Talk:Lupang Hinirang

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

Chavacano version[edit]

I have heard that in 1992, former Zamboanga City mayor Vitaliano Agan conducted a contest to translate the anthem into Chavacano. A winner was chosen but his work wasn;t enforced since it was against the law of the use of Filipino...

Can anyone provide me the lyrics of this translation? We have bêen lơoking for this for a very long time na but we can't sêem to find the Chavacano translation chơosen by the Zamboanga government. Thank You Very Much —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChavacanBen (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patria de Amores el versión chabacano del lupang hinirang.


Tierra Adorada

Hija del sol de Oriente,

Fervor del Corazón

Viví na tuyo pecho.



Patria de amores!

Cuna del heroísmo,

Nunca hay rendí tú,

Al mana invasor.



Na tuyo mar y mana monte,

Y aire y azul cielo.

Tiene esplende el poema y canción

Del amado libertad.



Victoria ardé el chispa

De tuyo bandera.

Nunca mirá apagáo

Su mana estrella y su sol.



Tierra de gloria, del sol y amores

Vida dulce na tuyo abrázada.

Un honor se para con nosotros

Cuando tiene opresor, morí por tú.

De nada. - elculoperezeso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.39.146 (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lyrics in English[edit]

In English, the Philippine National Anthem can be sung as

Land of the Morning
Child of the Sun returning
With fervor burning
Do thee our hearts adore.

....

Land of Love
Beautiful land of love
It is for thee that we suffer and die.

...

That's all I remember, as well as the pride of my mother and father as they sang it for me.

Land of the morning, Child of the sun returning, With fervor burning Thee do our souls adore. Land dear and holy, Cradle of noble heroes. Ne'er shall invaders Trample thy sacred shore. Ever within thy skies and through thy clouds, And oe'r thy hills and sea, Do we behold the radiance Feel the throb of glorious liberty. Thy banner, dear to all our hearts Its sun and star alight O never shall its shinning field Be dimmed by tyrants might. Beautiful land of love, O land of light, In thine embrace 'tis rapture to lie; But it is glory ever, when thou art wronged for us, thy sons to suffer and die.

Of course, singing an English version is illegal (RA 8491, SECTION 36. The National Anthem shall always be sung in the national language within or without the country. The following shall be the lyrics of the National Anthem: [...]), and would open one to public censure (SECTION 48. Failure or refusal to observe the provisions of this Act; and any violation of the corresponding rules and regulations issued by the Office of the President, shall after proper notice and hearing, shall be penalized by public censure which shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation.) see [1]. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the English translation of the current official version...[edit]

To let readers know how different the old English version is. I also changed the very old and incorrect translation of the national anthem's title ('Beloved Land') which I think came to be so due to the following being that title's exact equivalents:
- the title of the most popular Tagalog translation in the 1940's (O Sintang Lupa), or
- the first line of the current official lyrics (Bayang magiliw...), which tends to be colloquially used as the title of the national anthem

I think everyone would agree with me that hinirang does not translate to anything near to the English word 'beloved' — the root word hirang means 'choose' in Tagalog. It has always bugged me that almost every printed English encyclopedia I read translates the title to 'Beloved Land.' Thank God for Wikipedia. dirrtychristian 10:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone add direct Filipino and English translations from Spanish?[edit]

Ambeth Ocampo has written a column about the translations the national anthem, which can be found in one of his books (Aguinaldo's Breakfast?). There, he points out that the second verse of the current English translation is different from that of the original Spanish.

“Hija del sol de Oriente” is literally “daughter of the Orient sun” or “daughter of the sunny Orient”, if I remember right (I don't know that much Spanish). Now we have “Perlas ng Silanganan”, “pearl of the Orient”. "Daughter" to "pearl". That's quite different. Uthanc 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, here's what babelfish brought up:

Adored earth Daughter of the sun of East, Its ardent fire, In you barking is. Land of loves! Of the heroismo it cradles, the invaders will never tread to you. In your blue sky, in your dawns, your mounts and your sea Esplende and it annoys the poem Of your loved freedom. Your pavilion, that in the combat the victory illuminated, it will never see dull His stars and their sun. Earth of happiness, the sun and loves, In your sweet lap is to live. It is a glory for your children, When they offend to you, by you to die.

Golly. 203.131.137.90 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my translation from Spanish. It needs working on though:

Beloved land,
Daughter of the eastern sun
Its ardent fire
Roars inside you

Land of love
Cradle of heroism
The invaders
Will never trample upon you

In your blue sky, in your sunrises
In your hills, and in your sea
Does the poem of your beloved freedom
Shine and resonnate

Your flag, which in battles
victory illuminated,
Your stars and sun
Will never be extinguished.

Land of happiness, of the Sun, and of love,
In your lap it is sweet to live
It is a glory for your children to die for you,
When you are attacked.

--Chris S. 09:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ligaya>Happiness[edit]

>When someone oppresses you, it is our supereme honor
Shouldn't this be 'When someone oppresses you, it is our supreme honorhappiness' (to die for you)? or is this too awkward?Jondel


Cebuano translation[edit]

Hi all,

I have standardized the spelling of the Cebuano translation and used the version that I have always sung and I have always known to be "The Jess Vestil" version. This is first-hand knowledge; I have schooled during the time when the government of Cebu was still strong against the government of the Philippines and did not bow down to the latter's insistence of the use of the Filipino version as THE official and standard (and after 1998, the only legal) version.

--Bentong Isles 12:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lupang Hinirang instrumental.ogg[edit]

Merry (Insert Holiday Here). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi i just[edit]

I put a link to a youtube file which shows the audiovisual of the Philippine national anthem played during sign-on and sign off Justox dizaola 10:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is important to know that the anthem is played at the start/end of television programming, I am not sure about the copyright of that video. I will not personally remove it, since I put up anthem videos myself on YouTube, but there could be others who could remove the link to the video. However, the video is pretty nice, since I seen it myself a few times. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers for improvement[edit]

Having edited the entire article myself, here are what I believe the possible improvements that can be done, if we are to promote his article into FA status:

  1. Improve the red links. Naturally ;)
  2. Sheet music (even if only a lead sheet). Since this is a song---and a public domain song, on top of that---it's logical that there should be information on how to sing this song. I'm working on this one, though, so please hang on....
  3. Picture of the Declaration of Independence. Even a scan of the reverse side of the (now-getting-rare but still in circulation) 10 peso bill, with a marching band in the backdrop (I think) would do. IMO, we need proof that there was a marching band when the Kawit declaration happened.
  4. A list of very notable versions in the present time. I am thinking of only the following renditions, because of their significance (we'll need heavy documentation for all these, though):
    1. The Redentor Romero arrangement, originally recorded by the Philippine Philharmonic Orchestra. This is the most popular orchestral version, and is almost always the only version performed by the PPO, the MPO and even by the San Miguel Philharmonic
    2. The Lucio San Pedro arrangement. I know he got some flak for this one, but let's face it, this is one of the more popular arrangements made on this song
    3. The Philippine Centennial arrangement. Significance is historical; this was commissioned during the Philippine Centennial. This is widely published in a book that is currently in circulation at major bookstores nationwide. In addition, this is also the version that is currently being played by some TV stations during sign-on and sign-off. (I verified this by listening to it during a TV network's sign-off with a copy of the sheet music in hand.)

