. This may need some rewriting to avoid being original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdigirl (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ de los Santos, Norman. "PHILIPPINE INDIGENOUS WRITING SYSTEMS IN THE MODERN WORLD" (PDF).

Merge proposal

I see no reason to keep them seperate, the content is the same and keeping two pages is redundant, confusing and a waste of time and effort of Wiki editors. I will merge them next month if no objection is made. --Glennznl (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glennznl: I agree with the merger (since related information is best kept in one place), but would probably change directions. Ancient Philippine scripts contains much unsourced dubious fluff (such as the 300 BC origin), and at least the use among Mangyans, Tagbanwas and Palawanos makes these scripts not strictly "ancient". Btw, why is the LCI here? It is an Old Malay inscription in Kawi script, and it is not clear if is related at all to the emergence of Brahmi-derived scripts in the Philippines. –Austronesier (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Then perhaps we should take the valuable information from the Ancient Philippine scripts page and add it to the Suyat page, since "suyat" is the modern name of these writing systems, Ancient Philippine scripts could serve as a "History" section under Suyat. We could work on this together. Glennznl (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glennznl: I'll gladly support you. I still have to look for my copy of Juan R Francisco's Philippine Paleography. It's a bit outdated, but still a good compendium. There's btw also some info in it about the Champa hypothesis. It is a pity that all articles about Philippine scripts rely so heavily on often speculative online material, and focus to much on font issues. This cultural heritage deserves better. –Austronesier (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I agree. I have been improving the Baybayin article by applying a logical structure, updating information, improving sources, deleting unsourced or very weak material. A lot of sources were blog posts, low quality news articles or Quora answers. After improving the Baybayin article I wanted to work on the Suyat/Ancient Philippine scripts page. On the issue of the Champa hypothesis, I deleted that from the Baybayin page because it was unsourced since 2014 and had only 2 lines of text. I'm looking for good sources on that, I'll put it back in if I can find a good source. Glennznl (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: I finished the merger. I wonder what you think of it. I think it is a decent starting point towards a much better article. Glennznl (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glennznl: Looks good! I will see how much I can contribute to expanding it. Still have some reading to do. –Austronesier (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baybayin is not the collective term for all Philippine scripts. --Filipinayzd 06:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Filipinayzd: I am copying a comment I wrote once before:

Baybayin IS one single writing system, which is proven both by Spanish historical documentation (which treated Baybayin as one script) and by modern analysis, which shows that Baybayin examples found in different regions of the Philippines have only little variation, not enough to make them different scripts. Therefore in this article Baybayin is treated as one script, although regional varieties are mentioned. The only scripts that survived until modern day and evolved a bit, and can be seen as "different" are Tagbanwa from Palawan and the two Mangyan scripts from Mindoro. Other than that Baybayin in the Visayas, Luzon, Bikol is nearly identical. I recommend you look at the following link, so you can see it with your own eyes http://paulmorrow.ca/baychart.htm

This is why we explain that Baybayin is one single script with some local variations, just like the Latin alphabet or Chinese characters have local variations. I will see any further edits on the names as politically motivated vandalism. Glennznl (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] s Santos, Norman. "PHILIPPINE INDIGENOUS WRITING SYSTEMS IN THE MODERN WORLD" (PDF).

[1]