Talk:List of Philippine mythological figures

j

Notes on organization of Philippine mythology articles

 * Suggestion: Please see Talk:Philippine mythology/to do box at Talk page of Philippine mythology article (main). - Dragonbite 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

General Article
Having read the first section of the article i am beginning to question the relevence of this article. Some of the more legnthy definitions of the gods are available on their own pages, for example the chief deity. Would this article not be better as a general list rather than a page, or possibly a category? It just seems a bit silly to have the articles and then this page replicating them. (Neostinker (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I know this is half a decade after that last comment, but I tend to agree that this article has to offer more than just replicated material from individual pages. While I do feel that the article is merited, I feel that this article needs more input in the form of systematic discussion of Philippine deities. There isn't exactly a lack of material, as there are numerous commentaries on the subject. Although as far as I know there might not be a single definitive analysis (as opposed to Philippine Lower Mythology, which has Maximo Ramos' book as a seminal source).- Alternativity (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Deities of Philippine mythology. 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/20090526125514/http://www.ourownvoice.com:80/tales/tales2004a-2.shtml to http://www.ourownvoice.com/tales/tales2004a-2.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911045425/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net:80/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090907-223978/Bicol-artists-protest-Natl-Artist-awardees to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090907-223978/Bicol-artists-protest-Natl-Artist-awardees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

About the Bulan-Sidapa hoax
I have added a "disputed section" template in the Bicol mythology section after the reveal that the Bulan-Sidapa story is a hoax after all. For more information, read here. Someone please clean up the Bicol section with proper references. Stricnina (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Messy article
This article has a lot of information with no validating sources. Some sources are even self-published, which shouldn't be here. Also, the "List of famous diwatas" section is not essential, as entries there should be inputted instead on the proper ethnic mythology section. I propose a major clean-up for this article. Also, I propose to follow the standard of List of Greek mythological figures, which would change the title of this article into "List of Philippine mythological figures," as to include other figures not regarded as divine. This does not make List of Philippine mythical creatures obsolete, as already seen with List of Greek mythological creatures complementing List of Greek mythological figures. PCommission (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. A few months ago I did a lot of work cleaning up a lot of Philippine mythology related articles, but there is still a whole lot of work to be done. Especially the sources are often of very bad quality like blog posts. I am not familiar enough with the field to know of any top scholar or work that we could rely on to verify the information, but something has to be done atleast. Glennznl (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have undone your work, but you can't delete massive amounts of info without discussing it. I can't find some gods in your version, even if they originally did have good sources. It would be better if you discussed which info from certain sources you want to remove, and remove the info per bad source (making multiple edits), so it stays manageable to keep an eye on. Glennznl (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I found that a lot of the entries, especially in the Tagalog section, are not based on any verifiable source that I can find. Also, many statements can't be found within the source mentioned for some entries. I double-checked them, and I propose to remove entries not based on any source and statements that can't be found within a cited source. Also, I propose to remove the three paragraphs, such as the first three paragraphs in the Tagalog section (which is backed by a self-published and unreliable source) and the end paragraph regarding sacred sites (which is not backed by any source, and thus is unreliable). Also, various entries would be added in the Tagalog section, mostly sourced from the work of Pardo, F. (1686-1688). PCommission (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For the "Ancient Visayan" section, I propose to split it into specific ethnic pantheons, as the section itself is a combination of various, sometimes unrelated, pantheons. It's like a Bicolano, Tagalog, and Ilocano section rolled into one, which shouldn't be the case, as each pantheon is independent from each other. I propose the creation of the sections for Waray, Bisaya, Ilonggo (Hiligaynon), Karay-a, Sulud, Aklanon, Capiznon, and Cuyunon. Also, many entries in "Ancient Visayan" have no sources at all, however, I've found sources for many of them, so they will be retained. A few, however, I was unable to gather a reliable source. For those entries, I propose their removal. For the Cuyunon section, Diwata ng Kagubatan from the "Important Diwata" section will be re-aligned into it. PCommission (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bicolano section has similar source issues with the Tagalog section. However, I managed to find reliable sources for most of the entries, so they will be retained. However, some statements were not within the sources I have found, nor within the reliable sources mentioned. Some sources currently cited are also self-published, thus unreliable. For entries that have no reliable source (or no new reliable source found), I propose their removal, along with entries and statements not found within any reliable source. PCommission (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire Kapampangan section has no source at all. However, I've found sources for most of the entries, of which those, I propose, should be retained. Only entries without reliable sources found may be removed. PCommission (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ilocano section's entries of deities are properly sourced by two works. However, I propose for the other non-deity entries to be removed because (1) they are not backed by any source at all, and (2) the entries are better suited to List of Philippine mythological creatures. Also, I propose for the removal of the "Important Diwata" section, as the entry for Makiling will be inputted in the Tagalog section, the entry for Sinukuan will be transferred to the Kapampangan section, the entry for Cacao will be in the Bisaya section, and the entry for Diwata ng Kagubatan will be in the Cuyunon section. I propose that only information within a proper source will be transferred, while (1) information not backed by sources and/or (2) information not found within the cited reliable source, will be removed. PCommission (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like sometimes the Tagalog gods have some sources but they are incorrectly referenced in the article, not behind the information. I think first of all we should remove all info from the Aswang project, because as far as I know that is just an amateur blog project and doesn't use any sources. All unsourced info can be freely removed, since we have no idea how many random people added a few lies over the years, which now would have created a completely unreliable text. We can determine which sources are reliable/unreliable later, since I think we have to take the time to research the authors and works.