I might add more to this list, so please hang on. In the meantime, please let me know what you think of it. --- Tito Pao 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I scanned the reverse side of the 5-peso bill. the picture of the Declaration of Independence is there. I also scanned the front side for whatever use it may have. My 5-peso bill is pretty dirty and Im not very good with photoshop so Its just the raw scan of the bill. I also dont know how to upload to wikipedia so its in my photobucket account. http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/matikas0805/ Hope I helped in some small way. Matikas 0805 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There should be a musical sheet of this article, to serve as reference or guide on how to play or sing the national anthem. I also suggest the the music sheet must be the earliest possible version or copy of the song, or the original one, if its not possible to provide an original copy of the anthem, I also suggest that any musical sheet must be provided for this article. this link i found in the internet could help: [2], thanks. 121.54.2.91 (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article[edit]

I am thinking that this article should be moved to National anthem of the Philippines (some other countries are like this). This way, the scope of the article (as it is now) would be in line with title of the article. Do you get what I mean? This article should just be about Lupang Hinirang but instead we are covering a lot more ground here - and appropriately so, because the original national anthem was in Spanish. Furthermore, a lot of translations have been made. I will be moving this article in a few days, but I'd like your input first before doing so. --Chris S. 09:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Star-Spangled Banner" is in it's own article, but I'm OK with a separate National anthem of the Philippines article, to discuss other(?) national anthems of the country had. --Howard the Duck 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep the article at this name. While this is the official national anthem of the PH, RA 8491 tells us the title is supposed to be Lupang Hinirang. What I would suggest that if an article is written on former anthems, it can be done, but just put them in brief here. I am also thinking about moving the translations to Wikisource and keeping just the current Tagalog, English, Spanish and the former Tagalog version h:ere. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second User:Zscout370's opinion. In addition, IMO, we should ALL help together to improve or best prepare the present article for Feature Article status. I have started the todo template above. Please fill it in with anything else that is needed by the article for its improvement. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also going to email [3] to see if we could use the musical notation that he hosts. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My take: in the vein of the Star Spangled Banner article, retain LH as the article title, and perhaps make "National Anthem of the Philippines" as a redirect. (Or, it could be the other way around, although I think LH should survive as the main article.)
With regard to the translations, the Tagalog, English and Spanish should be retained on the article, while the others should go to Wikisource. The Spanish edition cannot be simply deleted here because it's the original version from which the translations were derived (it is, to me, unthinkable, even if the current version is in Tagalog). The Camilo Osias translation in English, on the other hand, is the first legal and canonical (i.e. official) translation by virtue of a legislated law. The same goes with the Tagalog translation, which was twice made canonical by two different laws (first, by the law during Magsaysay's tenure; second, by virtue of R.A. 8194).
ZScout, I'm volunteering to do the notation...it's actually sitting right in my home computer :) --- Tito Pao 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Star-Spangled Banner and other anthems, the current version of the national anthem wasn't always the main one, despite what the law says now. There have been others before it, as you all know. A more appropriate analogy would be National Anthem of Russia which goes into detail about former anthems as well as the anthem of the former USSR. I would be in favor of a split of the article. But then, would there be enough material to justify having an article about Lupang Hinirang alone? --Chris S. 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Russian anthem (which I brought up to FA, btw), is that there is no official title of anthem. When I do national anthem, I either use the official title or most common title, as in the case of another FA of mine, My Belarusy. LH is the official title given out by the Philippines Government, so I wish to stick with that. Of course, we should add as much non-anthem related information in here, such as the reasons for composition, the mindset of the authors. Then, we could have a section devoting to previous anthems, possible new anthem suggestions and how LH became the anthem. The evolution of LH as the anthem should also be done. I would expand the protocol section. There is plenty what I personally with to do with this article, but I am not sure what tactic of attack I will use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the current Philippine National Anthem does have a title, so that problem there is not a problem here. It seems to me that a national anthem article should contain information about about the official history of the anthem (e.g., its adoption, designation, possible re-titling, ...) including some information about the current anthem and any previous anthems as pieces of music. As and when the detail about specific pieces is considered by consensus to be too extensive or too detailed to fit in the national anthem article, a detail article specific to that version should be split off in WP:summary style. Redirects, disambiguation links, or inline links from other articles should be targeted at the applicable section of the national anthem article as appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lupang_Hinirang&action=submit

YM chat/conference invitation sent[edit]

Please join and respond if you have received it. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yall can go ahead and start without me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pinay, please check you mail, thanks :) --- Tito Pao 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can all set this up at 4:00 to 5:00 PST if you like. Or send suggested time. I am on-line so give me a buzz. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, yall just go ahead and start without me. I won't hurt my feelings. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of time stamped after my name in this message, only 2 responses received, and Titopao's earliest available time is 4:00PST. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input from AZ[edit]

Re Lupang Hinirang: The version of the UP Concert Concert Chorus which was arranged by the late Lucio San Pedro(that rubato slow movement at the start, then the fast regular tempo) has been discouraged since it does not reflect the true nature of the anthem. According to a certain critic Orosa Ambeth Ocampo (Dr. Orosa, i forgot his first name) that version "desecrates our national anthem." Even the correct rhythm of a note was also pointed out. (I guess we don't have such liberty as the Americans do to their anthem). Too long to explain the details. Bottomline, that version is not the ideal version to be put as the official national anthem, lest we'll get in trouble too. DECS(Dept. of Education, Culture and Sports) and the LIKHAWIT Enterprises made a version (supposedly the corrected version) arranged by Ed Nepomuceno but I don't know where we can get a recording of this version. I could ask EdNep, the arranger; we were together with the Madrigal Singers.(From AZ Received via email 01-08-07 12:05 AM) --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the controversy of the UPCC version, the Ed Nep version was recorded by the Madrigal Singers for the celebration of the Philippine Centennial (during Pres. Ramos' time). So, there is a recording of that version. Who has it, that's what I'm trying to find out. I'll email Ed Nep tonight. I will also inquire from Ryan Cayabyab. They might even have a better recording of the anthem with the San Miguel orchestra and choir.(From AZ Received via email 01-08-07 8:59 PM)
Here's EdNep's reply: Hey Frannie!!! Happy New Year! Wala akong copy ng Lupang Hinirang but I always hear it when I listen to GMA radio, AM pa. Alam ko kasi, it was distributed to all movie houses and radio stations during Ramos's time para patugtugin, so I think you will not have any problem in copyrights or whatever...yata ha since public property na yon.. Ngayon kasi GMA na lang ang nagpapatugtog non sa program ni Mike Enriquez in the morning. Great to hear from you Frannie! Kelan mo ako pamamasahihan jan? HEHEHE (From AZ Received via email Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:17:14 -0800 (PST)--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English translation[edit]

What is the English translation of the phrase "Lupang Hinirang"? --Howard the Duck 04:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seen it translated as "Chosen land." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines article says "Beloved Land". I'd rather agree with "chosen" since "hinirang" means chose. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice the article here has "chosen land" in the lyrics (LH is mentioned in the first sentence, second paragraph). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Chosen Land"[edit]

Please read WP:NOT#OR and WP:MADEUP about this kind of translation. There is already an English translation which is more "original" than the Filipino version. Why not delete it? -- 210.213.67.182 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We include amateur translations of other anthems; the official English version is listed below. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put the "official" version on the top and delete the "amateur" version instead? Why there should be two versions? Its confusing! This is the only anthem that has multiple translations in English (and even Filipino)! Although the other Filipino translation is alright since it might be created by experts instead of amateur Wikipedian users who may not have been established their expertise in translation. There is even a contradiction from an amateur Wikipedian user (Chosen Land) and Mr. David Kendall (Beloved Land, please see the link below) in the English translation of the title of the anthem despite for the fact that this "amateur" translation already made a contradiction with the English translation of Senator Camilo Osias and Mary A. Lane. How can you guarantee that this "amateur" translation is the accurate translation of the current Filipino version? Why not just make a "literal" translation out of it, not just an "amateur" and "poetic"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.69.221 (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding translations, WP:V#Non-English sources says "Where editors [...], or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine flag is wrong.[edit]

As far as I remember the sun on the Philippine flag never had a face. Please replace the illustration in the article with the correct one. -Concerned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.196.194 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sun had a face back in Aguinaldo's time. --seav 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that to be true, ither way seems legally OK to me (speaking as a non-Filipino, non-lawyer, and non-Filipino-lawyer). RA8491 says, in part:
A. Design of the National Flag
SECTION 4. The flag of the Philippines shall be blue, white and red with an eight-rayed golden-yellow sun and three five-pointed stars, as consecrated and honored by the people.
It looks like there is some room for argument either that (A) the face is disallowed because it is not mentioned or (B) the face is allowed (perhaps even arguably required) because the version of the flag which includes the face was "consecrated and honored by the people." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(further info) Check section 7 of this page. That source may not meet WP:RS criteria, however. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flag, while we know isn't following RA 8491, is fine to stay here. I would suggest, however, to replace the flag image in the future with sheet music or something related to the anthem. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Official lyrics" section[edit]

One wonders about the naming of this section. "Official" in what sense? Surely not in the sense of RA8491, the Flag and Heraldic code of the Philippines, Section 36 of which makes it very clear that the only officially recognized lyrics the Filipino lyrics. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look under the lyrics, there is a note already denoting this fact. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clumsy, though, for a section titled "Official lyrics" to present three versions with a note explaining that two of the three versions presented are not official after all. Suggest retitling the section "Lyrics" and changing the note to explain that only the filipino-language version is considered "Official" by the RP Government.

