Talk:Filipino shamans

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UrAznBoi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Transgender Terminology

The introductory section needs clarification. The accepted terminology in the trans community is "trans woman", for a person whose gender identity is female, and "trans man", for a person whose gender identity is male. Use of the phrase "male transgenders" is not only misleading or confusing, it is considered demeaning by trans people. Given what is known about the history of gender identity worldwide, it would seem likely that the article intends to say that trans women were known to serve as baybaylan to their communities. Gcvrsa

Earlier revisions of the article only stated that babaylan can be male or female and never mentioned anything about "male transgenders," so I removed the phrase entirely until someone can provide a source for what a "male transgender" is. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 19:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Feminized Men

In reference to the edit on babaylan that states,

@Obsidian Soul: "It is the most neutral and the clearest description in English, since it is the common overlap between the wide range of gender identities defined by "bakla". You can not use modern terminology like "homosexual" or "transwomen" either."

Can we discuss or clarify terminology used to describe the gender identity of babaylan who were not women? "Feminized men" is not the clearest description of the wide range of gender identities defined by the term bakla, as feminized men could be perceived as a derogatory way of describing a person who identifies as bakla. Bakla has gender variance that includes feminized men, transgender women, and an entirely separate third gender.

Spookyfruit (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Spookyfruit: I do not see how it could be perceived as "derogatory". These are not modern gender identities and should not be conflated with them. The asog were still understood to be biologically male, though feminized to varying degrees. It is something even modern bakla still acknowledge today, none of whom would be offended at being called "men". Bakla, in its original sense among shamans, is a "combined" gender. Neither men nor women, but both. A hermaphroditic third gender which allowed someone male to assume feminine roles.

"Feminized men", "effeminate male", or "men with feminized roles" are also the description used by the sources. See: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Even the native names reflect that. Binabae literally means "feminized".

Again, these gender identities should not be confused with transwomen who would not call themselves "bakla", but rather women. Calling modern transwomen "bakla" would be offensive. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Need Help with Talim

Uh Hey guys, anyone here know more about the indigenous tribes of Ancient pre-Philippine culture? please help construct Talim's. Talim is a Filipina fighting character in Soul Calibur and I think she's the very first Filipina in any game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueknightex (talk • contribs)

Talim is Filipino for "sharp" or "sharpness". Is the character a babaylan? — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

additional information about babaylans from the mandaya tribe in the southern part of mindanao

in the mandaya tribe we call our babaylans as balyan. Yes they are considered as witch doctors of the tribe and are said to heal the sick with the help of their companion spirits called the ABYAN. ABYANS could be any spirit from the other world(elemental or nature spirits). these spirits are believe to have chosen a human being to become their ambassador to our world.

It is said that when a spirit chooses a person, the entity will appear to that person through dreams or through a tangible form. it could be a large black dog or in its human-like form. when the person is being chosen, the spirit will then decide what to ask for that person in return for being chosen. it could be something dear to the person or it could be something else. but there are also instances that the spirits don't ask for anything in return.

now if the person is asked to become an balyan and he/refuses, bad omens will strike upon him or her or on his loved ones. they may feel sick for several days without any probable cause and cannot be treated by any medicine except if being consulted to an older balyan too.

the main purpose of the balyan is become a bridge to both worlds the world of the spirits and the world of the living. If given a chance a normal person who accidentally troubled the resting place or the bathing place of the enchanted beings. the balyan will serve to be the advocate of the person to ask apology to the enchanted beings of the forests to alleviate the punishment or curse put upon the person. it is done through a series of dance rituals performed around the offender. the balyan as she dances, also sings a PANAWAG-TAWAG or a calling with the use of the FORBIDDEN word to gather the spirits and talk to them. The forbidden word is believed to be only uttered by the balyan alone because it is the name of his ABYAN. when uttered by other persons, the ABYAN is believed to become upset and will punish the unworthy person who uttered his name. when the spirits are present, the balyan then sings an apology songs, and offers food that are prepared without salt. different balyans have different styles of rituals. there are those that chew MAMA-ON, a locale gum made by elders from ashes of shells and a leaf from a wild plant. in which, if chewed will give a red color dye like extract that will give the tongue a crimson red appearance. Some balyans tear a white chickens leg and splashes the blood around the offender; in order to apeace the enchanted beings. there are seven forbidden words that must never be uttered; only the Balyans know what those are. Eros pierced (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Hello, my name is Austin and I am editing this article for a college project. I would like to make a few edits to the page. First, I would like to add a table of contents. Second, I would like to provide more sources and verify citations. In addition, I would like to start a subtopic on gender neutrality and how babaylans affect Philippine society. I would love some feedback.

UrAznBoi (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babaylan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311052936/http://www.pusod-us.org/CallofNature/2001/babaylan.html to http://www.pusod-us.org/CallofNature/2001/babaylan.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Introduction: some statements and the relevance of given sources

Under the Spanish Empire, babaylan were often maligned and falsely accused as witches and "priests of the devil" and were persecuted harshly by the Spanish clergy. In modern Philippine society, their roles have largely been taken over by folk healers, which are now predominantly male, while some are still being falsely accused as "witches".