 * I agree with your idea to split it into a section for every ethnolinguistic group in the Philippines.
 * For the Visayan section you can probably get some info here: https://archive.org/details/LookingForThePrehispanicFilipino/page/n63/mode/2up
 * This book will also be valuable for the article: https://archive.org/details/BarangaySixteenthCenturyPhilippineCultureAndSociety/page/n1/mode/2up
 * I hope that helps. Glennznl (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Aswang Project is a nice source for readers, but it is an unreliable source for Wikipedia since their works are self-published. Thank you for the links. I highly appreciate your aid. This article is just filled with many wrong information, with some looking as facts, when they actually are not. PCommission (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sweet, it's heading in the right direction now. I will have time to help out in the weekends, I started a new important job per this August so I have to focus on that, but I will keep an eye on the progress and help you out if you want to ask or discuss something. Glennznl (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw you can use the same reference entry multiple times, so that it doesn't show up 10 times in the reference section, by assigning a ref name. For example:, then to call upon this ref you simply enter: . Glennznl (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I'll try to fix that after the Tagalog section is properly edited to have no double sources afterwards, as many sources I found in the Tagalog section is also used for other sections. PCommission (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking into the Tagalog section, I've found that most statements are not within the sources cited, and most sources actually are sourced from older sources such as Jocano. I propose for all deities in the current Tagalag section to be retained, but most of the statements about them (which are not within the source) should be removed. I also found numerous Tagalog deities not yet included in the section, so I'll add them too. All of them have proper sources. I also propose to remove the first paragraph of the Tagalog section for similar reasons as the issue with statement vs sources from the deities. Lastly, I propose to remove (1) the paragraph before the Sitan entry, as the source is also a self-publishing site, which is unreliable in Wikipedia policy, and (2) the "Other definitions" part, as information from there will be re-aligned into the specific entries for deities instead. PCommission (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We should check the information with those sources and remove all the bits that are not found in the source. It doesn't seem necessary to remove all of it without checking. I agree with your other proposals. Glennznl (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Great. I went ahead with the proposals, other than the removal of certain statements in the entries for Tagalog deities. For those entries, I propose the following:


 * (1) Sitan: As per the two sources provided, I propose to change the statement, "Sitan and Bathala is said to have once waged a war with each other to determine who should rule the realms intended for ancestral souls" into simply "fought with Bathala for the battle of mortal souls", as per source. Also, I propose to change that source into "Plasencia, J. (1589). Customs of the Tagalogs.", as it was the main source for the info referred in the article. On the other source at the end of the paragraph, Jocano, F. L. (1969), it just says that Sitan is the torturer of souls in the lower world called Kasanaan, where many lower divinities do his bidding. I propose to input that also. For the other information in the Sitan entry, I propose for their removal, as none of them are actually in the two sources currently cited.
 * (2) Manggagaway: the cited source is Kintanar and Abueva (1996, second edition in 2009). Their main source is Jocano (1969). In Jocano, it states that the deity spreads disease and suffering, while roaming the mortal world to induce maladies with her charms. Also, the name of the deity is Mangaguay, not Manggagaway. I propose to change the name of the deity into Mangaguay, and input only the info from the Jocano main source. All other things should be removed, as they aren't mentioned in the Kintanar-Abueva source or the main basis, the Jocano source.