Also, the The original Spanish text: Filipinas section presents a fourth version and explains: "became official in 1899", and the Direct translation of Lupang Hinirang in English: Beloved Country section presents a fifth version and explains: "Although not the official canonical version ...". The article also presents a sixth, seventh, and eighth version, but without mentioning "Official" in connection with those three. I don't follow all of this, and wonder whether there may be several alternative definitions of the word "Official" in play here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent problems[edit]

Recent changes to the text of some of the anthem versions in this article popped this up on my watchlist. I did a quick check against this page on the msc.edu website, which cites Sonya Zaide's book The Philippine National Flag and Anthemas its source, and noticed the following:

  • Under Official lyrics, the filipino language version differs from the version mandated here in Republic Act No. 8491 as follows:
This article RA8491 difference
Bayang magiliw Bayang magiliw, comma
Perlas ng Silanganan, Perlas ng Silanganan comma
Alab ng puso Alab ng puso, comma
Sa dibdib mo'y buhay. Sa Dibdib mo'y buhay. capitalization
blank line no blank line blank line?
Lupang hinirang, Lupang Hinirang, capitalization
Duyan ka ng magiting, Duyan ka ng magiting,
Sa manlulupig, Sa manlulupig,
'Di ka pasisiil. Di ka pasisiil. single-quote
blank line no blank line blank line?
Sa dagat at bundok, Sa dagat at bundok,
Sa simoy at sa langit mong bughaw, Sa simoy at sa langit mong bughaw,
May dilag ang tula at awit
Sa paglayang minamahal. 		May dilag ang tula,

At awit sa paglayang minamahal.

line break, capitalization, comma
blank line no blank line blank line?
Ang kislap ng watawat mo'y Ang kislap ng watawat mo'y
Tagumpay na nagniningning, Tagumpay na nagniningning,
Ang bituin at araw niya Ang bituin at araw niya, comma
Kailan pa ma'y 'di magdidilim. Kailan pa ma'y di magdidilim, single-quote
blank line no blank line blank line?
Lupa ng araw, ng luwalhati't pagsinta, Lupa ng araw ng luwalhati't pagsinta,
Buhay ay langit sa piling mo; Buhay ay langit sa piling mo, comma vs. semicolon
Aming ligaya, na 'pag may mang-aapi Aming ligaya na pag may mang-aapi, comma
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo. Ang mamatay ng dahil sa iyo. text, single-quote
I'm not a Filipino-speaker, and don't know whether those differences are substantive.


  • Under Official lyrics, the english version headed Unofficial English translation is footnoted as follows:

This translation is not intended to be sung, as the words do not correspond with the music. However, it is recommended for accurate translation of the current and only official Filipino version of the Philippine national anthem into other language editions of Wikipedia. In addition, this text differs from that of the Philippine Hymn of 1938, since the latter is a direct translation from the original Spanish version Filipinas.

The translation is not attributed and I'm guessing that it was done by some WP editor. WP:V says, "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."
  • Under Earlier versions, the version headed Filipinas differs from the version [here on the msc.edu site as follows:
This article msc.edu difference
Tierra adorada Tierra adorada
Hija del sol de Oriente, Hija del sol de Oriente comma
Su fuego ardiente
en ti latiendo está. 		Su fuego ardiente en ti latiendo esta. linebreak, accent
¡Tierra de amores! Patria de amores! text
Del heroísmo cuna, Del heroismo cuna,
Los invasores Los invasores
No te hallarán jamás. No te hallaran jamas. accent
En tu azul cielo, en tus auras, En tu azul cielo, en tus auras,
En tus montes y en tu mar, En tus montes y en tu mar comma
Esplende y late el poema Esplende y late el poema
De tu amada libertad. De tu amada libertad.
Tu pabellón, que en las lides Tu pabellon, que en las lides
La victoria iluminó, La victoria ilumino comma
No verá nunca apagados No vera nunca apagados accent
Sus estrellas ni su sol. Sus estrellas y su sol.
Tierra de dichas, de sol y amores, Tierra de dichas, del sol y amores,
En tu regazo dulce es vivir. En tu regazo dulce es vivir.
Es una gloria para tus hijos, Es una gloria para tus hijos,
Cuando te ofenden, por ti morir. Cuando de ofenden, por ti morir.
Also, the arrangement of blank lines looks different between the two versions. I'm not a Spanish-speaker, and don't know whether the differences are substantive.
  • Under Earlier versions, the english language version headed "The Philippine Hymn" disagrees with the version on msc.edu. The difference involves a grammatical error in the version in this article. The word tyrants is used as the possessive form of the noun tyrant and, as such, should correctly read "tyrant's" as it does on the msc.edu website. This article asserts regarding the version it presents: "translation was made by Senator Camilo Osias and Mary A. Lane and was made official by an act of the Philippine Congress in 1938", and I don't know whether the translations made by those persons agree with the text presented in this article or not. I believe that the act of congress referred to here is Commonwealth Act No. 382, which this page says was signed on September 5, 1938, but I have not been able to find an online copy of that act. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the Filipino lyrics, just stick with RA 8491. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English version[edit]

Considering WP:NONENG ("Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors"), how about using a cite-supported outside translation rather than edit-warring about the details of WP:OR translations by WP editors?

Here are a couple of cites of pages claiming to be republishing one particular apparently widely-published translation ("Translated from the Spanish by Camilo Osias and M.A.L. Lane; taken from Camilo Osias, Manlapaz Publishing Co., 1971"): [4], [5]. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English translation[edit]

Considering Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources ("Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."), it would be preferable, instead of providing an apparent original research english translation, to provide an english translation sourced from a third party. A translation which exists here might do, even though it might or might not not be an earlier version of the apparent original research translation by WP editors which is presently presented in this article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember drafting the version as seen on the link you provided above, and in fact it is almost (if not entirely) identical with the first-ever edit of the Lupang Hinirang article that included the literal translation of the only official (Filipino) version of the anthem in English. They just copied it from Wikipedia itself, as prior to Wikipedia, the only popular English translation lying around was the American-era version. But I agree to have it changed to this, as upon seeing that version once more, it seems to me that the current translation has become less faithful to the meaning and poetry of the Filipino version:
Official Filipino lyrics Current English translation My original English translation Notes

Bayang magiliw
Perlas ng Silanganan,
Alab ng puso
Sa dibdib mo'y buhay.

Lupang hinirang,
Duyan ka ng magiting,
Sa manlulupig,
'Di ka pasisiil.

Sa dagat at bundok,
Sa simoy at sa langit mong bughaw,
May dilag ang tula at awit
Sa paglayang minamahal.

Ang kislap ng watawat mo'y
Tagumpay na nagniningning,
Ang bituin at araw niya
Kailan pa ma'y 'di magdidilim.

Lupa ng araw, ng luwalhati't pagsinta,
Buhay ay langit sa piling mo;
Aming ligaya, na 'pag may mang-aapi
Ang mamatay nang dahil sa 'yo.

Beloved country,
Pearl of the Orient,
The heart's fervor,
In your chest is ever alive.

Chosen land,
You are the cradle of the brave.
To the conquerors,
You shall never surrender.

Through the seas and mountains,
Through the air and your blue sky,
There is splendor in the poem and song
For beloved freedom.

The sparkle of your flag
Is shining victoriously.
Its stars and sun
Shall forever never dim.

Land of the sun, of glory and our affections,
Life is heaven in your arms;
It is our pleasure, when there are oppressors,
To die for of you.

Beloved country,
Pearl of the Orient,
The heart's fervor,
In your bosom is ever alive.

Chosen land,
You are the cradle of the brave.
To the conquerors,
You shall never surrender.

Through the seas and mountains,
Through the air and your azure skies,
There is splendor in the poem and song
For dear freedom.

The sparkle of your flag
Is shining victory.
Its stars and sun
Shall forever never dim.

Land of the sun, of glory and our affections,
Life is heaven in your arms;
It is our pleasure, when there are oppressors,
To die for you.

  • "Bosom" for me seems to be more poetic, and less blatantly literal.
  • Again, it's just a matter of judgement - to me, "azure" seems more poetic.
  • The Tagalog word mahal, used as a verb, can not only mean "to love"

(as most modern Filipinos equate it to English), but also "to cherish,"
"to treat with care," "to hold dear." In the lyrics' context, minamahal
certainly means more "dear" or "cherished" than "beloved."

  • Tagumpay na nagniningning means "victory that is shining/radiant,"

with tagumpay ("victory") not being used as an adverb ("victoriously").
So the present translation is not only inaccurate, it also is awkward.

  • The last point is just a minor error, made when "for" was replaced by

"because of" and then reverted to "for" again but without deleting "of."