There are four sources attributed to this. One is this and it appears to be a collection of primary sources, or first-hand account witnesses of the events during the Spanish era. The aforementioned source doesn't contain keywords such as "falsely" (contained in the above quote), "accused", "persecuted", "modern" and "folk", so that source can't be used as support to the quote above. As Wikipedia guidelines say, primary sources should be used very carefully and it is better to use primary sources to prove that a certain quote actually appears there. I have decided to remove it until someone else can restore this by providing full citations to facilitate the verification process. In this way, sources will be used to support the actual statement it is supposed to support, with full quotes that will testify that the Wiki editor actually read the source.

Another one is this, and it is the 1903 census. This source is better, however I read the referenced page (328) and this is the relevant passage:

The priests, called katalonan in Tagalog and baibailonan in the Visayan dialect, were the principal actors at these religious ceremonies: they executed war dances armed with a lance with which they first stabbed a swine as a sacrifice, and would probably spear other animals as well, and even the slaves themselves. The Spanish missionaries looked on these ceremonies with horror; they believed they were inspired by some spirit from the infernal regions; they were described as bacchanal feasts, but as missionaries were filled with repugnance at what they had seen, the descriptions left by them were no doubt exaggerated

The said page didn't contain keywords such as "falsely", "accused", "persecuted", "harshly", "modern" and "folk". These keywords appear in other pages of the source, but they never become relevant to the topic of babaylan. The cited page apparently didn't even mention the fate of these "priests" in modern Philippine society.

Based on the explanation provided above, I am eliminating these sources. May the Wiki editor who restores them provide full citations and put them next to the relevant statement that requires references. P.S.: I am tagging here Obsidian Soul, this might interest you. Stricnina (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Keywords are irrelevant. We are not copying the sources, we are summarizing what they say. As in the entire thing referenced, not a few sentences and most certainly not "keywords". Furthermore, it's weird to me how you are challenging the sourcing of the WP:LEAD, where sourcing is optional because it is quite literally a summary of the article (hence sentences in the lead are extremely generalized and can summarize multiple sources, see MOS:CITELEAD). The details of the persecution and the transition to male folk healers is discussed in-depth in the body of the article, with more specific references. Read those.

As for primary sources, WP:PRIMARYCARE explicitly says primary sources are perfectly fine to make straightforward descriptive statements. The "primary sources" you are objecting to from Blair's book are translated contemporary historical accounts of the Spanish during the colonial era. See WP:USEPRIMARY. And I am using them with care by not stating the authors' biases as fact, for example that the babaylan are literally "ministers of Satan" who did "execrable blasphemies".

So unless you're saying the statements are false because they were "accurately identified" (not falsely accused) as being "real" witches, who were "beloved" (not harshly persecuted) by the Spanish, and that modern albularyo are "real" doctors not folk healers, your removal of sources is unconstructive and unwarranted. Challenge the content, not the wording.

I'm also wondering why this seems to be different from your similarly mistaken earlier removal. On top of that you add a [citations needed] tag for the entire article for your removal of two sources... in a statement where two also remained to verify it... in an article with 70 sources. All of these seems WP:POINTY. I was expecting you to justify why your earlier edit was warranted, not make a fresh round of deletions and do a WP:DRIVEBY. Please don't make this personal. Just because I reverted you doesn't mean we're enemies.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Obsidian Soul, keywords matter. You can't say the statements above if the sources do not even support them. Also note that I have not removed the aforementioned statement itself, only the two of the four sources because their interpretation appears to be a result of original research. Statements like the one I quoted above are interpretations of primary sources, and according to Wikipedia policy, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Since you deem the other two sources to be viable secondary sources, I have left them for now, while removing the primary sources that should be used only when quoting them directly. Please avoid adding primary sources unless extremely necessary and start collecting secondary sources supporting the lead statements. Stricnina (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Dear"? Asaran na agad? Supporting a statement doesn't mean copying words verbatim from the source. All the sources used directly support the statement that "babaylan were often maligned and falsely accused as witches and "priests of the devil" and were persecuted harshly by the Spanish clergy", just not in exactly the same words (because that would be WP:COPYVIO). Show me a policy which says keywords are required verbatim. And show me which of the "keywords" you picked out are false. Primary sources are NOT forbidden. So no. I will not remove them, until you identify precisely what is wrong with them, aside from simply that the "words are different". I didn't "interpret" the sources, I merely summarized them, the secondary sources are there for that. Also where in the world did you get the idea that primary sources should only be used when "quoting them directly"? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Obsidian Soul, primary sources are not forbidden. However, as Wikipedia policy states, the goal of using them is "only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." I believe the policy is clear. You can quote the primary sources directly (yes, quoting primary sources verbatim is allowed under Wikipedia policy), but interpreting them and committing original search out of those primary sources are forbidden under the no original research policy of Wikipedia. Sorry, but if you are going to use those primary source, it is better to reword the statement I have quoted above. Also note that I am fully aware that you have added some secondary sources to support the statement, I am just disputing the primary sources and why I believe they are not needed there, especially when they have zero details about the extent of the persecution by Spanish friars, nor they contain info about the roles of babaylan in modern Philippine society. Stricnina (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"directly says just what the article says it does"; "it is better to reword the statement I have quoted above"

Article: "babaylan were often maligned and falsely accused as witches and "priests of the devil" and were persecuted harshly by the Spanish clergy."

