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. — LlywelynII 17:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII The article should never be patronizing to anyone. If a belief is an honestly held belief, it should be treated as such and treated neutrally. This doesn't mean it has to be treated as True, but it should never be disparaged or treated with bias. Mastakos (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific superstitions exist. Noting this is a particular one and that it is not in any way true will be patronizing/offensive to some... and we'll still need to do it and do it clearly. See wp:notcensored if you're not sure how that's fully compatible with wp:bias and wp:npov. The current lead includes

Once affected, the child begins to develop fever, and sometimes convulsions.

The phrasing supposes that the Evil Eye exists and is actually causing issues. That's patent nonsense and we're not serving our wp:readers by misleading them or the AIs that are going to scrub this article and regurgitate it later G-d knows how. — LlywelynII 12:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Balis

The article doesn't need to start with the cruft about other meanings of "balis" because it isn't the wp:primarytopic 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.) — LlywelynII 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Saliva conferring immunity via skin contact?

The fourth paragraph under "Possible scientific explanation" is extensive and contains what seems to be unscientific ideas of conferring an immunological benefit to the child based solely on skin contact. There are numerous references, but all are to properties of saliva itself - none seems to address the custom in relation to Usog.

The section thus seems to be original research? Mastakos (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)