--- Dakilang Isagani (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about original research opinions regarding poetic merit held by one or another Wikipedia editor. It is about verifiability. Find an authoritative source, quote it verbatim, and cite the source. If equally authoritative sources conflict significantly, point out the conflicts and cite the conflicting sources. Note that the links in the foregoing are to Wikipedia policy pages on content and style. Also see the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline.
I spent some time yesterday grubbing around for decent sources, and came up relatively dry. I'm limited to searching online sources, though. Someone with access to a good library could probably search out better sources than I can. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't challenge the fact that in order to be a stronger article the English translation of the official Filipino version needs an authoritative source. If I had found it, would have gladly placed a proper citation. But given the scarcity (or complete lack) of "preferred" published material containing an English translation of the only official version of the anthem (Why would a Filipino author even bother translating an anthem into a foreign language when it already had a version in that language? Or why would a foreign author seek to have the Filipino version translated into English when a former official translation already exists?), and the ability of Filipino Wikipedians at translation and determining whether a translation is accurate anyway (attested by the fact that the basic elements of my initial contribution largely remain), I think it's fair to say that it has stood the test of time to be something that can be considered a fairly good translation that can be taken by editors from other languages for translation into theirs. I only edit the translation if something grossly incorrect (such as the change regarding "pasisiil") comes up - notice that I still have largely exercised restraint and let fellow Wikipedians help improve the translation.
One can post a translation on a blog and have it linked to this page then present it as an "authoritative" source, and that's completely legitimate - but it seems to me that presenting it for others to review, assess and verify themselves using their own understanding of the Filipino language makes it somehow of a lesser quality? I don't think my translation counts as original research - I am neither including "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" nor am I advancing a "position." The only way a translation can be verified is by checking bilingual dictionaries (but even doing so presents the challenge of explaining the grammar and context of word use if the exact form of the verb does not appear with examples for English speakers to verify), and I would not like to fill the translation with citation links to online Filipino-English dictionary entries for siil or tagumpay with lengthy explanations in the footnotes as to why something should mean one way and not another because of the affix used, or the context of the phrase. --Dakilang Isagani (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things in response:
  1. "One can post a translation on a blog and have it linked to this page then present it as an 'authoritative' source, and that's completely legitimate source"
    No. See WP:SELFPUB, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia." and, in a footnote, "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.)"
  2. "I only edit the translation if something grossly incorrect (such as the change regarding 'pasisiil') comes up ..."
    I don't speak Tagalog, but I went back and took a look at that change. The change altered the translation of "Sa manlulupig, 'Di ka pasisiil." from "to the conquerors, You shall never win." to "To the conquerors, You shall never surrender." That is a big change in meaning. I struggled with it quite a bit before coming to what I think is an understanding of it. Again, I don't speak Tagalog but I do see that the changed-from version only makes sense if it is taken as being directed to the would-be conqerer, and that must be incorrect as the anthem is written as if it is directed to the country. The changed-to version makes sense in that context, imploring the country never to surrender to would-be conqerors. Your edit summary said " the word 'pasisiil' means to let oneself be defeated, or to surrender; it does not mean 'to win'." I haven't been able to find a dictionary definition of pasisiil,and my Eng-Tag dictionary says "Surrender: v. to give up; give one-self up; yield: Sumikò,isukò, Magpahuli, pahuli and n. the act of surrendering: Pagsukò,, Pagpapahuli". The closest I've found to "pasisiil" is siíl, siniíl adj. Oppressed by a ruler or superior. I'm not qualified to nitpick the translation, but I'm bothered by the fact that I am unable to verify it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing up the self-publication issue. I was so perplexed as to how other anthem entries could get away with citing just a blog entry (in the case of Jana Gana Mana) or none at all (like for Al-Nasheed Al-Watani) for their English translations, yet a translation that has gained a bit of currency, at least in the internet realm, is inferior. I found at least four other (personal) webpages that use the original translation I posted.
Regarding pasisiil: the "you" in the English translation (as well as "your" in the Philippine Hymn of 1938) refer to the personified country, and not the conquerors. In the official Filipino version, the only pronoun in that line is "ka," which refers to the personified country, as the conquerors were never 'talked to' in the song, only 'talked about.' Filipino is a bit complex with its verbs, and while not claiming to be an authoritative grammarian or linguist, I do know what the form pasisiil means, and it certainly is not "to win." The prefix pa- can be explained better by more qualified linguists with proper linguistic terminology, but here's my attempt: when added to a root word, it changes the verb from being active to passive:
talo = lose; pa + talo = let lose
kain = eat; pa + kain = let eat
siil = subjugate, oppress; pa + siil = let be subjugated, let be oppressed
The extra syllable (pasisiil) is just a reduplication of the first syllable of the rootword, and it is done to change the tense of the verb. The reason why the line is constructed as "You shall never surrender" instead of "You shall not let yourself be oppressed" is a matter of style and function. The latter is unwieldy and can become a source of confusion should editors of other language editions translate the anthem, and it was exactly for the purpose of translation into other Wikipedia editions that I posted my version so that these new translations can be as truthful to the official lyrics as possible. -- Dakilang Isagani (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't original research grand? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ask the community at WP:OR regarding Wikipedian-done translations. Heck, we translate a lot of articles between Wikipedia editions in different languages with nary an eyebrow raised (of course these are two different, though similar things). I guess a lengthy footnote regarding the translation (and the fact that it's not a professionally-done translation) would be in order at least. --seav (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any decent Filipino grammarian asked about "tagumpay na nagniningning" (literally, "victory that shines") would say that "shining victoriously" ("matagumpay na nagniningning" in Filipino/Tagalog) is an improper translation of that phrase. The only things I changed with the latest edit I made were this line, and the removal of the stray "of" in the last line. I stand by this edit, and it was made in good faith to keep the integrity of the translation and the article, as these are not mere opinions. We should ask the community to clarify: by having this translation, are we really using "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" or "advancing a position"? I am admittedly not a professional translator but I do have a very good command of both languages, and I find it just a tiny bit frustrating (and to be completely honest, even insulting) that some are making grand and harsh judgments regarding a translation that I thought effectively translated the only official version of the national anthem into a less complicated form of English that editors from other Wikipedia language editions can use. All edits that have been made since my initial contribution by other editors have remained apart from the three ones that I chose to replace/omit because they were grossly ungrammatical or mistranslated: "'Di ka pasisiil" ("You shall never winsurrender") and the two mentioned above. Should the community decide that having such a translation is improper in a Wikipedia page, then by all means let's just remove it (along with unreferenced translations of other anthems, as well as those with non-reliable web references), because frankly from this side of the fence it pretty much feels like such contributions are not welcome here. ——Dakilang Isagani (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note the final sentence of WP:NONENG: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens now? Have we really come to terms with anything other than pointing out what's been discussed before — that there is a dearth of published material on the English translation of the sole official version of the anthem? --Dakilang Isagani (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it says there that the original language text should be included so readers can judge for themselves (and article does include the original text). Also note that reliable translations are simply preferred and that self-translations are not disallowed. The "official" English translation seems to be a poetic translation and not a grammatical/literal translation. --seav (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Translations. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's great. Let's start now and get this over with, shall we? What are the points of contention in the translation? Also, since my first post has been edited numerous times, to whom do we attribute it now? ---Dakilang Isagani (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it, if my suggestion mentioned above is accepted (the one comment thus far says, "looks good"), would be to arrive at a consensus-supported translation here, attribute it to "Wikipedia editors" in the articvle's Reference section, and deal with the inevitable edits by reverting them and demanding consensus for change on this talk page. If a translation supported by a reliable source comes to light, that would supersede the "Wikipedia editors" translation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood the post you made and I concur with what was posted. It's a very sensible idea, so why not start with it now? There's certainly no harm in trying that. Let's arrive at a consensus now. Anyone want to start pointing out contentious items in the current translation? --- Dakilang Isagani (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind start pointing out areas of contention within the English translation of the current Filipino version of the anthem? (As well as possible suggestions to improve it?) I suggest we don't stall this. --- Dakilang Isagani (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nievera's rendition[edit]

The anthem has been sung in different ways before, but Martin Nievera's artistic interpretation during the Pacquiao vs. Hatton match has sparked a veritable deluge of news about the incident. I'm collecting here links to news articles and columns discussing the event for possible future inclusion into the article. --seav (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original lyrics by José Palma[edit]

Finally found a published source for the orginal Spanish lyrics in this 1912 book by José Palma:

I have put the lyrics in the article. Mk32 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CA382[edit]

In this edit, I just removed a footnote asserting that the lyrics in the section headed "Official Commonwealth-era English version: The Philippine Hymn (1938)" are "Official lyrics, according to CA 382". After digging around a bit, I found http://www.angelfire.com/me4/francute/consti2.htm (not a great source, but the best I found), which quotes CA382 as follows: 

Com. Act 382, Sept. 5, 1938
 
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 382
 
AN ACT TO ADOPT THE ORIGINAL AUTHENTIC FORM OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ANTHEM AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR ITS PRINTING AND FREE DISTRIBUTION.
 