Sources:

• Blair, p.114: "a babaylan and priest of the devil"
• Blair, p.218: "This minister of Satan was named Tapar, and went about in the garb of a woman, on account of the office of the babaylan and priest of the demon."
• Limos: "The Spanish friars pursued the relentless destruction of all the heathens’ rituals and paraphernalia."; "Eventually, “God” won and drove the babaylans to the mountains where they were branded as witches or mangkukulams."
• 1905 census: "The Spanish missionaries looked on these ceremonies with horror; they believed they were inspired by some spirit from the infernal regions;"
• Brazal, p.130: "The other babaylans however were accused of being witches..."

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

And please stop being WP:POINTY. Seriously, "excessive citations"? Specify? You mean list hundreds of ethnic groups? One more and this is going to WP:AN. I have no patience for this kind of childishness.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Obsidian Soul, that is not WP:POINTY. The purpose is to harmonize this with the Katalonan Wiki article, which is also about the Philippine shamans. I am only adding the inline tags to make modifications later, since for example, the word babaylan is used in some sources to specify the Visayan ethnic groups' denomination of their own shamans. Other sources collectively call them as mag-anito, limiting babaylan to the Visayan shamans. Please read the Fluckiger source as one example of what I am talking about. Stricnina (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Obsidian Soul, about the Blair source, I suggest you quote the source verbatim to support the statement above (which I don't even dispute). Note that I have not removed any Brazal source, nor did I remove the original statement above. I am only questioning the relevance of using primary sources when secondary sources can do just fine. If you are not using primary sources to quote what the primary sources actually say, then they are of zero use in the Wiki lead statements. And also, calm down. Stricnina (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Obsidian Soul, explain why you are systematically undoing all the inline tags (see: here and here) that I have added to stimulate improvement of the article? Are we going to engage in edit warring? Do I have to call the assistance of moderators, etc.? Stricnina (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

We're going to WP:AN. I'm done here.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (usage of primary sources)

@Obsidian Soul, as for your statement about summarizing primary sources just because they are in the lead section, according to the no original research guidelines, you're not supposed to "summarize" (or "synthesize") material found in a primary source yourself. (directly from the page: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so"). "Summary" of primary sources are not allowed, support your claims using secondary sources. In fact, just use secondary sources to avoid citation overkill, abuse of primary sources, through synthesizing two of them. Remember: those two primary sources do not give overview statements about the Spanish persecution of native shamans, nor their modern status (like they are now predominantly male). Stricnina (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment (definition of "babaylan")

In light of the presence of academic sources distinguishing the "babaylan" from the "katalonan", is this edit (with citations) valid? One of the sources mentioned in the specified edit even avoided using "babaylan" as a general term for Philippine shamans, instead opting for the word "maganito". Stricnina (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Let me repeat what I said in the ANI, since you seem to be in the habit of not reading: The article is a general overview of the shamans in precolonial Philippines, not the shamans of any particular ethnic group. "Babaylan" is used as the title since it is the most widely used among most ethnic groups and the most recognizable term when referring to Philippine shamans.

Examples of the general usage of the term for "shamans": [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

The article itself lists all the different names of shamans in various ethnic groups. Not just Visayan or Tagalog. I don't know what more I can do to make you understand that. The concepts discussed here apply to the Tagalog katalonan just as much as they apply to Visayan babaylan, Mandaya baylan, Igorot mumbaki, Talaandig walian, Manobo beylan, etc. If you wish to create articles for every single one these shamans by ethnic group so you can discuss their ethnic group-specific rituals and roles, feel free to do so. But this is NOT an article about Visayan babaylan. This is an article about Philippine shamans. ALL of them. Seems to me like you have issues with the use of the Visayan term instead of the Tagalog one. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This question is born out of sources such as these (basically one of the reliable sources of this Wiki page) which define babaylan or baylan as specifically priests of the "Visayan region of the central Philippines". Another source even tries to make the point I am trying to make across by calling the collectivity of these Philippine shamans as "maganito" instead of "babaylan". It is time to define the word babaylan using the reliable sources that are available and are in circulation. Stricnina (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Google search hits, Babaylan: 259,000; Katalonan: 48,800; Catalonan: 17,100; Maganito: 23,800. Most of the Maganito hits are for the surname. Do you have a problem with the fact that the Visayan term is the one more commonly used when referring to Philippine shamans overall? Are you saying this article should only be about Visayan babaylan? So what should we do about the shamans of ethnic groups that are not Visayan or Tagalog and are known by other names? Pretend they don't exist? Do you rewrite the entire article so it's only about Visayan shamans?

"Maganito" is also Tagalog and is even less used than any of the names you have mentioned. I repeat, this article is an overview that simply uses the Visayan term for the title, since that is the term most used in sources. Balian and Katalonan are even mentioned in the opening sentence, to make that abundantly clear. There's a section of notes which clarifies how the terms differ per ethnic group. There's a list of terms for shamans by ethnic group in its own entire section, a list which also makes it very clear that "Babaylan" is a Visayan term and that other ethnic groups have different names. And still you want this to be just about the Visayan shamans because... why again? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources cited regarding the babaylan tend to refer to the Visayan shaman instead of the shamans from other ethnic groups. For example, in the Scott source, almost all mentions of babaylan are in the section regarding the precolonial Visayas, as you can see here. No wonder the Fluckiger dissertation distanced itself at using babaylan as the collective term. Other sources such as [11], [12] and [13] made distinction between the babaylan and katalonan. Stricnina (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Because everyone knows shamans in the entire Philippines can be divided only into two categories: babaylan and katalonan. /sarcasm I'm guessing you're Tagalog. "Many" is not "all". Plenty of the sources also use "babaylan" generically. When the sources are solely of Visayan shamans, I specify it is only for Visayans in text. When it is only for Itneg, I specify it is only for Itneg. And so on. In most of the text, I don't even use the term babaylan, I use "shaman". -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