 * (3) Manisilat: the cited source is Jocano (1969). Under the source, Manisilat makes broken homes by turning spouses against each other. None of the other statements in the entry aside from that are actually from Jocano. I propose to replace the Manisilat entry with the actual content from the Jocano source.
 * (4) Mangkukulam: the source cited is also Jocano (1969). The source says Mangkukulam pretends to be a doctor and emits fire. I propose to input only that, while removing all other information, as they aren't in the cited source.
 * (5) Hukluban: the cited source is Kintanar and Abueva (1996, second edition in 2009), whose information was from Jocano (1969). In the Jocano source, the deity is not Hukluban, but Hukloban. It says that the deity can change into any form she desires. I propose to input that information, replace the name of the deity into Hukloban, and remove all other information not in the cited source and the basis of the source, Jocano.
 * (6) Galang Kaluluwa: the cited source is Shahani, Mangahas, and Llaguno (2006). In it, the actual main source is Fansler (1921). In the Fansler source, Galangkalulua (not Galang Kaluluwa) is a winged god who loves to travel. The deity perished due to an illness, where his head was buried in Ulilangkalulua's grave, giving birth to the first coconut tree, which was used by Bathala to create the first humans. I propose for the changing of the name into Galangkalulua, the inputting of the data from the Fansler source, and the removal of the remaining statements, which are not in the main source.
 * (7) Ulilang Kaluluwa: the cited source is Shahani, Mangahas, and Llaguno (2006). In it, the actual main source is Fansler (1921). In the Fansler source, Ulilangkalulua (not Ulilang Kaluluwa) is a giant snake that could fly. The deity was the enemy of Bathala, until he was killed by Bathala in battle. I propose for the changing of the name into Ulilangkalulua, the inputting of the data from the Fansler source, and the removal of the remaining statements, which are not in the main source.
 * (8) Lakanbakod: the cited source is Jocano, which is based on the oldest actual source, the 1590's Boxer Codex. Instead of the Boxer Codex itself, I think it's better to input the English translation source instead by Souza and Turley (2015). The Codex says that Lakan-bakod (not Lakanbakod) is a god of crops and rice whose statue is hollow and had gilded eyes, teeth, and genitals, where food and wine is introduced onto the deity's mouth to secure a good crop. In another source (Demetrio, Cordero-Fernando, & Zialcita, 1991), not cited, Lakan-bakod (not Lakanbakod) is a god of the fruits of the earth who dwells in certain plants. I propose to input the information from the Codex and Demetrio sources, change the name of the entry into Lakan-bakod, and remove all information not in those sources.
 * (9) Lakambini: the cited source is Potet (2017). In the source, it says Lakambini is the deity who protects throats. The deity is also called Lakandaytan, as the god of attachment. I propose to input only that, while removing the statements in the entry, not within the cited source.
 * (10) Uwinan Sana: cited source is Potet. In it, it says Uwinan Sana is the god of the fields and the jungle. I propose to input only that, while removing the statements in the entry, not within the cited source.
 * (11) Posor Lupa: the cited source is Potet, and there is actually no such deity as "Posor Lupa" in the source. However, I found that a deity named Pusod-Lupa, the earth-navel and a god of the fields, is within the source. I propose to change the entry into Pusod-Lupa, and input its rightful data. All other things not in the source should be removed.
 * (12) Lakang Balingasay: the cited source is Potet. In it, it says that the deity's name is from the poisonous balingasay tree. The deity was also compared with the Western deity Beezlebub, god of flies. I propose for the statements in the entry to be replaced with those information from the source. All other things not in the source should be removed.
 * (13) Bathala: the source cited is Shahani, Mangahas, and Llaguno (2006), which sources Jocano. In the Jocano source, Bathala is the supreme god and creator deity, also known as Bathala Maykapal, Lumilikha, and Abba. The deity is an enormous being with control over thunder, lightning, flood, fire, thunder, and earthquakes, while presiding over lesser deities and uses spirits to intercede between divinities and mortals. In another source, Pardo, F. (1686-1688), not mentioned in the entry, Bathala is also called as Anatala by Muslims, while Blair, et al (1906) attributes the tigmamanuquin to Bathala. I propose for these information to replace the statements regarding Bathala, as those statements are the things said from actual sources.