                To preserve the musical adaptation and motive in the original authentic composition of the Philippine National Anthem as set by its author, Julian Felipe, and to attain uniform performance thereof in the Philippines:
 
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:
 
                Sec. 1.  The musical arrangement and composition of the Philippine National Anthem as set by its author, Julian Felipe, is adopted.
                Sec. 2.  There is appropriated, out of the unappropriated funds in the National Treasury, the sum of five hundred pesos for the preparation, printing and free distribution of copies of the Philippine National Anthem as adjusted to its original authentic outline. 
                Sec. 3.  The National Library of the Philippines is entrusted with the accomplishment hereof.
                Sec. 4.  This Act shall take effect on its approval.
                Approved, September 5, 1938.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official status of The Philippine Hymn[edit]

In this edit, I just made a change to article assertions regarding the official status of The Philippine Hymn. However, I now notice my earlier comment in the #CA382 section above which brings not only my change but the article assertion re this which preceded my change. I'm now removing article content which reads

The "Philippine Hymn" was legalised on December 5, 1938 by Commonwealth Act No. 382.[1]

  1. ^ "Philippines". nationalanthems.info. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

and moving it here for reconsideration.

I now see that http://www.angelfire.com/me4/francute/consti2.htm, mentioned in the #CA382 section above, contradicts the source on which I relied there in what it purports to be a direct requote of CA382 (you'll need to text search within that page to find the requote). So, we appear to have two outside sources of less than gold-standard reliability which contradict one another regarding this. I have not been able to resolve this, I don't have time to pursue it further at present, and I am pretty much limited to online sources in any case. I'm hoping some editor with access to better sources will be able to resolve this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Ermita today on other matters, and I stopped in at the National Library and got a copy of RA382. I have placed a transcription of this on Wikisource at wikisource:Commonwealth Act No. 382. Following on discussion above and on information contained in CA382, I have boldly rewritten parts of this article in this edit. I think my changes are well supported, but some further tweaking may be helpful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which song has the right tempo?[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Lupang Hinirang.

At the National Historical Commission of the Philippines I found several recordings provided by DepEd that I uploaded to Wikicommons (Ph Gov work and therefore no copyright issues). However, the songs are a different tempo from the one currently in the infobox template. Which is the "right" tempo? Which recording should we highlight in the infobox? There are instrumental and sung versions as well as full orchestrations and a simple piano melody. I favor linking to two versions -- the tenor solo version so that people can hear how it sounds sung and I think the tenor sounds the clearest and is easiest to understand; and the piano so that people can hear the simple melody. However both may not be the "right" tempo. See the Commons Category on the right. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points
  • First, I am doubtful about "Ph Gov work and therefore no copyright issues". It does not follow from your having obtained the recordings from the NHI that the NHI holds copyright for the recordings. I have never purchased an audio recording from the NHI, but I have purchased a number of books from them and most of those contained copyright notices in which others asserted copyright rights. I looked at some of the material in that commons cat (not at all of it, due to current internet connectivity difficulties) and see that some of the pieces there are said to be in the public domain, some are said to have been provided by the US govt, etc. Some items there uploaded by you say, e.g., "Courtesy of the Department of Education, Government of the Philippines, via the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, Government of the Philippines. ...", but I'm doubtful that this implies copyright ownership by the NHI.
  • Second, re tempo, Section 20 of RA8491 says, "The observance of the flag ceremony in official or civic gatherings shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the anthem in its original Filipino lyrics and march tempo." I'm not sure how to interpret this, given the info from the article that the piece was originally written in 1898 as an instrumental (apparently in a slow tempo) and that Spanish lyrics added in 1899 were translated into Tagalog in the 1940s, into Pilipino in 1956, and revised in the 1960s into the RA8491 lyrics. Presumably the tempo was sped up at some point during that process. Section 37 of RA8491 says, "The rendition of the National Anthem, whether played or sung, shall be in accordance with the musical arrangement and composition of Julian Felipe.", but that does not seem to describe common practice today and may conflict with section 20. I've seen comments on the web that the piece was originally in 2/4 and is now performed in 4/4 (see e.g., [6]).
  • Third, I'm neither a Filipino nor a musician (that is probably obvious).
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding that the recordings are owned by DepEd and provided to the NHCP for distribution to the general public, and this is what "courtesy of DepEd" means, which are the words taken from the icon on the NHCP's home page. The word "copyright" or "ownership" is not used nor is it said explicitly that it is "OK to copy." "Courtesy of DepEd" means however "OK to copy", as I understand the words. I am bolstered in my confidence of my understanding by the fact that it makes sense for DepEd to make recordings such as these for use by schools and others and that it makes sense of UST to offer its musicians for this public service. I have further confidence that the NHCP would not provide copies so prominently on home page unless we are allowed to use the recordings as needed. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further comments and so I will leave it for now. I did find a reference to tempo in this article from ABS-CBN Arnel Pineda’s version of RP anthem criticized which ends with:

The NHI earlier noted that if properly sung with a two-fourths beat and 100 metronomes, the national anthem should last 53 seconds. Pineda’s version was 89 seconds long....Singers like Sarah Geronimo, Lani Misalucha and Kyla, whose versions of the anthem at different Pacquiao matches had lasted for over a minute, have also been criticized by the NHI for turning the national anthem into a ballad.

The U.S. Navy's instrumental is longer than 53 seconds while the tenor rendition lasts 53 seconds if you take out the flourishes at the beginning. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music & Tempo section[edit]

Inspired by the discussion above, I created a subsection on music and tempo to parallel the lyrics section because the tempo has been one of the controversies surrounding the anthem and there was some good sources on the tempo and the controversies. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism with "Filipino" replacing "Tagalog"[edit]

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the historical revisionist ediring replacing the name of the Tagalog language in this article with the name of the Filipino language, as in this and earlier edits. At the time the lyrics were written, of course, the Tagalog language did exist and there was no language called "Filipino". As I understand it, the earlier Tagalog and later Filipino languages are not de-jure identical, but may or may not be de-facto identical. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suggest to delete "misheard lyrics" section[edit]

after all, it's a song, and like any other song people tend to introduce their own small changes, either due to forgetfulness or outbursts of creativity. does wikipedia really want to list the 20 most common variations in the lyrics of every single song it covers? or is there some justification why this song should be treated differently from others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.238.175.48 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, will delete since no source has been added for 4 years now. PyroFloe (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tagalog" vs. "Filipino" as language name[edit]

This edit, which changed Filipino to Tagalog in a number of places, caught my eye. No edit summary was provided, but it occurs to me that the change might be justified for anghem versions prior to February 12, 1998 when RA8491 beccame law (see [7]). RA849a says that the anthem must always be sung in the national language. If this nit is to be picked in this article, some clarification ought to be provided. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English literal translation of Tagalog version[edit]

Where is literal English translation of lyrics? I guess English version lyrics of 1938 is different from literal translation of current Tagalog version. So you should write literal English translation of Tagalog version.--Propatriamori (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted versions of lyrics[edit]

Here, I reverted some past edits to the text quoted in the article as past versions of the anthem back into agreement with the sources cited in support of those quotations, saying: Revert some direct quote discrepancies back to the wording in the cited sources, per MOS:SIC. Added one [failed verification] tag and suggest a source which might be used. Here, Propatriamori undid my reversion. Here, I redid my revert, saying: Reverted good faith edits by Propatriamori: I undid this change, which had reverted my earlier edit bringing direct quotes in this article back into agreement with the sources cited in support. Please discuss at "Qoted versions of lyrics" on the talk page if needed. (I see here that I mistyped the title of this talk page section there).

Some of the reverted changes amount only to style changes in punctuation, and some changed the wording of the lyric versions qllegedly quoted from the sources cited. These appear to flout WP:SIC, which says: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced."

Please discuss below if needed. Please to not edit war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected my spelling error in the heading of this talk page section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, Propatriamori again reverted my corrections to direct quotes in this article, this time saying Undid revision 924030230 by Wtmitchell (talk) Please read your edited version of lyrics. It is obviously error. I have left his latest edit in place for now rather than engage in an edit war. I have made dumb errors in the past and I don't discount the possibility that I am making a dumb error here, but I have looked once more and I do not see an error here.

