Jump to content

Talk:Indigenous Philippine folk religions

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

Material copied from other wiki entries

[edit]

Proposed reorganization and split

[edit]

Because of the historically distinct heritage of the various peoples of the Philippine archipelago, I am proposing that this article be split into articles titled Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people (which already exists), Indigenous religious beliefs of the Visayans, Indigenous religious beliefs of Peoples of Mindanao, Indigenous religious beliefs of the Cordilleran Peoples, Indigenous religious beliefs of the Bicolano people and Indigenous religious beliefs of the Kapampangan people, while retaining a broader overview article labeled either Anito (this page) or Indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines (currently a redirect). If the latter is chosen, I also propose that Anito be turned into a disambiguation page, since the concept has had multiple meanings since pre-colonial times.

The selection of proposed split articles is not random: these are based on available documentation, largely gathered by Scott in Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society (1994) and by Demetrio, Cordero-Fernando, and Nakpil-Zialcita in The Soul Book: Introduction to Philippine Pagan Religion (1991).

Input would be very welcome. - Alternativity (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --HouseGecko (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED. As per Wikipedia's encouragement to WP:Be Bold, and given this proposal has been here since August 2017, I've now performed the move from Anito to Indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines, and started a more detailed article on the use of the term Anito. - Alternativity (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of the term "Dayawism"

[edit]

Hi. Just a note that I could not immediately find a scholarly text which specifically uses the term "Dayawism" to collectively describe the Indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines. I thus did not use it when I rewrote the lead section of the article. (It doesn't seem to have been used in the body of the text yet.) That said, I don't doubt that the usage actually exists in practice. (Is this a relatively new term? I haven't actually heard it often.) If anyone finds a scholarly reference that uses the term, please just feel free to add it to the lead, with the proper citation. I'll try to find a reference myself, and do this on my own. But if you already have a reference, please just do add it. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "garcia2008":

  • From Babaylan: Garcia, J. Neil C. (2008). "Precolonial Gender-Crossing and the Babaylan Chronicles". Philippine Gay Culture: Binabae to Bakla, Silahis to MSM. The University of the Philippines Press. ISBN 9789715425773.
  • From Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines: J. Neil C. Garcia (2008). "Precolonial Gender-Crossing and the Babaylan Chronicles". Philippine Gay Culture: Binabae to Bakla, Silahis to MSM. The University of the Philippines Press. ISBN 9789715425773.

Reference named "brewer99":

Reference named "ReferenceE":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