 * (14) Amanikable: the cited source is Jocano, but the more holistic source is actually Demetrio et al (1991). In the Demetrio source, it says Amanikable is a god of the sea who was spurned by the first mortal woman. He is also a god of hunters. I propose for the replacement of the entry statements by the Demetrio source.
 * (15) Idiyanale: the cited source is Shahani et al, which sources from Jocano. In the main source, it says that Idianale (not Idiyanale) is the goddess of labor, good deeds, and rice fields. I propose for the name-change of the deity into Idianale, and the replacement of the statements about the deity with the Jocano source.
 * (16) Dimangan: the cited source is Jocano, which states that Dumangan (not Dimangan) is the god of good harvest. He is married to Idianale. I propose for the name-change of the deity into Dumangan, and the replacement of the statements about the deity with the actual statements in the cited source, removing the rest.
 * (17) Ikapati: the cited source is Jocano, which states that Ikapati is the goddess of cultivated land and fertility. I propose for the inputting of that statement in the deity's entry, while removing the rest, which are not in the source.
 * (18) Mapulon: another from Jocano. In the actual source, it says that Mapulon is the god of seasons married to Ikapati. I propose for all other information about Mapulon, aside from that, to be removed.
 * (19) Mayari: cited source is Calderon. However, proper sources most cited by scholars for Mayari is actually Jocano (1969), who says that Mayari is the goddess of the moon sometimes identified as having one eye, and Ramos (1990), who says that Mayari is the ruler of the world during nighttime. Both sources agree that Mayari is the daughter of Bathala. I propose for the replacement of the entry of Mayari with the sources raised by both Jocano and Ramos.
 * (20) Tala: the cited source is Calderon, who says Tala is the "star goddess". Jocano's work agreed to this, saying Tala is the star goddess and daughter of Bathala. While a source, Pardo, F. (1686-1688), centuries before Jocano and Calderon, says that Bulak Tala, is the deity of the morning star, the planet Venus seen at dawn. I propose for the inputting of the Jocano and Pardo sources, while removing all other statements.
 * (21) Hanan: similar with Tala, Jocano agreed with Calderon that Hanan is indeed the goddess of the morning, and a daughter of Bathala. I propose that all other statements except from that source should be removed.
 * (22) Dumakulem: the guardian of created mountains, son of Idianale and Dumangan, married to Anagolay, according to the cited source, Jocano. I propose for that statement to replace the current statement in the Dumakulem entry.
 * (23) Anitun Tabu: cited again from Jocano, which says she is the goddess of wind and rain and daughter of Idianale and Dumangan. I propose for all other statements aside from that to be removed.
 * (24) Anagolay: cited from Jocano, which only says that she is the goddess of lost things and daughter of Ikapati and Mapulon. I propose for all other statements aside from that to be removed.
 * (25) Apolaki: the last one. Cited from Calderon, whose entry agreed with Jocano, in calling Apolaki the god of sun and warriors. Jocano stated that Apolaki is the son of Anagolay and Dumakulem. While Ramos referred to Apolaki as the son of Bathala and brother of Mayari and ruler of the world during daytime. I propose to replace the current statement for Apolaki with those from Jocano and Ramos. Entries from Calderon and Jocano are basically the same, so citing only Jocano will make no difference. PCommission (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the deleted paragraph of the Tagalog section, how did you check it, do you have that book? You can get 1 hour of free access here, so we could take whatever we need from it: https://archive.org/details/philippinehistor0000zaid
 * (1) Do you have access to "Plasencia, J. (1589). Customs of the Tagalogs."? If not, you shouldn't change the reference. If you do have access to the source, primary sources are always the best obviously.
 * All the other entries boil down to the same thing so I will respond to those in a combined manner: If you have access to a primary source (or direct translation of a primary source), that is always the best source of info. If not, a respected work from a respected author is the second best source. If later works disagree with an earlier work, it is important to check out why (were new discoveries made, or is this just an unreliable work?), because relying too much on 1 single author is also unreliable. It would be best to fact-check the info using multiple reliable sources. Lastly, we should check that whatever is written in front of a source, actually matches the source. On Wikipedia pages without close supervision, over the years so many little words and sentences get added, changed or removed that in the end the text can be completely different from the source. Meaning, info not found in the source can and should be removed.