For one specific example, the article, as currently edited, contains the line Do we behold the radiance, feel the throb in what purports to be a direct quote of lyrics of Official Commonwealth-Era : English Version : The Philippine Hymn (1938), citing this source in support. I do not find that line in the cited supporting source. Likewise, I do not find the other discrepancies in the direct quotes which I corrected in relevant cited supporting sources. If I am making a dumb error here, please point it out. I do intend to restore my edits after discussion here unless I am shown where I am in error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check it again the lyrics of english version,Not other part of the page . According to your edited version, last sentence of the lyrics are "Of glorious liberty". But obviously actual last sentence is "For us thy sons to suffer and die." And your edited version lost some 4 sentences.Have you ever listened actual recording of English version? So I guessed it is editing error.--Propatriamori (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is obvious to you is not obvious at all to me. Your current version of the article, which gives "For us thy sons to suffer and die" as the final line for one version of the lyrics, cites this source in support. That source, which the article purportedly quotes, contains an English language version of the lyrics which does not give that as the last line of the lyrics. Please, per WP:SIC, edit your version of the article so that the text quoted faithfully reproduces the text being quoted from the supporting sources cited for all of the anthem versions quoted in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you even cant sing this song by your 16 sentences version. because it lack last 4 sentences,it is clearly not fit to melody and also to Spanish and Tagalog versions. How can we sing it? Please sing and record it if you can. And furthermore All recorded version which I know is also that 20 sentences version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM7zjN626K8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cbfKcLeknE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBvfKiE1RBA There is no recording by your 16 sentences version. I guess your version is just typing/writing mistake of that site`s writer. And that your site is now even no longer exist. Youtube actual recording videos are more trustable than the site which is no longer exist. In other words, if the site which is no longer exist can be source, actual singing/recording videos also can be sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propatriamori (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:SIC. Please then edit your version of the article so that the text quoted faithfully reproduces the text being quoted from the supporting sources cited for all of the anthem versions quoted in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actual recording cant be source? This is very strange and funny thing that no longer exist site can be source, but actual recordings cant be. Where is your 16 sentences version recording? The version which is not fit to melody can be called lyrics? And by the way, Wikisource is also 20 sentences version. And also at other pages of wikipedia, there is link to youtube. videos--Propatriamori (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to argue that at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, but before you do that you ought to familiarize yourself with past discussions such as this one and others seen here. I suggest that before you do that, though, you discuss it here. In the meantime, I will revert this article to the earlier version that I edited so that the text quoted faithfully reproduces the text being quoted from the supporting sources cited for all of the anthem versions quoted in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before you edit it so hastily, Have you ever searched lyrics on other website? You should have searched it before you edited. I found website with 20 sentences version, which is not web archived site. http://www.nationalanthems.info/ph.htm http://www.nationalanthems.info/ph-46.txt So now 20 sentences version has also source which is more trustabe than web archived site. As I said before, 16 sentences version is perhaps just mistake of site writer, since it cant be sang, and it is only on a web archived site. --Propatriamori (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, please note that my edit was not hasty. In this regard, see here. Second, please note that my edit was to correct violations of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines by your edit. Third, if you feel that supporting sources cited in the article are in error or express viewpoints not widely held, feel free to refute that source citing other, better sources (see WP:DUE). If you feel that WP's policies and guidelines could use revision, feel free to make that case on appropriate discussion pages regarding that.
You and I have focused here on particular changes which you made to the lyrics asserted by the article as being the official Commonwealth-Era English version of The Philippine Hymn from 1938 and supported by a cited source (that source, however, describes those lyrics not as that but, as far as I can tell, as an unofficial and unattributed translation into English of the version of the lyrics written in Tagalog by Julian Felipe on June 12, 1898. I had not previously nitpicked the column headings, and only just noticed that; perhaps I will take a closer look at that at some point). As far as I can tell, the sources on which you have relied here are not particularly reliable as to the provenance of the lyrics they present; again, see WP:RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So that site cant be source? I really cant understand you. " as an unofficial and unattributed translation into English of the version of the lyrics written in Tagalog by Julian Felipe on June 12, 1898." This is different translation at right below of the page. Start with "Beloved country,Pearl of the Orient,". Please click "Philippine hymn" of that page.That is Commonwealth era version written by Osias as the page described . This is not unofficial and unattributed translation of Tagalog version. And this is also all recorded English version of this song. And as I said before, your 16 sentences version is more untrustable, since it cant be sang (not fit/match to melody), and only found at a web archived site.(and perhaps that site writer`s mistake.)--Propatriamori (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digging around online this morning, it seems that this source, a WP:SECONDARY source of generally accepted reliability, might be a good source by Wikipedia's standards regarding the lyrics of the official Commonwealth-Era English version of The Philippine Hymn from 1938. It says:

During the Commonwealth an English version by Osias and Lane was sung and is still remembered by old-timers today. It goes: “Land of the morning/Child of the sun returning/With fervor burning/Thee do our souls adore./Land dear and holy/Cradle of noble heroes/Ne’er shall invaders/Trample thy sacred shores./Ever within thy skies and through thy clouds/And o’er thy hills and sea/Do we behold the radiance/feel the throb/Of glorious liberty./Thy banner dear to all our hearts/Its sun and stars alight/Oh, never shall its shining fields/Be dimmed by tyrants might!/Beautiful land of love, o land of light/In thine embrace ’tis rapture to lie/But it is glory ever, when thou art wronged/For us thy sons to suffer and die.”

Other sources I turned up, not necessarily focused on this particular version of the anthem and only glanced at so far, include [8][9][10][11][12][13]. The source currently cited, [14] is a link-rotted Philippine Government web page, but does not appear to address this particular version of the anthem.
I don't see any point in you and I continuing this discussion here. I do see that this article needs a closer look than I have given it recently and I will try to find time to take a closer look at it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The sentences of lyrics which you quoted now is also 20 sentences version which same to that I mentioned , not your 16 sentences version. And by the way,I forgot to mention this, about 2 previous your comment, you said " the version of the lyrics written in Tagalog by Julian Felipe on June 12, 1898." The original lyrics of the anthem is in Spanish written in 1899, not Tagalog version. And Julian Felipe is composer of melody.--Propatriamori (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I edited the article to use the newspaper source I mentioned above and the lyrics in there. Sorry about that error; I must have been in a hurry when I wrote that. I see here and elsewhere that the English language version we have been discussing was apparently a translation made by Camilo Osías and an American named Mary A. Lane (about whom I haven't been able to find any further information). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Padilla de León[edit]

I looked at this article today and the line in the intro to the Oficial Filipino Version lyrics saying saying "translated by Felipe Padilla de León" caught my eye. The question: "translated from what to what?" occurred to me. The Felipe Padilla de León article presents him as a composer of music rather than as a lyracist, which deepens the question rather than answering it.

Rummaging around, I found this Feburary 17, 2011 version of this article, which has some hints. As I read that, an anthem with lyrics adapted from the Spanish poem Filipinas, written by José Palma, was translated to English in 1938; Tagalog versions appeared in the 1940s; "revisions" (to the music and/or the lyrics -- ????) were made in the 1960s; Felipe Padilla de Leon then used one of those versions as his inspiration for Awit sa Paglikha ng Bagong Pilipinas (which that article describes as a patriotic song commissioned during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines which was intended to supplant Lupang Hinirang as the anthem). None of that is well supported there; this, cited there, describes de León as "an indefatigable writer of hymns and marches" and says , "the entire nation had sung his marches and anthems penned under the bayonet during the Japanese period and during martial law." It names a couple of them, but not the one named here, and I get the impression there, again, that de Lron was more of a composer of music than a lyracist.

There is some more info at The Philippine Government. PediaPress. pp. 52-53. I don't see an answer there to the question of what, if anything, de Leon translated in re the current anthem. I've placed a {{clarify inline}} tag in the article there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics changes by anon 130.105.160.188[edit]

I noticed this series of edits by 130.105.160.188 (with one edit by me included there) includes a number of changes to asserted lyrics versions apparently without regard to the supporting sources cited for those versions. I have not gone through and reverified these changes against the sources, but I thought I would flag this here as a possible problem.There may be more edits to come in this series. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the versions I could and found lots of seeming discrepancies. I tagged them in this series of edits. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at improvement to some sourcing problems in the article[edit]

I've been bothered by unsourced content and {{failed verification}} tags in some of the versions in this article. I'm WP:BOLDly taking a stab at improving this. I'll do this in several edits, hoping to minimize confusion and to simplify partial reversion after all changes are done if that is needed.