First: no one is asking here for the division of Philippine native shamanhood into two categories. Second: your sources tend to be articles written by journalists, while I am trying to add academic articles or pages from books present in Google Books. Third: even if you think this article is just about the "overview" of the entirety of Philippine shamans, it is also equally true that "babaylan" is the Visayan word for their native shaman, as numerous sources above attest. So your persistent disruptive deleting of my contribution above doesn't make any sense when I am trying to add a more academic and scholarly take of this entire topic. Maybe a rewording of the heading is required here, but we need consensus-building first. Of course I can't edit it alone NOR ask other contributors to make their own contributions through tagging because you keep undoing my edits (and your general uncollaborative attitude, like you are owning this Wiki article entirely). Stricnina (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Then why are you rewording the first sentence to say that "Babaylan" are only Visayan "in contrast with the term katalonan used by the Tagalogs"? Where in your edit do you mention the Ifugao mumbaki? Or the Karay-a maaram? Or the Higaonon baylan? Or the Subanen balian? And the dozens of others. You are planning to add them too, right? Of course you weren't.
2. Half of the sources used here are journal articles and books, and are indeed the most cited ones. You're not adding a "more scholarly or academic take". You're just being pedantic.
3. No one is disputing the term is Visayan. What you refuse to acknowledge however is that "babaylan" is also a generic term for ALL Philippine shamans, Visayan or not. And it is in that sense that the term is being used here, that of a Philippine shaman. Thus it INCLUDES the Tagalog katalonan in that definition. This is not an article about the Visayan shaman, nor is it the Visayan version of the article on Katalonan.
4. I have tried to collaborate earlier, but then you decided "collaboration" meant you do the tagging, I do the actual fixing. Even now you refuse to answer my points above, including the fact that "Mag-anito" is also Tagalog and is not used at all as a general term for shamans except by that single thesis that you are using. How do I collaborate with someone who just insists they are right and that my objections are just me being WP:OWNy? I am reverting you for real reasons. It just so happens, I strongly disagree with all of them.

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your questions have easy answers. The first one is because the sources I have provided specifically say that babaylan is used as a Visayan term for their native shamans. You undoing it means you don't agree. The second question is just you just not getting it. Remember these plethora of sources ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].) you have provided? All of them minus one are articles written by journalists. The third is yeah, I am disputing it, or searching for a middle ground while sticking to the source. Fourth, you are absolutely not forced to do anything and no one here is giving you deadlines or anything. Collaborating can also just mean stop disruptive editing and build consensus. Stricnina (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

1. No. Me undoing it means it IS a Visayan term that is ALSO used as a generic term throughout the Philippines (even in Tagalog).
2. Yes, a plethora of sources that are not "academic", but are still very much reliable.
3. Yes let's do that. Stick to the source. Start by showing me a source that says katalonan are completely different from babaylan. Nothing shared at all. Then show me how "Maganito" is used widely to refer generically to Philippine shamans because academics have such a distaste for using Bisaya terms.
4. You see, here's the thing. From my point of view, you're the one editing disruptively. You are literally changing the coverage of the topic, based purely on a belief that we should follow the dictionary definition of babaylan, not the actual general public usage of the term, independent from its Visayan origin.

By narrowing the definition down to Visayan-only, the next step would be to delete 90% of the article which do not deal with Visayan babaylans. And I mean delete, because no one would make an article with two sentences on say, the mumbaki, would they?

And since we've done that, let's do the same to all the language-specific terms I've mentioned before. Maginoo, Alipin, Agimat, Anito, Bahay kubo, Simbang Gabi, etc. should remove all mentions of non-Tagalogs because they are all Tagalog terms. /sarcasm -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your third point is weird. I literally just mentioned sources and you have not bothered reading them? Tell me, which of your sources state that the babaylan is the encompassing term for all the Philippine shamans and were the "generic term throughout the Philippines (even in Tagalog)"? If we can find a middle ground this way and change my mind, then the better. Stricnina (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I already know the term is Visayan. How many times do I have to explain this? This article is an overview which picked the most general term used (as used most frequently by the sources and in Google search results), and that term just happens to be the Visayan term. It's coverage includes ALL Philippine shamans, not just Babaylans, or Katalonans, but ALL the shamans. I am not saying Katalonan is a type of Babaylan literally, I am saying in THIS article's coverage it is. In the same way that the Visayan tumao, the Kapampangan ginu, the Maranao pidtaylan, etc. are also covered in the maginoo article, even though the title is Tagalog. Tell me to explain it one more time.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you already understood my request earlier, but somehow it is not being addressed. The request is pretty simple: build consensus through sources. Stricnina (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Your request seems to be "Make this article about the Visayan shamans only, because that is the title. Fuck every other ethnic group."-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if I should interpret the above comment as a sign that an attempt at building consensus through source is being rejected here. Stricnina (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if I should interpret the above comment as a confirmation that narrowing this article's scope to just Visayan shamans is really your actual goal. You seem to be resistant to my numerous explanations that this is an overview. I could title this article "Katalonan" or "Baylan" or "Maganito" and it wouldn't change the content. Except I won't do that, because WP:RECOGNIZABILITY makes it clear that "Babaylan", by far is the most recognizable, natural, and precise title. If you are challenging the title, have an RfC for changing the title. Don't continue to insist that this is about the narrowest definition of "Babaylan", because I won't remove 90% of this article to please you.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I need a break from this. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's start over

