Xiang09, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Your citation overkill and possible original research
Reading through your recent contributions such as  with an unreasonable number of citations, it is time to inform you as a novice Wikipedia editor that citation overkill is discouraged under Wikipedia's policy of using multiple citations, since it is usually a deceptive technique used to fool other editors into accepting claims while rendering it difficult for others to properly vet the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject. Two or three sources are usually sufficient to support a written claim. Please stick to a maximum of three and keep the sources invoked in the relevant sentences, not in the end of a paragraph.
For more information, please read the Wikipedia page regarding citing sources. You are also invited to read the the Wikipedia page regarding reliable citations. It is encouraged to cite sources that are academic and peer-reviewed, and it is best to avoid self-published works like blog entries whenever possible, especially if a corresponding secondary source from an academic journal or book already exists.
A full citation is effective on showing your fellow editors that you have actually read the source and interpreted it properly. A full citation doesn't just mention the existence of a reference, it also has additional information such as which statements from the source are actually capable of supporting the claims written in the Wiki entry. By pointing out the relevant quote and the page of the source containing the supporting statements, you are showing to others that you have read the source in question and not making personal interpretations of the cited references, i.e. committing original research. In fact, another Wikipedia policy is to stick to the source by not rephrasing it by changing its meaning and using it out of context to prove a claim that is actually not supported by the original source in the first place.
Feminized men were also allowed to marry their male partners, and women were also allowed to marry their female partners, the same as any person within precolonial society, thus an early notion of marriage equality, although such distinction of marriage was never made as the unity was simply termed as marriage, as same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriages were viewed as equally the same thing.— Xiang09
This is actually one of your contributions, as you can see in . It suffers from citation overkill, when in reality two to three sources are actually sufficient to prove your point. Also, since the citations aren't full citations, no page nor quote from any of the 11 given sources were specified, which makes other editors doubt whether you actually understood what the sources actually said or whether or not you are committing original research. For example, you have not provided the relevant quotes from those 11 sources that can support claims like "men were also allowed to MARRY their male partners" or that "women were also allowed to marry their female partners" or that "same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriages were viewed as equally the same thing", but you only plastered 11 sources without giving more information whether those sources were actually relevant to support such claims.
Please avoid citation overkill and show to others you have read the source by providing additional information, such as quoting the source. By doing this you will be forced to stick to the source and avoid misinterpretation of sources. In the meantime, I am reverting some of your edits since they suffer from citation overkill issues or other issues related to possible commitment of original research. Of course you are welcome to restore your edits but please fix the aforementioned issues first. Stricnina (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have seen your edits in the "Philippine mythology page in which you removed the inline tags regarding excessive citations. Please be reminded that I will restore the tags if you continue not fixing the issues raised here. Stricnina (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
About the Bulan-Sidapa Hoax
Hi, I'm Stricnina. I have seen all your contributions in LGBT culture in the Philippines, LGBT themes in mythology and Philippine mythology regarding the so-called Bicolano moon deity called "Bulan". You have cited as a source "The Aswang Project" even though that very same website revealed a MAJOR update regarding the hoax that is the story of Bulan. In plain words, the same website stated that:
There’s no such thing as a Bulan deity among precolonial Bicolanos.
With the revelation that the whole Bulan story and the related Bulan-Sidapa love story are actually hoaxes with no basis in facts, I simply deleted all your contributions. I also invite you to read the Wiki page regarding reliable sources so that you can have more meaningful contribution in the future without accidentally propagating hoaxes. In particular:
- Give priority to peer-reviewed sources. You can do this by citing published books in academic institutions or articles that can be searched on JSTOR;
- Avoid over-reliance to self-published content online, including blog posts. While I admire "The Aswang Project"'s perseverance to be as reliable and as verifiable as possible, that website is still about self-published content and thus is prone to error (just like what happened with the Bulan-Sidapa hoax, which thankfully was rectified). I suggest you to consult a more diverse source pool instead of relying too much on a single website, which unfortunately is what happened in pages like Philippine mythology which is apparently one of your favorite Wiki pages to edit;
Contrary to what you have chosen as a "quote" in Aswang Project's article, where you claimed that Aswang Project stated that there is no Bulan deity in Bicolano mythology, please be noted that it was not the author of the article that stated that there was never a Bulan deity in Bicolano myths. It was a certain Erwin S. Cabarles, a mere Facebook user. Additionally, there is a Bulan deity mentioned in Bicolano myths. No less than said Facebook user also mentions this. The Facebook user claimed that Bulan was 'lifted' from a Visayan myth. Aswang Project rebutted the Facebook user in bold, stating that the Facebook user's claim is "highly speculative". Aswang Project notes,
This is highly speculative. I don’t buy that the Bicol Creation Myth was “lifted” from the Visayan. It is more likely that they share a similar creation myth that had not been documented previously.The above theory would be accurate if we were to believe that the Spanish and other documentation was 100% accurate and exhaustive – which we know is untrue. We would also need to believe that myth and folklore does not evolve and change – which we also know is untrue. We would also need to believe that there were no migrant workers or trade in the pre-colonial Philippines who shared stories – which we also know is untrue.
- Dear Xiang09, you ignored the context and thus misunderstood the meaning of the quote you have reported above. It was about the only mention of Bulan in Bicolano Mythology, which according to "The Aswang Project" comes from an Otley Beyer source. In other words, Bulan is only mentioned in the Bicolano Creation Myth, which is allegedly been lifted out of the Visayan Creation Myth. And judging from the account of the Visayan-Bicolano creation myth as reported in other sites such as Filipiknow, there are no passages that justify your edits in various Wikipedia articles such as this and this, in which you state about Magindang supposedly chasing Bulan. The Creation Myth is about Libulan and Liadlaw being transformed to balls by the Supreme Deity Kaptan's lightning bolts, not about Magindang sexually chasing Bulan which according to you merits some mention in the LGBT-related articles about Philippine mythology.
- Also, I have this feeling that you do not understand the gravity of the situation here. The fact that "The Aswang Project" accepts user contributions such as those from Tanashiri Techibana and Erwin S. Cabarles means that "The Aswang Project" is nothing more than a self-publishing site (or better, a "user-generated content", akin to Tumblr), with little to zero peer-reviewing mechanism, hence how the whole Bulan-Sidapa hoax was accepted in that website in the first place. That means many of the things about Bicolano Mythology and about every other content in that website are suspect and require additional confirmation from other reputable sources. In fact, "The Aswang Project" is classifiable as either a self-published content or better, user-generated content, both of which are classified by the Wikipedia guidelines as "unacceptable" as a Wikipedia source.
- Reliable sources include academic and peer-reviewed sources, like for example:
- 1.) Books published in academic institutions;
- 2.) Articles that are consultable in the JSTOR website;
- 3.) Articles that are published in academic and peer-reviewed journals;
- The problem here is that you keep citing "The Aswang Project", treating it like an acceptable source. Please refrain from using it as a valid source and start consulting more reliable sources that are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. For more information about what a reliable source is supposed to be, please read this: Reliable Sources. In the meantime, I am removing content from the LGBT-related pages about content you have lifted out from "The Aswang Project". Stricnina (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)