I propose to change the name of this article into Anitismo, on the basis that (1) Anitismo is the collective name of the indigenous religions of the Philippines from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, since the Spanish period, and (2) to be in line with the proper term, the same way the indigenous Japanese religion is termed Shinto, not "Indigenous religious beliefs of Japan". PCommission (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PCommission: This article was originally named Anitism (the more common variant of anitismo) but renamed to the current name to make it more neutral (see the first discussion on this talk page). This page is supposed to be a more neutral overview of all the different religions (note, be careful not to look through the western lense of "religion", back in those days it was not organized or codified like religions today) of the Philippines, while the idea was that there would be more detailed and specific pages on the religions of the specific tribes, like: Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagbanwa people and Indigenous religious beliefs of the Tagalog people. The first of these two is pretty much worthless however, only 1 source for the entire page... Besides that, are we sure Anitism is a good name, does Anito not mean ghost or evil spirit for some tribes, do all tribes even know the word? Glennznl (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: I agree that the religions before were not as organized as other religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam, but I also note that they did have a degree of organization, just not as complex as so-called "world religions". Stephen Hislop, in his Anitism: A Survey of Religious Beliefs Native to the Philippines, acknowledged this, stating the natives later adopted a "more" organized system than the native beliefs, which were also regarded as religions on their own right.
On the matter of the origin word of Anitismo/Anitism, which is Anito (meaning ancestor or spirit in the majority of languages), it actually came from an Austronesian word, which is known not only throughout the Philippines, but also in Indonesia, Malaysia, and other areas where Austronesian cultures flourished. But I do agree that we do not have any studies yet confirming that all 100+ languages in the Philippines possess an origin word for Anitismo.
That being said, I retract my initial proposal and instead propose the renaming of this article into "Indigenous Religions of the Philippines" on the basis that (1) the term "religious belief" does not equate to actual "religion", (2) the native faiths of the Philippines are indeed religions, and (3) the indigenous religions of the Philippines were indeed "organized", but not in a Western sense. PCommission (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: At the moment this article describes a more general overview of the beliefs, using the word "religions" would make the reader expect a list of those religions, in my opinion. Glennznl (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: I see where you're at, but the content of this article is basically a downsized version of the content of Philippine mythology, so I think that this article is only a duplicate of that page. Which is why I propose to rename this section, and also expand it to a standard content, like the content of Shinto, which aside from "Belief", also includes "Definition", "Practice", "History", "Demographics", and "Study [of the religions]". With that, we can also re-organize Philippine mythology afterwards, so that some information from there can instead be inputted here, so that Philippine mythology can have the same content standard as Greek mythology. PCommission (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: You are right, this page is just a smaller Philippine mythology. I think the latter article is incorrectly named however, since it does not cover myths, it actually covers all the aspects of indigenous religious beliefs and practices of the Philippines. Perhaps we should merge the pages and rename Philippine mythology to something more accurate. Besides, the seperation between myths/religion is western and artificial, as there was no distinction between those for those ancient Filipinos. @Stricnina: what do you think? Glennznl (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: I think it would be better if we retain both articles, and instead expand this one through getting information from the latter and other sources. This will be in line with other Asian articles, where there exist a "mythology" page complementing its "religion" page. Some examples include Japanese mythology complementing Shinto, Korean mythology complementing Korean shamanism, and Balinese mythology complementing Balinese Hinduism. Also, if I may, I would also note that myth and religion are not completely the same thing, even among "ancient Filipinos", as myth in itself is a story, while religion is the system of faith and worship, as defined by leading global dictionaries. However, I agree that since the Philippine mythology article covers not just myths in its present content, I again propose my earlier proposal of shifting some of those information into this page which should, I believe, be about the indigenous religions of the Philippines, so that it would be in line with other related articles I mentioned concerning the complementing of a "mythology" page with a "religion" page. PCommission (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, going back to your concern about using the word "'religions' [which may] make the reader expect a list of those religions" in the article, I think that's a good outcome that we should try to make in the editing of this article, since it is the "religion" counterpart of the "mythology" article for the Philippines. With that goal in mind, we can finally conform (and later improve further) this article to the standard of other indigenous religion articles, such as Shinto, Korean shamanism, Balinese Hinduism, and so on. PCommission (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: The Korean and Japanese pages are aided by the fact that their cultures are relatively homogenous, while for the Philippines you have to describe each and every tribe (making the article long and messy) otherwise somebody somewhere will get angry. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a template for mythology articles, but we could work with this definition:
Myth, a story of the gods, a religious account of the beginning of the world, the creation, fundamental events, the exemplary deeds of the gods as a result of which the world, nature and culture were created together with all parts thereof and given their order, which still obtains. A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult.[1]
Most mythology articles like Greek mythology and Ancient Egyptian mythology seem to have a sources section, a cosmology or world creation section and a pantheon section, along with myths in general. We could sort out what we should keep from Philippine mythology and what we should move here.