I am offering an olive branch here, @Stricnina:, and trying to compromise. I genuinely am not removing your citations with quotes for the sake of removing them. They are simply highly unconventional. You do not need to quote everything. Neither do you need to cite the specific page (though you do need to specify the page range) or ISSNs for scientific journals. Have a look at the examples in {{Cite journal}}. We also need to avoid inline clutter by merging sources using named refs when they are used multiple times. This helps make the wikitext manageable when editing, as well as cut down redundant refs. Theoretically, we can use short citations (Harvard, APA, etc.) if most or all of the sources used are books that need specific pages identified, but that requires shifting to a different reference style, which is not possible here. Half of the articles I write are on biology, so I know how to cite journals.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, you are personally the first one to say to me that such kind of citation format is "highly unconventional". The reason I restored it is because of the principle of WP:VERIFY and WP:SAYWHERE. While it is not mandatory, it is also not wrong. In the meantime, I am studying possible way to avoid the so-called cluttering by avoiding repeating certain information about the source. I might restore some information in the future like the pages and possibly the quote while avoiding cluttering as I don't see any reason for deleting them, aside from you getting annoyed at it. Stricnina (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, another reason why it is very important to say exactly where I'm getting the information used to support Wiki statements is because to help guide skeptical Wiki editors to the source of such statements, especially in Wiki pages related to precolonial Philippines, especially in potentially controversial topics related to sex and gender among Philippine native shamans, as I have encountered wiki editors adding contributions, using the same sources I usually provide, but tweaking it in order to fulfill certain narratives. For potentially controversial topics, complete citations can be helpful to guide the more skeptical and facilitate verification of sources. Stricnina (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: Sigh. You're making this very hard. I am on the side of convention. You are not. As I've said before, I've written ~620 articles here, you've written 1. So experience is on my side as well. Insisting you do it your way doesn't really help us compromise, does it? It is also actually wrong. You don't go to an article and simply change the reference style without consensus. That is actual policy (see the "To be avoided" list in WP:CITEVAR). I've already bent over backwards by changing the reference style partly to lastname, firstname.

Show me another article that does this, please. You are already doing WP:VERIFY by citing the journal paper. Look at the references in books or the journals themselves outside Wikipedia, as well. Compare it with what you are doing. This is WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. Direct quotes are rarely used, anywhere, when referencing. When they are used, the quotes are usually inline, not in the reference itself. WP:SAYWHERE isn't applicable here, that is only for the actual citation.

Using direct quotes is under Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Additional_annotation. It is also problematic because you are literally copying text from a copyrighted source verbatim.

"In most cases it is sufficient for a citation footnote simply to identify the source (as described in the sections above); readers can then consult the source to see how it supports the information in the article..."

"A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible."

That usually only applies to books or monographs. Not journal papers, which are only a few pages long, and are usually read entirely anyway, not for specific paragraphs in it. Readers are expected to go to the link or find the source and read it themselves, not read it here on Wikipedia. Neither are the things you are using them for "potentially controversial."

I really am trying here. Please.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am also really trying here, Obsidian Soul. It is not wrong. It is not WP:CITATIONOVERKILL, as I have never cited multiple sources to support a single statement or paragraph. It is also helpful to allow readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. All of this is just minor nitpicking on small details. Stricnina (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For this one. Please see WP:REPCITE: If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. This is what you are doing, except you're making it even more overkill by having each instance of the same reference have a different quote and page number, even if the entire reference is only a few pages long.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not converted all sources to commit WP:CITEVAR. I only applied it to few sources, most of which are from my personal contributions. Stricnina (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Partly changing it to an inconsistent style also applies. It is wrong to change the reference style without consensus. Period. As a major contributor of this article, and the very long hours I've spent researching and writing it behind me, I have a right to say no. Find someone else who agrees with you, because I will not. Sorry.

I repeat, show me another article that does it your way. Convince me you are doing it correctly. I think all of this stems from your misunderstanding of WP:SAYWHERE. You think it means that you literally have to say where exactly you read it, as in the exact sentence (which also explains why you think "keywords" are required). I advise you read the policies you have linked to me again, because no, it doesn't say that. Citing sources does not mean spoon-feeding the readers or copying the entire source's content here on Wikipedia. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A possible solution here for the more controversial aspects of the article (i.e. sex and gender) is to simply use the direct quotes inline. Rather than have them in the references. Though this needs to be done sparingly. Incidentally, this would be an ideal use of primary sources. The Spanish accounts would be very useful here. I have done this in other articles on precolonial Philippine culture I've contributed to.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, even articles considered "good" by Wikipedia standards such as Otto Frederick Hunziker also do the quoting (if you believe it is wrong then I'm showing you at least one article that says otherwise). And so many articles in Wikipedia have the so-called "inconsistent" styles like shifting between very short citations and more details citations like Agriculture in Wales, Agrippa (A Book of the Dead) and the the Juniper berry article. You are just nitpicking minor details from fellow contributors to this Wiki page you are most likely owning at this point.

