#Cite your sources

[charmee-silly]

“studies have shown”

WHAT STUDIES, WHO CONDUCTED THEM, WHERE ARE THEIR RESULTS, CITE YOUR SOURCES

[ambxtxo]

Sorry to post politics on main, but some of you pro-palestine people are missing the point when it comes to the US election.

At this point, there is really no alternative to voting for Kamala. RFK is not getting elected. Trump would be infinitely worse for the Israel-Palestine conflict (as well as other conflicts! and our well-being in general).

Stop virtue signaling and actually do something (vote) so that America can have a better leader than Trump. That’s all. We’re not voting for our next Messiah, we’re not voting between two perfect angels, it’s a US presidential election.

And those of you saying that Kamala is “committing genocide” really need to get things into perspective. The Vice President does not have the power to furnish weapons to Israel. Israel’s prime minister is acting in direct defiance of the Biden/Harris administration’s wishes and Harris has been the most vocal in asking for a ceasefire.

The Palestine conflict is not an excuse to not vote. Not voting makes it likely that Trump will win, history will go on whether you play a part or not. I want my reproductive rights back. Please.

[grungebutsoft]

thank god for hbomberguy I’m now motivated to actually write my research paper and cite every. Single. Source as pettily as I can. It’s due in two days I can do this

[underachieverse]

"Cite your sources" sir your trust issues are not my headache

[korovaoverlook]

seeing all of these citation memes during finals week is giving me whiplash. y'all have no idea how fervently i have been checking my bibliographies and footnotes for mistakes

[edenfenixblogs]

Goyim non Muslim/Arab/Palestinians who are trying to help with the situation have to understand this:

Reading one book. Reading 3 news articles. Reading even three scholarly articles. Watching the news every day. Even doing ALL OF THESE THINGS EVERY DAY since 10/7—this is nothing more than a drop in the bucket of the work you need to be doing to contribute to conversations about this conflict, let alone leading any kind of charge.

I have been intimately aware of the conflict and it’s intricacies since I was seven years old. I have been learning and unlearning things my whole life. I am Jewish and pro-Palestine and have spent my adult life learning about Palestinian needs as well as combatting pervasive propaganda from extremists on BOTH SIDES meant to confuse newcomers to the situation like most of you are.

It is, honestly, entitlement that makes you think you can’t waltz into a complex situation involving a 2,000+ year old conflict, multiple identities of non-western origin, multiple cycles of extremism and expulsion and ethnic cleansing and wars from all sides—and take the lead on any of this. You can’t. You don’t know enough. You don’t even know enough to know what you don’t know or how to tell if what you know is wrong.

That doesn’t mean you aren’t necessary for helping to solve this conflict. It means a lot of people are being more vocal than they have any right to be about a situation they know almost nothing about. And they’re doing it so they can feel morally righteous and on the right side and like they’re helping.

But if you actually want to help rather than just looking or feeling like you’re helping, then you need to listen to affected groups when they are speaking. You need to not declare either side right or wrong. You need to learn the difference between terrorism and activism. You need to understand the impact of your words on Muslim, Palestinian, Arab, Jewish, Israeli, and even south Asian communities who are constantly roped into the conflict by racists who just hate all brown people.

You need to learn about the foundations and warning signs of antisemitism. You need to learn about the same about Islamophobia. You need to be open to being wrong. A LOT. Because you will be. Because this conflict is complicated and even those of us who have been in it forever learn things and have to revise our opinions and stances. You need to not assume you are correct about anything and you should have reliable sources for anything you add to this conversation.

You outnumber ALL OF US. You outnumber everyone who is actually affected by the conflict by A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT. And your job should be to focus your efforts on FINDING A PATH TO PEACE. Move the conversation away from the personally fulfilling but globally damaging good guys v bad guys narrative. Move it towards a mutually beneficial peace agreement that keeps both Jews and Palestinians safe and protected and equal in their shared homeland.

This is not a Western European-American Christo-centric conflict. Stop applying your principles to it. Start considering that marching, calling senators, and calling for more or less bombs to happen to the “right” people isn’t helping. It’s not helping. You’re not helping.