 * I hope that helps. Glennznl (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the cited Zaide source from page 69, none of the statements in the paragraph actually match any of the statements on the source's page 69, which is about why Spain kept the Philippines - unrelated to sandugo, anito, katalonan, Tondo, and other things mentioned in the false statements in the former Wiki paragraph under the Tagalog section. It's another one of those wrong statements that are made to look of good quality using an unrelated reliable source.
 * I don't have access to Plasencia, but I do have access to other respected scholarly works citing it. I agree that primary sources are always the best, and other respected works from a respected author would follow if such primary source isn't available to editors.
 * Jocano is a reliable source, where his works have been cited by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts and other respected scholarly works. But I do agree that having two sources instead of one is a good fact-checker, which is why I also proposed to add more sources in certain entries to expand the entry's content and validity. By that statement, I'll go ahead in editing the Tagalog section, with the usage of respected reliable sources from respected authors. I'll edit the entries one at a time, as to input the specific summary for each entry. Thank you for your remarks and suggestions. They really help a lot in the fact-checking of this page, and hopefully no more false information will be inputted in this page after we finish editing it properly. PCommission (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I searched on a couple of terms in the Google books preview of Zaide and it seems like this text was fake with a non-used source, yes. Or perhaps people added so much unsourced stuff in front of it that it is useless now.
 * If the 2nd author provided a direct citation (meaning the author directly excerpted the text from the primary source and did not change it in any way), you could source it as the primary source, but if not, that is not allowed by academic/Wikipedia conventions.
 * Sounds good, I will help out tomorrow or so by looking what we can use from the 2 sources I provided earlier. Glennznl (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, we should check what we can use from Philippine_mythology and what should be deleted. In any case, in my opinion the list in that article needs to be deleted since a detailed list is unsuitable for a general page like "Philippine mythology". In the history of that page you can see I did a lot of cleaning but it's still a big mess. Glennznl (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just did it myself.


 * Great! I'll start continuing the edits this week, as my work load has become manageable again. I'll change the format (in list form) used in the Tagalog section to conform with the other sections, and later add more entries. Also, I propose the sectioning to be arranged, with the first sections coming from the northern Philippines and gradually going to the south, as to show readers the similarities in some of the pantheons where nearby ethnic groups have overlapping ethnic beliefs. PCommission (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Ilongot section, all but two entries are backed by a source. I researched on the belief systems of the Bugkalot (actual name of the ethnic group which, I propose, should replace "Ilongot" as per scholarly works), and the entries inputted in the section as well. I've found that the statements from the the only sourced sections (Delan, Elag) do not match with any part of the actual cited source. In other words, the entire Ilongot (Bugkalot) section is backed by no proper source, and that no info about them are present in any scholarly work I read about the Bugkalot. The complex world-view of the ethnic group has been elaborated further by Mikkelsen in his Chaosmology: Shamanism and personhood among the Bugkalot, published by the University of Chicago through the Journal of Ethnographic Theory, and with it, I propose the removal of the section's content, on the basis that (1) all but two have no sources at all, and (2) the only sourced entries are cited through an unrelated source. PCommission (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Good work so far. The North-South order is a good idea. I think we could also group together the various Igorot tribes and the various Lumad tribes to show they are related. Regarding the names, I would stick to the names these tribes already have on Wikipedia for the sake of consistency. If you think the names of those pages could be improved, you could start a discussion on the talk pages. I agree that the unsourced material should be removed. Btw the ref section is getting out of hand, over 600 refs. It needs a cleanup badly. Glennznl (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've successfully changed the name of article "Ilongot" into "Bugkalot", and would afterwards also change the section in this article concerning the ethnic group. Also, I've found a book that has information about some of the deities among the Bugkalot, so some of the entries in the current "Ilongot" section may be retained. Thanks for the reminder about the ref. I'm working on it as well. PCommission (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

After the sockpuppet
and : PCommission has been blocked as the latest sockpuppet of Xiang09. I see their influence has been extensive on this article. Feel free to do whatever with what they added based on your judgment and on WP:Block evasion. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. The amount of work and content moved around different pages makes it very difficult to just undo it all. Aside from that, the state of the pages before he made his edits was very poor as well using mostly blogs and even Youtube videos as sources. His edits always seemed good faith and trying to make the article better, but I can't verify the sources he used or if he even used them. I am not sure what to do with this one. If we were to undo everything, I would actually lean towards deleting the whole article and starting over again. Glennznl (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)