Interestingly, "Indigenous religions of the Philippines" links here. My problem with the word "religion" is that today it means something codified, often using books and strict rules. Japanese Shintoism is a way more codified religion than "Anitism" ever was. Besides that, the plural "religions" is also somewhat problematic to me, as we are not talking about religions as different as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. All Philippine religions are quite similar and share the same broad characteristics. On the other hand, you can't say in singular "the indigenous religion of the Philippines" or "Anitism", because that will get a lot of people angry and upset, pointing fingers at "Tagalog supremacy" or something like that. Using "religious beliefs" avoids all those problems. Glennznl (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: Thank you for your inputs and concerns. These are really helpful in stirring up discussions on how to improve the page better together. On the matter of being homogeneous, it is true that the Philippines is not as homogeneous as certain religions such as Christianity, however, it does not mean that an "indigenous religions" article about the Philippines wouldn't be possible, as other articles have already been made with the content of "general" concepts regarding an area's indigenous religions, without undermining certain aspects of the topic. Notable examples include Chinese folk religion, Malaysian folk religion, and Burmese folk religion, all covering multiple ethnic groups distinct and non-homogeneous from each other.
On the matter of a sources section, I agree that all mythology and religion articles should have one, as to make sure that what is inputted are credible and not just from some unreliable self-published online sources. Philippine mythology already has one under the section "Overview" which should be expanded, while this article should have one too. As I propose before, information that are more related to the concept of religions should be inputted here instead, as the Philippine mythology page is only for the myths and, of course, their reliable sources as well.
On the matter of religion, it actually isn't always codified. The indigenous faiths in the Philippines have already been acknowledged by scholars as religions on their own right, and most specifically not in a so-called Western sense. Culture vary, including the concept of what a religion is for a particular area of the globe. In the Philippines, indigenous religions are less organized than say Christianity, but still organized as defined by their cultures. Also, I agree that no one can say that the faiths in the Philippines are a singular "religion", which is why I proposed the plural "religions" in previous discussions, as I acknowledge the existence of many similar indigenous religions in the Philippines and the existence of a justifiable resistance against imperial Manila or Tagalog-centrism among some communities among Filipinos. As the points of discussion are cleared, I hope we can move forward from this so we can start enhancing the page overall. With all that said, I again propose the renaming of this article into "Indigenous Religions of the Philippines" or, perhaps to be in line with other folk religions, "Filipino Folk Religions" may be another option. PCommission (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: Yes, Folk Religions would be a more accurate term. I can agree with "Indigenous folk religions of the Philippines" or "Philippine folk religions". Perhaps the latter one is the best, for brevity. Or maybe we should keep "indigenous", since we don't want to include Folk Catholicism and Pulahan stuff, so "Indigenous Philippine folk religions". Interestingly Folk religion already includes a section for the Philippines: Folk_religion#Philippine_mythology
Regarding Philippine mythology, I think we should move here the following sections: Shamans, Concept of the soul, Important symbols in Anitism, Sacred grounds, Status, recognition, protection, and promotion.
Perhaps we should copy the History section so that it features on both pages. But from a quick glance it looks very low value, completely unsourced. EDIT: The history section not having sources is my own doing, I see now, they were all Aswang project and news article sources. Perhaps it's better to delete it and start over. Glennznl (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: Great. I also think that if the point is for brevity, "Philippine folk religions" is a better name, however, I agree that there might be confusion regarding the syncretism of Christianity with indigenois folk religions in the Philippines, so I'll go ahead instead in renaming the article into "Indigenous Philippine folk religions".
I agree that we should move the sections about Shamans, Concept of the soul, Important symbols in Anitism, Sacred grounds, & Status, recognition, protection, and promotion sections here as Philippine mythology should only be about the myths.
Regarding the History section in Philippine mythology, I agree that such a section should also be available on this page. However, the quality of the section itself is indeed very poor, and should be removed because of the lack of reliable sources in its present content. I'll dig deeper on the sources used by Aswang Project, just in case some portions can be re-used. PCommission (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: The history section used the following Aswang sources: 1. https://www.aswangproject.com/pang-o-tub-the-traditional-philippine-tattooing-you-havent-heard-about/ 2. https://www.aswangproject.com/understand-philippine-mythology-animism/ 3. https://www.aswangproject.com/understand-philippine-mythology-indianized/ 4. https://www.aswangproject.com/understand-philippine-mythology-foreign-influence/
Btw check out the German version of Philippine mythology. It shows what such a page should feature. Glennznl (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: Thank you. I'm currently researching more about the history of Philippine indigenous religions, as it seems many of the data from the Aswang Project articles concerning the topic are self-analysis taken from sources not mentioned in their articles. Additionally, regarding the "Black magic" section, I think it would not be in line with this article, as this is a religions page, where the practitioners mentioned are the spiritual leaders, which is the Philippine shamans in this case. Witches should not have a section of their own here as their concept are completely different. Examples of religion articles that follow this line of content are Chinese folk religion and Malaysian folk religion. However, the content of "Black magic" can still be used as passing to make a contrast with Philippine shamans. So I'll instead incorporate the data from "Black magic" into the shaman section. PCommission (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: I think you are right, magic was just another aspect of their culture aside from the religion and myths, but they are all close intertwined. Aside from that, I think we need a new template like Template:Chinese folk religion, instead of the mythology one. I will look into that. Glennznl (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: Great idea. I agree that such a template will be more appropriate. PCommission (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: Those 2 links from William Henry Scott I shared a while ago might help with the history section, btw. Glennznl (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PCommission: I created a new category to split off the religious and mythological subjects:Category:Indigenous Philippine folk religions Glennznl (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Honko, Lauri. 1984. "The Problem of Defining Myth" in Alan Dundes (Editor). Sacred Narrative: Reading in the Theory of Myth, p. 49. University of California Press.