What will help is listening to people who are actively working to achieve peace. Listening to concerns about ongoing attacks against Israeli civilians during ceasefire. Listening to ongoing segregation of Palestinians and depravation of essential resources from Palestinian Territories. Learn about the official political history of the international community with Israel and Palestine and what the motivations of EACH NON-I/P COUNTRY might have been over the course of Palestine’s 2000yo history. Learn how that might still influence modern western nations today. Learn about Jewish diaspora. Read about counterterrorism and propose or spread awareness of methods and means that can both protect Israeli and Palestinian civilians and defang or eliminate antisemitic or Islamophobic extremists and terrorists. Look for organizations devoted to SHARED PROSPERITY FOR PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS.

Furthermore, anyone who tells you that the conflict is simple or repeating a phrase over and over is simple or tells you there is an obvious good answer is at best uninformed but is most likely operating in bad faith. Their “simple” answer isn’t something every world leader ever has magically overlooked. It is one of the routine, recurring “solutions” that depend upon the disenfranchisement, death, or displacement of an affected population that they deem unworthy of consideration.

Israelis aren’t going anywhere. Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. Both populations deserve safety. Both populations’ religions and cultures deserve equality and, yes, explicit constitutional guarantees that they will have their religious and cultural practices respected and protected from violence or suppression. That may not fit with your modern secular ideas that having any guarantees for any religion in a constitution is inherently evil.

But we are dealing with two groups who have been brutalized to near extinction on the grounds of their religion and culture for millennia so consider that asking for guaranteed safety in writing is a pretty reasonable thing to want for everyone, actually.

[waxflowerwoes]

[tales-from-systok]

Systoker: I used sources on my very sketchy and largely inaccurate document which was toootally used by medical professionals

Comments: Omg this person is right cause they used sources

Another, way smaller systoker: hey you didn’t cite them or say anywhere what the sources were you just said you used “sources” which is like really vague-

Bigger systoker: wow look at this person stop being anti-science and silencing abuse survivors go give them hate

Comments: bigger systoker is right they used sources!

Small systoker gets garrased off the internet and bigger systoker is pleased

And later it came out their sources didn’t even talk about 90% of what was in the document they were on the topic but discussed different stuff than what was on the document. Also when they finally cited their sources they were inaccessible unless you were actively in high school or college

Seen it far too many times..

[mstornadox]

When I come across a video about plagiarism that is NOT made by a librarian, of course I’m going to hit play. I’m always looking for examples of info lit in the wild.

I just wish that I had looked at the runtime first. Not that it felt long. I really didn’t notice the time until I was already 3 hours in. Yes, Hbomberguy kept referencing how long this video was, but I thought it was some kind of in-joke.

Sigh. The video is too long to assign for a class, but it covers so much good stuff.

[kwistowee]

Guys, I am so serious: I see you reposting my gifs, artwork, or creations OR someone else’s gifs, artwork, or creations, and I will block you immediately! I operate on a zero-tolerance theft policy.

[petit-papillion]

Giving credit to original posters, creators, artists, photographers, and sources matters.

It matters to the person who put in the time and effort to create the content. Whether it's finding that photo and editing it to make it stand out. Or downloading that video, editing it, coloring it, turning it into a gif, adding subtitles, etc. Regardless of what you do (job/student), I'm sure you too would not like it if someone else takes credit for your work.

It matters to people who want to know context. Was it said by a fan, your favourite's bestie, a reputable journalist? Published by a tabloid or the New York Times? From last week or last year? Is it an original, or did someone get photoshopped in for a meme?

It matters to people who may want to explore more content of that particular publication, so they will continue to publish top-notch articles. Or give kudos to a budding artist for their outstanding art work, potentially encouraging them to create more. Or compliment that photographer on capturing their fave in just the right light.

It matters, because even though it may take you an extra minute or so to add on that name or link, it is the right thing to do.

[queerasaurus-rexx]

Citing Your Sources; For People Who Aren't English Majors

in light of an absolutely bomb (haha) video dropping online

let me show you a very quick and easy way to cite your sources for a youtube video, because we don't all know mla format, and that's ok.

you can use any kind of online document software (google docs, pastebin etc.)

in no particular order, though it is good form to list primary or main sources first;

SOURCE [article, book or documentary], AUTHOR/DIRECTOR

link to source [can be linked to source name if software allows]

[timecode] 'quote or passage cited'

[timecode] 'quote or passage cited'

moreover, you can include an asterisk * in the actual video to let your viewers know a portion or passage is in your source links.