I personally believe a good compromise is the Cèllere Codex style of quoting and citing, which is what I am currently trying to study, as per suggestion by other Wiki editor/s. I will always indicate the page and also the quote, as it is not violating Wiki guidelines. Your accusations of WP:CITEOVERKILL are invalid. Stricnina (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, you deleting my citations is also (probably unintentionally) deleting useful information such as the page that supports the given statement/s. The pages must be also there, and also the quotes. No Wiki policy is being violated here regarding addition of such information. Stricnina (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: Notice anything different in Otto Frederick Hunziker? None of the references that use quotes are from the same source. None of them are repeated with different page numbers or quotes, like you've done with Brewer (1999) or Lachica (1996). Furthermore, notice that the journal papers cited (e.g. the first reference) are page ranges of the entire paper, not the specific page.

Inconsistent citation styles are incorrect. Just because they exist, doesn't mean you should emulate it. Reference styles should all be consistent.

And yes, the short reference style of Cèllere Codex is correct, but that is changing the reference style. And no, you do not have consensus for it. That would mean overhauling the entire article and reading all the references again.

WP:CITEVAR

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, no. I haven't deleted any of your references. What are you even talking about? You seem to operate under the assumption that our readers are idiots and can't verify sources unless you literally tell them what you read for every single statement. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul, I have barely changed the citation style here. I have not converted the style into short citations, for examples. I'm literally just copying the format that you are using, but with page and quotes and something else the editing tools just automatically provide. There will be no changing of referencing styles when performing the two-way sourcing (quotes in the "notes", which this Wiki article already has anyway). Stricnina (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Then use the Notes section. Not repeat the same references with different page numbers. "Barely" is still changing it. I would also like to speak with the "Wiki Editor/s" who taught you to do this, if only to see the state of the articles they contribute to. From what I can see you've used it exactly once in Zoilo Hilario. And now you're doing this misguidedly to other articles you edit. Can you really not see how difficult it is to edit in wikitext when there are entire paragraphs of quotes sandwiched between every sentence? How difficult it is to see the sources you are actually using when they are cited multiple times for every single statement they support? I'm sure you've written a school paper or a thesis before. Did you do it like this as well? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand. You learned this in WP:AfC, didn't you? Where proving notability to reviewers was the single most important part of submitting an article. Reviewers who don't usually have the time to hunt for and read the sources themselves...-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul, I repeat, if the citation style is the issue, I have not changed the citation style. I have not shifted towards a different citation style since I'm still using the same templates that the article uses (like Template:cite book for example), just with more parameters which are usually generated automatically by the text editor in my case. But I provide the pages and the quotes, and none of them constitutes violation of Wiki policies. Accusations of WP:CITEVAR seemed out of place in this discussion. Stricnina (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

About your paragraph regarding "thesis" and whether it will be readable, I believe if I have done that, it will still be in a readable format. Information regarding references used (complete with pages and quotes) would still be in the last pages. And no, I don't quote "entire paragraphs", only one or two sentences directly relevant to the statement being cited. If source repeating mid-paragraph is the issue, then I'll understand. Stricnina (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You are defining the same sources multiple times, are you not? Just with different page numbers. You are essentially using short citations, just without bothering to actually shorten the citations. Just copying them entirely each and every time (again, see WP:REPCITE). Which is weird, because shortened citations were created exactly to avoid that kind of redundancy (see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers). It is a different reference style, with its own advantages and disadvantages, and one which I clearly chose not to use.

In the AN discussion, I suggested you use {{Rp}}, instead of repeating the same sources. This template lets you specify pages for each statement it verifies without having to repeatedly cite the same reference or modify its details. The page number shows up inline as a superscript, not in the reference section. Like this for example is sourced to page 20. While this one is sourced to the fifth page. You might want to look into that instead, if you haven't already. It's far easier and does not actually change the reference style.

This, however, only applies for page numbers. Your overuse of quotes is an entirely different matter altogether. Again, read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation. This is the only guideline that pertains to the use of direct quotes in references. WP:SAYWHERE has nothing to do with it (even the example in that section has no quotes). Quotes should be an exception, not the norm. If you use some for the most controversial aspects of the article (again, sex and gender), I will not object. But I can not give consensus if you use quotes on ALL of your sources, again because of WP:ILCLUTTER and the fact that you are copying copyrighted text each time. The excuse that "it doesn't violate anything, so I should do it" isn't enough. There's no policy saying we should do it as well.

