Talk:Lapulapu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the battle of Mactan[edit]

It is really funny that they call a battle -- 60 Spaniards versus 1,500 locals. No way would Magellan or anyone else engage in such a battle. It's remarkable that in the Philippines, Lapu-Lapu is presented as a national hero. Yet, there isn't a single Filipino presented as a hero of WWII. There might have been some, but their names have been deleted from history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.56.224 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 06:50, April 19, 2007 (UTC) he died by in very old of age..dagat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.71.244 (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old age is the most logical explanation on the death of Lapulapu. Accordingly many historians and scholars agreed that Lapulapu at the time of the Magellan debacle is an old chieftain already and accordingly was never present or participated in the battle of Mactan because of his old age. Nevertheless he is credited, which is a good thing, for the demise of Magellan. If you search world history books, Lapulapu was neither mentioned or being credited in the death of Magellan. Mechanized art (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mactan[edit]

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 (talk • contribs) 10:01, July 26, 2007 (UTC)

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

Conjecture about where Lapulapu came from[edit]

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)[reply]

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

cilapulapu born matau island..dagat dagat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.71.244 (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree.. no need to change... .. We cannot say the spelling without (-) is the correct one or the right one,. and the spelling with the (-) is the wrong one.. since its just ways of writing of the sound or of the of word..

. as long as it is read,  and pronounce identically then both are correct... no matter what kind of character we used Chinese or Russian as long as it is pronounced the same when read... After all... in old times the lumad didn't used the spelling (lapulapu) nor (Lapu-lapu) they used alibata or baybahin characters in their writings... So if we say, it is wrong to  use the (-)... Then we can also say it is also  wrong to use the spelling (LapuLapu) since it didn't used tje original form instead it used roman letters and not in alibata or baybahin ... After lapulapu himself dint used roman to write his name... Asoybisaya (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to move the page. We should respect the standard. Lapulapu is the historically correct Roman spelling, spelled not posthumously but at the actual time of encounter when he was still alive regardless if Lapulapu himself wrote his name in another script. Tagaaplaya (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support page move. Per the official rendition of his name in national records. Lapu-lapu (with the hyphen) is a common name for groupers in both Tagalog and Cebuano languages, hence there actually is a possibility of confusion. EDIT: Yep. Bizarrely last year, a Filipino politician tried to ban the use of "Lapu-Lapu" for the fish, because it supposedly insulted the legacy of Lapulapu. I think that's a good enough reason to move the page.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move if one wants to move this page to the proposed name. Anyway, one should also consider what is the most-used version of the name as per reliable sources over the past few years (WP:COMMONNAME), not over recently. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asoybisaya, Tagaaplaya, Obsidian Soul, I have issued a new page move request at the bottom of the talk page. LionFosset (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Reasonably clear consensus for support with no objection.(non-admin closure) Tagaaplaya (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Lapu-Lapu → Lapulapu – After the National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) proposed in April 2019 to spell "Lapu-Lapu"'s name without the hyphen, the Philippine news media in recent years have largely followed suit (WP:COMMONNAME):

Also, an official commemorative ₱5000 banknote featuring Lapulapu has been issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, using the "Lapulapu" spelling:

LionFosset (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support page move. Per the official rendition of his name in national records. Lapu-lapu (with the hyphen) is a common name for groupers in both Tagalog and Cebuano languages, hence there actually is a possibility of confusion. EDIT: Yep. Bizarrely last year, a Filipino politician tried to ban the use of "Lapu-Lapu" for the fish, because it supposedly insulted the legacy of Lapulapu. I think that's a good enough reason to move the page. (copied from my earlier reply to the section above).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support page move. "Lapulapu" is the historically correct and the first Roman spelling at the time he was recorded alive. Tagaaplaya (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "Lapulapu" spelling is not recent. As early as 1979, prominent Cebuano historian Resil Mojares has already been using the spelling in this paper [1] Tagaaplaya (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo: The city could simply be just "Lapu-Lapu". I think that's enough to disambiguate these two from each other. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HueMan1: I generally prefer Lapu-Lapu City (or more rarely but unconventionally, Lapu-Lapu (city)), as there are no other Lapu-Lapu municipalities across the world (only one municipal entity bears this which is the currently-titled Lapu-Lapu, Philippines). Lapu-Lapu alone usually refers to either the grouper fish or the hero himself. But the debate for that HUC's article title needs extensive discussion as it may also affect Angeles, Philippines (Lucena was moved last year via a successful RM). But things like that should be kept aside for the meantime as this RM is for the Philippine figure and Cebuano hero. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo:Lapu-Lapu City is officially spelled with a hyphen and has long refused to be spelled as Lapulapu [2]. Its spelling would remain the same. Tagaaplaya (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hue, the city taking on the unqualified title with a hyphen is out of the question here, as both "Lapulapu" and "Lapu-Lapu" still have the Mactan ruler as their primary topic. Nothing has changed there. I only brought it up because this RM might affect the city article as this is the source of the city's name. Or will it?--RioHondo (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Apart from the official endorsement (which does not automatically overrule WP:COMMONNAME), "Lapulapu" is well-attested in recent sources (as shown by nom), and also found in many good older sources. Ngrams[3] is a weak guide here because of the different meanings. Btw, does anybody have an idea why "Lapulapu" peaked in the late 1960s? –Austronesier (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about the late 1960s, but 1961--that was when Opon, Cebu was officially renamed to Lapu-Lapu. And so i ask again, will this RM impact the city's artitle title being the source of its name?--RioHondo (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo: not that much. Lapu-Lapu, Philippines will remain as it is, while Lapu-Lapu (IMO) will become a redirect to the article about the Mactan chieftain (for the meantime). I oppose the city article being moved to Lapu-Lapu as this creates confusion. According to this GMA article the use of "Lapulapu" as spelling convention for the chieftain is not forceful, but is recommended, so there are chances for several ordinary citizens and laymen to refer to the chieftain as "Lapu-Lapu" in spite of mandatory "Lapulapu" convention in the media. So "Lapu-Lapu" IMO shall become a redirect to the article of the chieftain for some time. If moving the city article warrants, then I suggest "Lapu-Lapu City" or "Lapu-Lapu (city)" (but again needs separate discussion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only direct impact of this move on the article about the city will be to respell the name of the national hero in the prose. We cannot change the official spelling of a place name only because the spelling conventions for its eponym have changed, unless the place name is overwhelmingly spelled in common usage in a way that is different from its official version (best example: Malacañang). I can't see this for Lapu-Lapu, Philippines. And I agree with JWilz12345, the primary topic of Lapu-Lapu should remain the datu. After the move, we will have to change the hatnote from {{about}} to {{redirect}}. –Austronesier (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Math?[edit]

It all started with an innocuous TikTok video posted by a high school student named Gracie Cunningham. Applying make-up while speaking into the camera, the teenager questioned whether math is “real.” She added: “I know it’s real, because we all learn it in school... but who came up with this concept?” Pythagoras, she muses, “didn’t even have plumbing—and he was like, ‘Let me worry about y = mx + b’”—referring to the equation describing a straight line on a two-dimensional plane. She wondered where it all came from. “I get addition,” she said, “but how would you come up with the concept of algebra? What would you need it for?”

Someone re-posted the video to Twitter, where it soon went viral. Many of the comments were unkind: One person said it was the “dumbest video” they had ever seen; others suggested it was indicative of a failed education system. Others, meanwhile, came to Cunningham’s defense, saying that her questions were actually rather profound.


Mathematicians from Cornell and from the University of Wisconsin weighed in, as did philosopher Philip Goff of Durham University in the U.K. Mathematician Eugenia Cheng, currently the scientist-in-residence at the Art Institute of Chicago, wrote a two-page reply and said Cunningham had raised profound questions about the nature of mathematics “in a very deeply probing way.”

Cunningham had unwittingly re-ignited a very ancient and unresolved debate in the philosophy of science. What, exactly, is math? Is it invented, or discovered? And are the things that mathematicians work with—numbers, algebraic equations, geometry, theorems and so on—real?

Some scholars feel very strongly that mathematical truths are “out there,” waiting to be discovered—a position known as Platonism. It takes its name from the ancient Greek thinker Plato, who imagined that mathematical truths inhabit a world of their own—not a physical world, but rather a non-physical realm of unchanging perfection; a realm that exists outside of space and time. Roger Penrose, the renowned British mathematical physicist, is a staunch Platonist. In The Emperor’s New Mind, he wrote that there appears “to be some profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond the mental deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though human thought is, instead, being guided towards some external truth—a truth which has a reality of its own...”

Many mathematicians seem to support this view. The things they’ve discovered over the centuries—that there is no highest prime number; that the square root of two is an irrational number; that the number pi, when expressed as a decimal, goes on forever—seem to be eternal truths, independent of the minds that found them. If we were to one day encounter intelligent aliens from another galaxy, they would not share our language or culture, but, the Platonist would argue, they might very well have made these same mathematical discoveries.


“I believe that the only way to make sense of mathematics is to believe that there are objective mathematical facts, and that they are discovered by mathematicians,” says James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science recently retired from the University of Toronto. “Working mathematicians overwhelmingly are Platonists. They don't always call themselves Platonists, but if you ask them relevant questions, it’s always the Platonistic answer that they give you.”

Other scholars—especially those working in other branches of science—view Platonism with skepticism. Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago.

Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all?

Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)

The Platonist must confront further challenges: If mathematical objects exist outside of space and time, how is it that we can know anything about them? Brown doesn’t have the answer, but he suggests that we grasp the truth of mathematical statements “with the mind’s eye”—in a similar fashion, perhaps, to the way that scientists like Galileo and Einstein intuited physical truths via “thought experiments,” before actual experiments could settle the matter. Consider a famous thought experiment dreamed up by Galileo, to determine whether a heavy object falls faster than a lighter one. Just by thinking about it, Galileo was able to deduce that heavy and light objects must fall at the same rate. The trick was to imagine the two objects tethered together: Does the heavy one tug on the lighter one, to make the lighter one fall faster? Or does the lighter one act as a “brake” to slow the heavier one? The only solution that makes sense, Galileo reasoned, is that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight. In a similar fashion, mathematicians can prove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, or that there is no largest prime number—and they don’t need physical triangles or pebbles for counting to make the case, just a nimble brain.

“I believe that the only way to make sense of mathematics is to believe that there are objective mathematical facts, and that they are discovered by mathematicians,” says James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science recently retired from the University of Toronto. “Working mathematicians overwhelmingly are Platonists. They don't always call themselves Platonists, but if you ask them relevant questions, it’s always the Platonistic answer that they give you.”

Other scholars—especially those working in other branches of science—view Platonism with skepticism. Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago.

Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all?

Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)

The Platonist must confront further challenges: If mathematical objects exist outside of space and time, how is it that we can know anything about them? Brown doesn’t have the answer, but he suggests that we grasp the truth of mathematical statements “with the mind’s eye”—in a similar fashion, perhaps, to the way that scientists like Galileo and Einstein intuited physical truths via “thought experiments,” before actual experiments could settle the matter. Consider a famous thought experiment dreamed up by Galileo, to determine whether a heavy object falls faster than a lighter one. Just by thinking about it, Galileo was able to deduce that heavy and light objects must fall at the same rate. The trick was to imagine the two objects tethered together: Does the heavy one tug on the lighter one, to make the lighter one fall faster? Or does the lighter one act as a “brake” to slow the heavier one? The only solution that makes sense, Galileo reasoned, is that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight. In a similar fashion, mathematicians can prove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, or that there is no largest prime number—and they don’t need physical triangles or pebbles for counting to make the case, just a nimble brain.

“I believe that the only way to make sense of mathematics is to believe that there are objective mathematical facts, and that they are discovered by mathematicians,” says James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science recently retired from the University of Toronto. “Working mathematicians overwhelmingly are Platonists. They don't always call themselves Platonists, but if you ask them relevant questions, it’s always the Platonistic answer that they give you.”

Other scholars—especially those working in other branches of science—view Platonism with skepticism. Scientists tend to be empiricists; they imagine the universe to be made up of things we can touch and taste and so on; things we can learn about through observation and experiment. The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous: It sounds embarrassingly like the way religious believers talk about God, and God was banished from respectable scientific discourse a long time ago.

Platonism, as mathematician Brian Davies has put it, “has more in common with mystical religions than it does with modern science.” The fear is that if mathematicians give Plato an inch, he’ll take a mile. If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them, then why not ethical problems, or even religious questions? Why bother with empiricism at all?

Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)

The Platonist must confront further challenges: If mathematical objects exist outside of space and time, how is it that we can know anything about them? Brown doesn’t have the answer, but he suggests that we grasp the truth of mathematical statements “with the mind’s eye”—in a similar fashion, perhaps, to the way that scientists like Galileo and Einstein intuited physical truths via “thought experiments,” before actual experiments could settle the matter. Consider a famous thought experiment dreamed up by Galileo, to determine whether a heavy object falls faster than a lighter one. Just by thinking about it, Galileo was able to deduce that heavy and light objects must fall at the same rate. The trick was to imagine the two objects tethered together: Does the heavy one tug on the lighter one, to make the lighter one fall faster? Or does the lighter one act as a “brake” to slow the heavier one? The only solution that makes sense, Galileo reasoned, is that objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight. In a similar fashion, mathematicians can prove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, or that there is no largest prime number—and they don’t need physical triangles or pebbles for counting to make the case, just a nimble brain.

☉~☉ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.244.32 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the relevance of this "Math" article in the Lapulapu discussion. This should be deleted or move.Mechanized art (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

araling panlipunan[edit]

Gusto kulang malaman kung ano si lapu lapu at anong Meron cha at kung ano ang naganap SA buhay nya 49.145.235.11 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ap[edit]

Trivia tungkol kay Lapu Lapu 112.200.30.171 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lapu lapu 143.44.165.45 (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lapulapu&oldid=1194490287"