I've tried to preserve the spelling, capitalization, punctuation of the versions I've quoted, but someone with broader language skills than I might look at this and/or other things I might have garbled. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find other sources of the poorly sourced material but to no avail. I also arranged the wikitable so that it is easier to edit the next time, and I added visual improvements. I only preserved such anthems that had official status during the many phases of the Philippine Republics and removed the poorly sourced versions. I also matched the table's style to the article on the Russian anthem since it's a featured article. PyroFloe (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have again edited the article here, attempting to clarify some of the matrial in it re the time signature of the anthem. As I said in my edit summary there, more work needs to be done on that to center the info re that in the "Music and Tempo" section of the article, but I didn't want to try doing that in a drive-by edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other versions and their translations[edit]

What happened to the "O Land Beloved" version and its Filipino translation, the Filipino translation of the original "Filipinas" poem, and the English translations of the "Diwa ng Bayan" and the "O Sintang Lupa" versions? In the context of the English Wikipedia, having the different Spanish and Filipino/Tagalog lyrics without English translations is useless for readers who don't understand these languages, and the different English and/or Filipino translations of the various versions were intended to show the evolution of the lyrics, since the official versions currently included are not 1:1 translations of each other. See this old page version for reference. Like from the opening lines alone, "Tierra adorada" does not equate to "Land of the morning" or "Bayang magiliw". Showing the evolution through versions and translations is needed. Asado (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion or sourced edit re Marcha Nacional Filipina[edit]

I'm reverting this edit, assuming good faith. Besides the formatting problem with the replacement content, no source was cited in the edit body, though one was mentioned in the edit summary. The source mentioned in the edit summary does not appear to me to meet WP:IRS criteria. I did try to improve it, but the best I could come up with online was this image, the sourcing of which is not clear to me from the URL, and it's not good enough resolution to make out details. Perhaps better sourcing can be found. Please discuss as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcha Nacional Filipina (Spanish version)[edit]

This follows on this revert I made recently of an edit which changed one line of the lyrics and this discussion which ensued on my talk page. As I said in that discussion, the change I reverted, on consideration of new supporting material mentioned and linked tin the talk page discussion, now looks meritorious. However, there are problems re how to express that here. As I see it, the expression of that change here will introduce a discrepancy between the Spanish version and the English version (said to have been derived from the Spanish version) in this article, and will also introduce a discrepancy between the Spanish version supported by what would be a new supporting cite for that and other sources -- some of which are cited by this article. That summary of the situation is messy -- please read the discussion on my talk page linked above to clarify it and, hopefully, discuss below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(added) Yesterday, I hurredly mis-posted a suggestion on my talk page which I meant to post here. After I had done that, the originator of the article change which started this responded there(instead of here). I'll re-quote just that part of the relevant section below:

Suggestion: There may be other, better suggestions, but here is one which occurred to me -- Retain the current Spanish lyrics and add a Note (the article currently has an empty Notes section) something like the following: "The initial line of the second stanze was reported in 1899 as reading "¡Patria de amores!,"<supporting cite> but other later sources reported it as shown here, and the version shown here was used as the basis for the English version.<supporting cite> Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Hi and I thank for you looking into this matter and I sincerely believe that this ought to be addressed as it perpetuates an erroneous interpretation which misleads the public and has since become manifest as seen in multiple erroneous covers of the said anthem in YouTube wherein cover artist are basing their interpretation on an unsubstantiated claim which lacks authority. With regards to the WP source claiming that the English version was based on the Spanish, I would liken this to other claims made in Tagalog versions which time has shown is not the case "Lupang Hinirang" (Chosen Land) is in no way the same to "Patria de Amores" (Homeland (Land) of Love). "Land dear and holy" which is the English version is also different to "Land of Love" (Tierra de Amores). Therefore, I do not see any issues with translation for the English version translated to Spanish would be "tierra querida y santa" this would also not make any sense.

As for sourcing, I kindly request assistance on this as I am fairly new to Wikipedia and lack the experience required for coding and sourcing. as for the suggestion you made, I would like to recommend doing it the other way around. Instead of retaining the current lyrics, rather it should be put in notes instead and have the suggested edit in its place as it is more authoritative and better substantiated with documents and government markers which in my humble opinion holds far more weight against an article written without proper source of reference to back it up. Dispute revolving around the Spanish Version serving as the basis for the English, I personally believe this has to be better substantiated for the Spanish language can be translated depending entirely on the people who crafted the English Version. "Patria" whose plain meaning is "Homeland" could have also been erroneously translated or simplified to English as "Land dear and holy".

Hopefully, this helps explain my rationale behind the change and should further assistance be required, I would be happy to assist in the best way I can.

Regards,

P674FI (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Please continue discussion here. I'll look back at this as I have time, but it needs more attention than I can give it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However it is done, it seems that we have two differing Spanish versions, both reliably sourced, one from 1899 and the other from some time later, and an English version apparently translated from the later of those two versions. This needs some explanation in the article, either somewhere in the body or in a Note, and the explanation needs support. I don't have a sourced explanation but I see here that the translation was done in 1934, attributing that info to this more citeable book source but not saying what page(s). That's a start. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(added) The Hitsory section of the article says, "The poem was published for the first time for the first anniversary of the newspaper La Independencia on September 3, 1899, and was subsequently set to the tune of the Marcha Nacional Filipina." It looks to me as if "and was subsequently" there needs to be expanded with the information under discussion here. One source cited in support of the current content there is this book page which has "Tierra de amores," as the first line in the second stanza. That page is from a book published in 1912 ([15]), so the change took place between 1899 and 1912. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) Having seen the above cited, I would like to chime in and share a link to a book by Major Manuel A. Baja that appears to be commissioned by the Philippine Government at the time titled the "Philippine National Flag and Anthem" published in 1936 and made available online by the Filipinas Heritage Library (link to this book here), Part II Page 205 shows a copy of "Himno Nacional Filipino" courtesy of Mr. Leopoldo R. Aguinaldo. Based on the accounts found, the lyric sheet illustrated in this book shows that the the third line of the first stanza had "Patria de amores" as opposed to "Tierra de amores" as cited by earlier sources. The book also adds a footnote on page 210 acknowledging the book published in 1912 and its apparent use of "Tierra de amores" and reaffirmed that "Patria de amores" is correct for the original copy of Julian Felipe's "Marcha Nacional Filipina" uses the word Patria. Based on these findings, it is unlikely that a change ever occurred as initially stated. It appears to be a simple mistranslation on the part of the initial source published in 1912. This book from 1936 also implies that the version shown in this book is a copy of the original which is now housed in the National Library of the Philippines. Upon further research, versions seen in national museums such as the Emilio Aguinaldo Shrine show the same lyric sheet as shown in the 1936 book (image for reference). I recommend that this new found source be considered for inclusion to the main page Lupang Hinirang as a primary source to the former Spanish lyrics to replace the existing source taken from rappler (link to said article). HispanoFilipino1521 (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the link to the book provided above. It is the third edition, copyright 1936. There is an eight page insertion between pages numbered 201 and 205, the last two pages of which contain a score and lyrics titled "Hymno Nacional Filipino", as described. There is a note at the bottom apparently signed (as I read it) "Aguinaldo" with the title "1st Lieut. and Conductor Phil. Constabulary Band" reading, "Note: For the convenience of the singers this song has been rearranged in the key of G instead of C as in the original score now kept in the Philippine national library." I'm not sure that this score is a rock-solid source regarding the lyrics. At the bottom of page 209, the book text says that Jose Palma wrote the verses and "very appropriately called it 'FILIPINAS'." The following pages of the book contain more details which may well be of interest here but are difficult for me to read on my computer; some other editor may want to look at those closely. In particular, on page page 210 contains the text of the poem FILIPINAS saying, "It was published for the first time on September 3, 1899 in La Indepencia. Four of the lines there are marked with footnote numbers and the footnotes are on that page of the book. As I said, reading this is not easy on my computer, so I'll leave that (hopefully) to another editor. If someone does read that, it would probably be useful to quote the poem as shown in the book and the text of the footnotes here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(reply) Happy to assist in reading and typing out the contents word for word on the footnotes shown on page 210 for the interest of all contributors, the file can actually be zoomed in for better clarity, the first footnote reads and I quote, "Professor Julian Felipe's original reads Por ti lateindo esta. Either En or Por is slightly different from that conveyed by En which is the correct word." The second footnote reads "This line reads Tierra de amores in MELANCOLICAS (Collection of Jose Palma's poems). Patria de amores is correct according to Rafael Palma. Professor Julian Felipe's original copy of Marcha Nacional Filipina uses the word Patria in the same line". The third footnote reads "Professor Julain Felipe's original reads En la victoria ilumino. The use of En is erroneous". The last footnote reads "This line reads Tierra de dichas, del sol y de amores in MELONCOLICAS. In the same line Professor Julian Felipe's original does not have de before amores". The footnotes contain corrections made to certain versions of the anthem that surfaced at the time when contrasted to the lyrics illustrated in the book. Rafael Palma, who is Jose Palma's brother asserts in the 2nd footnote that Tierra is erroneous and Patria is correct, his assertions appear to be rock-solid given his familial ties to the author of the poem, not to mention the various national markers and museums which house the Spanish lyrics, all appear consistent with the assertions made in the 2nd footnote on page 210. HispanoFilipino1521 (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm no expert in any of this, but I've edited this article many times trying to keep the various versions of the lyrics which it quotes consistent with the sources cited in support of those quotations. The case under current discussion is more complicated that. I see that the article has a Notes section (currently empty). It seems to me that what is needed here is a clarifying footnote in that section saying something like, "The lyrics headed Former Spanish Version presented here are quoted from [wherever].[source citation]. Other versions exist. [further clarification and citation of supporting sources for the clarifying info presented]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A note about the Spanish translation...[edit]