Orphaned references in Indigenous Philippine folk religions

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indigenous Philippine folk religions's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "tan":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the title use both "Indigenous" and "folk"

[edit]

Just curious, why does the title use both "Indigenous" and "folk"? I'm not sure there aren't some nuanced differences in their meanings, but still, already having "indigenous" makes having "folk" feels unnecessary. Maybe even a bit editorializing. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Batongmalake: A "folk religion" is a single noun, see folk religion. Indigenous is added because there is also folk Catholicism and folk Islam in the Philippines. --Glennznl (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: Interesting. Hm... for my piece of mind, I might as well ask: are there Indigenous Philippine religions that are not folk religeons? - Batongmalake (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: To my knowledge there are none. --Glennznl (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl: I see. To be honest I had come here looking for "Indigenous religeons of the Philippines" and found myself confused by the description "folk." But I sort of see where the idea is coming from. Maybe this is something that can be explained in the text somewhere? I wonder if we have sources. Having now also read the previous talk section, I wonder if the lack of structure/organization is enough to place the subject under the category "folk religeon." It just seems so very specific, as if one were to expect to find some larger article which includes organized indigenous religeons. - Batongmalake (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: A folk religion is rather the opposite of something specific, but I suppose that average readers might get confused. An alternative term for this page would be "Ethnic religions of the Philippines", but then too you would need to know what an "ethnic religion" is, and to my knowledge these religions were all very similar and had overlapping beliefs and features, so it is not that every ethnic group (note that "ethnic group" would be an alien concept to 16th century Filipinos) had a very distinct and unique religion. Perhaps Obsidian Soul has other thoughts? --Glennznl (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Glennznl and Batongmalake: Well there are new religious movements (NRMs) which are not "indigenous" or "folk". Like the Rizalistas or Moncadistas. Though I don't think that matters much. IMHO, we can place the article under either "Indigenous Philippine religions" or "Philippine folk religions" and both would be perfectly fine and can be redirected to each other. I don't feel strongly on the issue however, and keeping the current title (while redirecting the latter alternative titles here, including "Ethnic religions of the Philippines") is also fine for me.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidian Soul: I thought the inclusion of new religious movements was exactly the reason there's a separate article on Religion_in_pre-colonial_Philippines, and that their incolusion here is implied by the existence of that article. - Batongmalake (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Batongmalake: Hmm. I don't think so. Religion in pre-colonial Philippines is exactly about that - pre-colonial religions, and thus includes (or should include) other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, which pre-dated the colonial era but are not indigenous/folk like the various anito beliefs (though sometimes people tend to view them as "more" indigenous than Christianity). Some of them also syncretized (like the origin of terms like "diwata" or the eclipse-causing "laho"). Its scope overlaps with this article but they are not identical.
This article mentions folk syncretism but those are not necessarily organized NRMS, and indeed usually aren't. Things like belief in engkanto, albularyo or agimat, for example, are usually syncretic, but not necessarily organized. They are also only mentioned tangentially. Folk Catholicism and folk Islam are not part of this article's scope per se. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ADDENDUM: Now that I think of it, "Indigenous Philippine religions" and "Philippine folk religions" would not work for the reason Glennznl posted above. Because those titles would include folk Catholicism/folk Islam as well as NRMs, which I guess isn't what this article is about.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidian Soul and Glennznl: Huh. This is all very enlightening. Thank you for taking the time to explain the specifics, and the context of the article title. - Batongmalake (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Philippine_folk_religions&oldid=1251159764"