It really is highly unconventional that you think including a quote is how referencing normally works. And I think this was an artifact of your first experience of writing a Wikipedia article being in WP:AfC (off-topic: I volunteered as an AfC reviewer in my early years here, when I hung out in Wikipedia's IRC help chat, so I know how that works) It's not normal for Wikipedia, just as it isn't normal for regular encyclopedia, books, journals, theses, and everything else that uses references. Seriously, go grab a book. Look at how their references are cited.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Random off-topic: don't call Wikipedia "Wiki". Wikipedia is a wiki, but it is not the "Wiki". Most wikis are not Wikimedia-affiliated. Most editors say WP, or enWP.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, the pages and the quotes will be there, especially when it comes to controversial topics like the sex and gender of the Philippine native shamans. I already encountered Wikipedia editors here who insist on certain narratives about their gender, even using the same sources I'm using (Brewer 1999 for example) only to use it for their own narratives, without reading what Brewer actually said. Notes are already in this Wiki article, so any relevant additional information can go there without compromising your citation style. Pages will be identified using the template you have suggested. Pages and quotes will be non-negotiable in this case. But I have learned possible ways of doing this (and possibly improving the verifiability of certain sources) to skeptic readers without compromising the citation style of yours. You have given me suggestions. I hope we have reached a compromise here. Stricnina (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Finally. Consensus. As promised, I won't challenge them for sex and gender. Thank you for using {{Rp}} and the Notes section.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Names

@Glennznl: I reverted your edit because I believe the names are more important here. Philippine mythology is a far more general article where this kind of detailed information is inappropriate. This article is an overview on shamans, not just Visayan babaylans. The name used for the article is simply the most familiar and widespread one.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: In that case I think we should move over some material from Phillipine mythology since the info on Shamans there is also very detailed. Also I think we should merge Katalonan into Babaylan, which is a low quality article with only 3 sources. What do you think? Glennznl (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Sorry. Power outage here. Can't edit in detail since I'm using mobile data. But yeah, I have not contributed to Phil. mythology so I don't know what's in there. Are you sure it's different from what's already here? If not then just paring it down to a summary there might be better, rather than possibly adding irrelevant info here.

As for Katalonan, I tried in the past to merge them, but some editors opposed it IIRC. I still support merging them since the katalonan article is so short and redundant anyway. We can add the katalonan paragraphs here where relevant and just preface it with "among Tagalog katalonans...", etc. I'll see what i can do when the power comes back. Typing on a tiny phone screen is pure torture.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: I just carried it all out. Merged with Katalonan, moved over "new" material from Philippine mythology. I created a new witch section with new materials the old black magic section. However, I think this actually should go under Barang (magic) instead. Glennznl (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: After seeing you merge the katalonan article here, if you want to propose a name change to this article into a more general Philippine shamans or other name, I will support you. Babaylan can be a restrictive term, and several articles try to respect the distinction between the babaylan and katalonan for example. Stricnina (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnica: That sounds like a good idea. I think people would be more likeley to google "Philippine shamans" than knowing the word Babaylan. On a side note I think we should also take Babaylan#Witches and turn it into an article called Sorcery in the Philippines, and merge Kulam, Barang (magic) and Managilunod into it. So we'd have an article "Philippine shamans" and one called "Sorcery in the Philippines". Glennznl (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Read the flame war above this section to understand my reasons for opposing this. "Babaylan" is the most commonly used general term for Philippine anitist shamans in the sources, hence why I chose it as the title when I first started expanding and rewriting this article. Not "Philippine shamans", not "katalonan". I explained all of it in the previous sections.

@Stricnina: Sigh. Don't start this again. There are exactly two articles. This one and katalonan. Your claim that there are "several articles" that "try to respect the distinction" is false. Unless you plan to write one article for every version of shaman/medium/healer in every single ethnic group of the Philippines. Which I don't see you doing.

As I've said in the past, I don't see you complaining about Anito, Maginoo, Alipin, etc. even though they are under a Tagalog title despite being general articles. I don't see you suggesting we change their titles to something idiotic like "Philippine spirit worship and monsters", "Philippine nobility", "Philippine serfs and slaves", etc. either. You only seem to refuse to accept this article's title because it's under a Visayan name. Stop it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul:: Many of the sources cited regarding the babaylan tend to refer to the Visayan shaman instead of the shamans from other ethnic groups. For example, in the Scott source, almost all mentions of babaylan are in the section regarding the precolonial Visayas, as you can see here. No wonder the Fluckiger dissertation distanced itself at using babaylan as the collective term. Other sources such as [20], [21] and [22] made distinction between the babaylan and katalonan. And I don't care about alipin, as the babaylan/katalonan distinction is more visible in many scholarly articles. And I don't care if no one makes an article about katalonan, as you can just include them all in this article, renaming it as Philippine shamans or something like that. Stricnina (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Obviously, nothing will come up with arguing with you. You don't listen to reason. This should be settled through consensus, not with two people arguing back and forth ad infinitum. Stricnina (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting thing that can be noticed when studying Philippine shamans is that renowned scholars use baylan (not babaylan) when referring to them in a collective manner. See Alfred W. McCoy's: [23]. See also how "baylan" is employed by Carolyn Brewer: [24] and [25]. "See also Francisco Demetrio's usage of baylan: [26]. Please also check how Margaret Magat uses baylan by typing the keyword in the search function: [27] "Babaylan/catalonan" is another employed strategy: [28]. Zeus Salazar also uses the "babaylan/katalonan" strategy: [29], as well as in Suarez dissertation: [30]. If I collect enough scholarly articles, I will open a new discussion about this. Stricnina (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul and Stricnina: A simple Google search shows that Babaylan is found about 20 times more than Katalonan, so that is settled easily. I think our main aim should be to prevent fragmentation. A lot of Philippine related articles are very short, filled with lies and terrible sources and are very susceptible to trolls and vandalism. We should strive to make long, quality pages, that we can easily maintain and monitor, instead of having 20 articles for every single variety found among Filipino tribes. I think using the most commonly used indigenous term as an umbrella for all others is fine. After all, we aren't refering to Samurai as "Japanese knights". Just my 2 cents. Glennznl (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: Thank you. This is exactly what I am doing. I also rewrote and expanded the article on Anito, then merged Diwata with it for the same reason. That said, I think Stricnina's obsession with this article is because of a personal grudge with me for a past revert. He brings up a different complaint every time.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Please let's not resort to accusations of "personal grudge". Baylan is just one of the topics in which I do my contributions. I tend to contribute to select topics related to Precolonial Philippines and because of the tendency of many of the Wiki articles related to that discipline to have low-quality content, I sometimes get critical. It just so happens that we have our disagreements but please don't take it personally. Stricnina (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Glennzn1: As per WP:HITS, we should not rely too much on raw Google hit counts as it has its limitations notably (copying this from someone else who made this argument about relying on raw Google hit counts): "Self-mirroring – Sometimes other sites clone Wikipedia content, which is then passed around the Internet, and more pages built up based upon it (and often not cited), meaning that in reality the source of much of the search engine's findings are actually just copies of Wikipedia's own previous text, not genuine sources. Popular usage bias – Popular usage and urban legend is often reported over correctness. Popular views and perceptions are likely to be more reported. For example, there may be many references to acupuncture and confirming that people are often allergic to animal fur, but it may only be with careful research that it is revealed there are medical peer-reviewed assessments of the former, and that people are usually not allergic to fur, but to the sticky skin particles ("dander") within the fur." We should be looking at scholarly articles themselves and not on raw Google hit counts. Stricnina (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me summarize what you have tried to do to this article so far:

1) You told me the words used in the article must be EXACTLY the same words in the sources because "keywords matter", no paraphrasing or summaries allowed.

2) You then accused me of original research because I used historical Spanish primary sources.

3) You then insisted I delete 90% of the article because you suddenly got this idea that it should only be about the Visayan babaylans because the title is "Babaylan"

4) You then demanded I should rename the article to Tagalog "maganito", even though it has very low hits in Google searches and the average layperson would not know what you're talking about.

4) You then started copying entire paragraphs of copyrighted source material into the references for I don't even know what reason. Possibly to show me that you were verifying it because you didn't trust my use of the sources?

Now here you are again, with a brand new, totally different proposal that just casually suggests we deface the article yet again because you don't like it.

If you have no problem accepting that "Alipin" (a Tagalog term) is a perfectly acceptable title for an article that also discusses what are called "uripon", "ulipon", "udipon", "tuhay", "bisaya", etc. in other ethnic groups. Then you should have no problem with this. Your claim that the difference between "babaylan" and "katalonan" is "more visible" is false. Let me demonstrate:

• usog = buyag
• alagad = abyan
• kulam = barang;
• agimat = anting-anting;
• kaluluwa = kalag;
• laho = bakunawa;
• hininga = ginhawa;
• bayok = asog;
• dambana = latangan;
• anito = diwata;
• ninuno = nuno;
• hindi kagaya natin = dili ingon nato;
• tabi po = tabi apo;
• gayuma = lumay;
• taotao = taotao;
• etc.

You get the idea. Aside from the differences in terminology and the specifics of rituals, almost all shamans in the anito religions in the Philippines share the same core concepts. And that is exactly why writing this overview article was possible in the first place.

While the title "Philippine shamans" would be more neutral, it is not recognizable nor is it something people actually search. Its only advantage is its neutrality, and that's not really an issue here at all. Because seriously, in case you really have not realized it yet: this article is NOT a controversial topic. Neutrality is not our priority. What matters here is that the title should be the word that most people use when searching for the topic, and again the Google search hits makes it very clear that "Babaylan" is the preferred term. The only person who has a problem with the title is you.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. WRT: "baylan" Congratulations. You finally understand one of the reasons why I reverted you 3 months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babaylan&type=revision&diff=940699706&oldid=940573962. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul: Shame on you for literally misrepresenting all of my points that I have mentioned months ago, this is a primary testimony of the fact you don't listen to reason. But forget the past, I have shown you several instances of scholarly documents not giving babaylan the value of a more-encompassing term for the Philippine shamans. Now that katalonan is merged here (instead of keeping it an independent article), I believe it is time to re-think the nomenclature being used here. Stricnina (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: Thank you for killing all my enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I have moved the article to Philippine shamans and removed all mention of babaylan.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps to Obsidian Soul but especially to others who are maybe reading this. I'm just going to explicitly mention here that I have not advocated censoring the word babaylan itself from the main article. That would be Obsidian Soul's own decision. Stricnina (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. To Stricnina's dear readers, the censoring was my idea, he's totally innocent. I actually wanted to argue my old point again about the importance of using a title that everyone uses and recognizes and then I realized... why? Why did I spend ten years of my time here doing this? None of this is rewarding. You spend literal weeks reading dozens of papers, books, articles, magazines, looking up CC/PD illustrations, or making the photos/diagrams yourself, writing 10k to 20k-word articles that no one reads anyway, and the only thanks you will ever get is a flame war or a jerk tagging every single sentence, demanding you prove to them that something was in the sources NOW or they will delete this or that paragraph, and explaining the policies to you like you just joined yesterday. This doesn't even feel satisfying anymore. I may regret publishing this rather melodramatic comment and may end up changing my mind later. But then again, most probably not. Goodbye. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)