In Spanish, the word "hollar" (to trample) is distinct from the word "hallar" (to find). I'm almost certain that the original poem by Jose Palma read, "No te hollarán jamás" (poetic English: never shall they trample thee) rather than "No te hallarán jamás" (poetic English: never shall they find thee). However, either of the expression could make sense (though the former does seem more suitable for the context of the poem than the latter), and I've found sources containing either one or the other. I cannot ascertain which one is truly correct, as finding the original poem by Palma is easier said than done. However, I included an additional source for the Spanish translation to support my replacing of "halláran" with "hollarán". I'll leave it up to the editors to decide whether they deem it appropriate to include a footnote stating the above or to revert my edit. However, my only request is that the source I posted remain in place. The G Wikian (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposition sounds reasonable but it needs more than one unclarified example to support it in the face of contrasting suppositions; see WP:DUE I'm not literate in Spanish and I'm no expert in the history of this, but this looks contentious to me. Wikipedia:Contentiousness isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it generally requires clarification. I have no clarification to provide, but I see that the article has a (currently empty) Notes section where clarification citing supporting sources might be provided using {{efn}}. Digging around a little, I see sources which mention the hollarán usage here, here, here, and elsewhere. The entire poem is readable in the third of those; the first of those is only readable as a snippet but looks like it might be more authoritative than the others -- perhaps you or some other interested editor can find access to a copy. Anyhow, that's my two cents worth -- it may or may not be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Digging a bit more, I see this, which says, "The poem, entitled Filipinas, was published for the first time on September 3, 1899 in La Independencia, a revolutionary newspaper where Palma was a staff member." That issue was apparently the first issue. Perhaps a printed copy survives in the National Library; (I've been there a few times, and found the staff helpful) perhaps there's an RS that quotes the poem from it. I found this, but I don't have the time or the research skills to go far enough down that rabbit hole to see if an archived copy exists there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry that I've been away for a while. I've been busy with school and all. Anyway, I've just added a disclaimer for the hollarán/hallarán discrepancy. Hope it helps. The G Wikian (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, I would like to chime in with regards to the newspaper publication of La Independencia dated 3rd September 1899, I recall a few months back that I found an image from said publication which features the lyrics to the poem, upon reviewing its contents, it appears to be consistent with what @The G Wikian mentioned, hollarán was shown instead of hallarán, I would like to upload this file into Wikicommons, however, I am not very well versed with the copyright policies in place. I found the copy of the publication from a resource page by the NHCP. I'll try to look for it and share the link here for reference as well.HispanoFilipino1521 (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Etymology section[edit]

I happened to look at the Etymology section today. It seems to me that the section ought to be eliminated in its current form, relocated, and redone with a different section title.

First, the question "etymology of what?" strikes me. The origin and development of the anthem title seems clear -- it was mandated in 1998 by RA8491, which took the first two words of the second stanza of the lyrics as the title. As explained in the History section of the article, those words came from the poem Filipinas which had been added as lyrics to an instrumental piece originally titled Marcha Filipina Magdalo and later retitled as Marcha Nacional Filipina when adopted as an anthem in 1898. The article's Etymology section does not concern itself with this, however, but focuses on differences about recasting the Filipino language title of the piece into English. It also mentions the officialization of the lyrics in 1938 by CA382.

I propose that the current Etymology section be eliminated, that its content related to CA382 be moved to the History section, and that the rest of the content be moved to a new section following the History section, headed something like English language titling, with appropriate rewriting.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen neither objection nor discussi8on, I actioned this here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original Lyrics of Lupang Hinirang was not in Spanish, but in Kapampangan..[edit]

In my reading I noticed this website [1] It says that the original was in Kapampangan not in Spanish ... --Shimin_Ufesoj (🦜) 05:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Escerpt from that source"The Director of Operations at Bulosan Center for Filipino Studies and one of the founders of National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON), Kirby Araullo, states that back in 1899, Spanish was still the lingua franca (common language) of the country. When Palma wrote Filipinas, he based it from a Kapampangan poem entitled Labuad Mapalad (Most Blessed Land)."
And see this, FWIW. Perhaps there is more info out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://kapampangan.org/the-history-of-lupang-hinirang-the-story-of-us/

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lyrical revision section[edit]

Om this edit, I relocated this section to a position which made more sense. The relocation brought the English language translations in that section into close proximity with the Osyas and Lane translation to English now shown just above that relocated section. That proximity highlighted translation disparities. In this edit, I've tried to ameliorate that. Perhaps what I've done can be improved. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics in other regional languages[edit]

I recently made several edits to this section, replacing unsourced translations with sourced translations. If there are objections to what I've done there, please note WP:NOR and WP:DUE before detailing those objections here.

A matter of concern is: What translations, if any, should be included? I'll give my thoughts on this here.

First: Kapampangan The translation to that language is not presented in this section but instead as "Original Kapampangan version" in the Other historical lyrics section as this article treats that as a special case. How to handle that special case is a matter to be decided by consensus and, though I mention the way it is currently handled here, I'm just noting that and not taking issue with it.

The Languages of the Philippines article currently lists 19 languages it calls Regional. The current constitution says, "The regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein.". Education in the Philippines § Curriculum currently says that native/mother tongue instruction is done in 19 languages. Presuming that those two lists of 19 languages are identical, that's still a lot.

That raises the question of what the rationale ought to be for deciding which language translations this article ouught to provide. I don't know what a reasonable rationale might be, but I don't think "any of the 19 we can find" is a good one. So I suggest, for discussion here that, unless a better rationale forms by consensus here, no regional language translations be provided but that the article say something like, "The anthem has been translated into a number of Philippine regional languages, and into some of the numerous other languages spoken in the Philippines.", citing one or more sources containing such translations.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rearrangement after addition of official recordings[edit]

This edit, adding official recordings to the Lyrics section, caught my eye. It strikes me that this may not be the best location in the article for this addition. Here is a proposed rearrangement (which I have not moved into the Article page) showing an alternative arrangement which may be better. There, I've moved the table with the recordings to the Usage section, moving the {{Culture of the Philippines}} sidebar up to make way for it. Barring objection and depending on discussion here, I plan to make this change in the article in a few days. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)  Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell: I'd like to see why you think so, because under the Lyrics heading is where many readers will look (it risks going completely unseen under Usage at the bottom of the article), and it being there helps them hear how the lyrics are sung. There's more than enough space. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it relates more to the subtopic of usage than to the subtopic of lyrics -- particularly so since two of the five versions it presents are instrumental versions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtmitchell: Instrumental versions in fact indicate particularly so a belonging to Lyrics over Usage, because it's where people can sing the lyrics along to the instrumental of the anthem. All of them belong more to even Music and tempo than Usage, so I don't know how you came upon Usage. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that instrumental arrangements without lyrics don't belong in the Lyrics section; this is an encyclopedia article, not a sing-along songbook. However, it's not a big deal to me. I'll go with whatever the WP:consensus here might be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mga Kababayan"[edit]

I've moved this addition here:

In popular culture

The closing bars of the anthem form the opening of the 1990 song Mga Kababayan by Filipino rapper Francis Magalona.

See MOS:POPCULT. Also, though I'm neither a Tagalog speaker nor into rap I looked here and here and didn't see a match. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lupang_Hinirang&oldid=1194060216"