Talk:Usog

Explaining away the Evil Eye as a relic of Spanish colonization
The notion of "Evil Eye" has been around for a very long time. It is possible that the Spanish took it to the Philippines; but it is also possible that the notion of the "Evil Eye" existed in the Philippines before the Spanish arrived.

We know that the notion of the Evil Eye existed around the Mediterranean coast, the Middle East, around the Silk road for a very long time. The Evil Eye could be very useful in tracing the cultural interaction across the globe in prehistoric times. Let's not jump to conclusion that Evil Eye was brought to the Philippines by the Spanish in the recent past without concrete evidence. You know the old school Orientalism: "the Westerners taught everything to the Orientals" including the superstitions. Let's not succumb to it. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight
There's too much weight given to the theories of Jose Fadul. An editor with this name wrote the 2nd part of this article and was banned from Wikipedia. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think so, then be bold enough and trim it.FadulJoseArabe (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did the trimming myself.


 * Re: much weight given to the theory of Jose Fadul on usog, well I am Jose Fadul, and I was one of those three interviewed on GMA TV that was aired last 28 Aug 2008 about the topic; (the other one was an unlettered 'hilot' and the third, a lady medical doctor who simply dismissed 'usog' as non-existent. Let them incorporate their own theories in the article if they have their own, and if they dare). I accepted to be interviewed on the topic after being recommended by those who heard me speak on the same in 1988--about two decades ago--when I first gave a public lecture on what I consider to be a psychosomatic illness. I wrote the 2nd part of the article after a number of those who saw me on TV persuaded me to "strengthen the old Wikipedia article that they felt was wanting." Maybe a third party could arbitrate whether the present article on 'usog' is in order or not.FadulJoseArabe (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Present article on Usog is more neutral and less patronizing.119.111.86.73 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Badly done. WP:BLUE: Wikipedia shouldn't be ashamed to call pseudoscientific superstitions by their names. The Philippines don't have alternative psychology to the rest of humanity and, if their actual peer-reviewed research has established the evil eye actually exists, that isn't an alternative to "Western psychology"—it's just a new advance in human knowledge of psychology and the world around us.


 * Since that obviously hasn't happened... the article should be somewhat patronizing towards people who believe it to be an actual affliction, instead of (at best) an epiphenomena of other causes. — Llywelyn II   17:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Balis
The article doesn't need to start with the cruft about other meanings of "balis" because it isn't the anyway. Balis should be a disambiguation page, partially pointing towards this article. (Vanilla Google suggests that there is a primary topic—some kind of drink—but it's pretty ratty these days and can't be trusted to show the actual relative weight of anything touching commercial issues.) — Llywelyn II   17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)