IvatanWiki
September 2019
edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Philippine mythology, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Response to either accounts:
Already explained the reason for reverting in the Revisions History. Again:
"The statement provided by Andaya and Brewer in the old and new versions were the same. Only the wordings were modified with personal connotations, the reason why the actual statements were inputted instead. Sources have been cited. No source that says otherwise was inputted." (talk)
Additionally, using various accounts to encourage reverting statements in Wikipedia (which can be used to block a user) does not merit a personal connotation as accurate. (talk)
IvatanWiki, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi IvatanWiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
About your recent edits
editHello new user IvatanWiki! It appears you have created your account on September 14, 2019, and made your very first edit on Philippine Mythology at least 19 minutes after the last edit of Xiang09. Both of these accounts have the same interests, as can be seen in the edits in Philippine Mythology, Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, LGBT culture in the Philippines and LGBT themes in mythology. For example, both Xiang09 and the relatively new user IvatanWiki has the same interest in the "Gender Equality" section of Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines as can be seen here (by Xiang09) and here by IvatanWiki using the same old technique of removing inline tags like "verification needed" or "citation needed", removing templates while not clarifying how the sources are used and not providing the quotes that support the relevant statements.
Please refrain from misusing sources. An example of source misuse is from the Brewer article when you keep adding the sentence of Andaya when describing overall Asian attitudes on gender dualism:
In Brewer's research, Andaya notes a theoretical overview of examples from "throughout the Asian region" in which the male does not conform to 'the more conventional sexual and gender dualism of society.' Andaya states, "the third sex/gender group is regarded as being neither male nor female or being a composite of both. It is their ambiguous status which locates them beyond the more conventional sexual and gender dualism of society and becomes a sign associated with the primal creative force."
You added that statement above while deleting this:
These evidences, together with the fact that there were no written accounts of female sex/male gender identification amongst the women who exercised authority within the spiritual sphere, prove that spiritual potency was not dependent upon the identification with a neuter "third" sex/gender space, but rather on the identification with the feminine - whether the biological sex was female or male
— Me
Why delete this when it is perfectly sourced? Stop deleting the statement above because it is exactly what Brewer stated. Stop your uncooperative edits. Also, you keep ignoring certain key texts about Brewer disputing the points of Andaya et al when it comes to the Philippine situation. For example:
Thus far, in investigating male shamans, it would appear that the Indonesian model of sex/gender ambiguity leading to spiritual potency, proposed by Andaya, Wilson and Petkovic would fit the male shaman in the Philippine situation precisely. But for the model to be applicable to the Philippine situation, it must also fit the experience of the female shamans who predominated in the religious realm. In other words, for the model to be relevant as far as the female shaman is concerned, these women would also have to fit the androgynous or ambiguous third sex/gender group. If this was the case we could expect to find examples of female sex/male gender identification amongst those women who exercised authority within the spiritual sphere. This is not the case.
— Carolyn Brewer
This prevalence of the male in matters spiritual was not replicated in the Philippine case, where it was the female shamans who predominated in the religious realm. Therefore, for the model that proposes a link between sex/gender ambiguity and spiritual potency to be universal and relevant to the Philippine situation, it must also fit as far as the female shaman is concerned. In this case we could expect to find examples of female sex/male gender identification amongst women who exercised authority within the spiritual sphere. This is not the case.
— Carolyn Brewer
In the Philippine context at the beginning of the colonial endeavour, there is, moreover another aspect to highlight regarding the thesis that the occupation of a neutral '"third" sex/gender space' signals exceptional access to spiritual power. While there is no doubt that most of the religious facilitation was performed by women, there is no evidence that women's sacred potency was in any way dependent upon identification with a '"third" sex/gender space' (i.e. female body/masculine behaviour). Indeed, both female and male shamans, for ritual purposes, dressed in clothing that was identified as belonging to women
— Carolyn Brewer
In other words, Carolyn Brewer has successfully disputed that the Andaya model is not applicable in the Philippines yet you keep mentioning the paper as though it supports the Andaya model.
Another misuse of source is when you use the José Castano source for this statement:
Although this imbalance may have not always been the case in all ethnic groups. Castano (1895) states that the people of Bicol would hold a thanksgiving ritual called atang that was "presided" by an "effeminate" priest called an asog. His female counterpart, called a baliana, assisted him and led the women in singing what was called the soraki, in honor of Gugurang.
In what page of the 1895 "Breve Noticia Acerca del Origen, Religión, Creencias y Supersticiones de los Antiguos Indios del Bícol" support the statement that "This imbalance may have not always been the case in ALL ethnic groups"? And why use a primary source at all? Please refrain from abusing primary sources for extrapolating conclusions that are NOT present from the primary source itself. That constitutes original research and it is not admissible according to Wikipedia guidelines. Stricnina (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Stricnina This is speculative. Additionally, the edits have already been addressed properly in the Revision History of the article, Philippine mythology from 20:50, 15 September 2019:
"The statement provided by Andaya and Brewer in the old and new versions were the same. Only the wordings were modified with personal connotations, the reason why the actual statements were inputted instead. Sources have been cited. No source that says otherwise was inputted."
- Hi IvatanWiki, you have written an unsatisfying response to my concern. My edits are also cited properly, there is no point deleting it and replacing it with a statement by Andaya that has been successively disputed by the author herself. The gender dualism as "associated" with the "primal creative force" has been discussed by Brewer as "this is not the case", as you can see in the quotes above. Why ignore the quotes above and why keep reverting the properly sourced modifications? Stricnina (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Your recent contributions at Philippine Mythology appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Response to either accounts:
Already explained the reason for reverting in the Revisions History. Again:
"The statement provided by Andaya and Brewer in the old and new versions were the same. Only the wordings were modified with personal connotations, the reason why the actual statements were inputted instead. Sources have been cited. No source that says otherwise was inputted." (talk)
Additionally, using various accounts to encourage reverting statements in Wikipedia (which can be used to block a user) does not merit a personal connotation as accurate. (talk)