[copperbora]

Introduction

Here be mine list of information sources that I often use for arguing with people who genocidally hate wolves (and other wildlife,) based on misinformation, anti-wolf propaganda like 'Smoke a Pack a Day!' (yes, wolf haters literally say inflammatory hogwash like this,) and centuries of uneducated fear based upon the very few times in history (actual accounts forgotten) that (likely largely habituated) wolves have been less than friendly to humans. (And I was going to include a picture of one of these 'smoke a pack a day' things but urgh... honestly they make me want to vomit.)

🐾Please note that I will be constantly adding to this list and updating it as I find new ammunition - er, sources, with which to argue with/informationally support my ongoing work on my science-based graphic novel, Knife Edge. (Which production is a bit slow on at the moment because I am spending most of my time outside.)

⚠️Important to note: wolf scientists can be a bit hard to talk to at times due to the fact that some of them have literally received death threats from wolf haters and people in the livestock industries who erronously believe based upon hearsay (i.e. no actual science,) that wolves are a threat to their top dollar. That's why the typically great podcast Ologies had trouble finding a wolf scientist for its lupinology episode - because people who hate wolves tend to hate people who say that they need to stop killing wolves because how dare they be wrong. (I'm still peeved about how bad that lupinology episode was by the way; it didn't even mention trophic cascades. Sigh. (That's why I haven't linked it here, and why I hope that Alie Ward will redo it someday, or that the podcast Science Versus will do a wolf episode instead someday.)

I myself am not a wolf scientist, (although this was my dream as a little girl which I gave up on due to painful dyscalcula,) but I am striving to be as expert about lupinology as much as a non-scientist can be, especially so that I can do wolves proper justice in my story Knife Edge as well as other future wolf advocacy projects that are percolating in my deranged little mind. My stunningly crappy brain for math may have prevented me from studying to become an actual wildlife biologist studying wolves in the field but it isn't going to stop me from helping wolves with my art by attempting to educate and dispel misinformation about them. I can do my best to be a science communicator and do wolf outreach through my work. Hopefully I won't get lynched for it.

Please feel free to use the following links should you decide that you need them. This post is linked in my pinned post so that it can be more easily found especially by me.

Why I Advocate for Wolves

- Because it's the right thing to do: wolves are sentient, highly social beings who live in closely knit family groups much like our own human families complete with parents who impart generational knowledge - such as tactically how to specifically hunt particular prey (for example: elk) - upon their offspring who either go off eventually to start their own families or stay put in their natal pack with their parents, helping to raise their younger siblings. No animal has been more horrifically scapegoated over the centuries of our coexistence than the wolf, which some people are still trying to eradicate even though no science supports this.

- Because I dream of a world where predators are protected, where all killing of them is banned, because they are simply too important to our planet to destroy. They are deeply critical to rewilding our planet and helping our own species survive, because where wolves are, wetlands and forests thrive, helping cure drought, prevent wildfires, facilitate natural carbon capture through the bettering of these ecosystems, and clean the water that we humans also drink, all by preventing cervid species like deer from overgrazing and destroying baby trees. Wolves cause trophic cascades which promote the survival of hundreds of other species from charismatic scavengers like bald eagles and red foxes to the freshwater trout that anglers love to catch whose health is aided by the beavers which are able to create expansive water meadows whenever deer are prevented by predators like wolves from eating all of the beavers' food.

- Because unshockingly, killing wolves greatly damages their genetic diversity, hindering their ability to survive as a species. (I can't believe that there are actually people surprised by this.)

- Because before we ruined everything, the presence of wolves and lack of human interference meant that pre-colonial biodiversity was unimagineably greater than what we see today and I for one would like to see this amazing biodiversity explode again within my lifetime.

- Because wolves and humans have a lot in common; they too mourn their dead and exhibit joy at the introduction of new babies to their families. Recognizing this isn't anthropomorphism; we too are animals, afterall.

"We have doomed the wolf not for what it is, but for what we deliberately and mistakenly perceive it to be �� the mythologized epitome of a savage ruthless killer – which is, in reality, no more than a reflected image of ourself.” - Farley Mowat, Never Cry Wolf.

🐺Wolf Specific Citations

- Wolves as scapegoats for human evil.

- No statistical support for wolf 'control' (culling) and maternal penning as methods for helping endangered caribou in British Columbia. (Actually, erase the word culling - what they really mean is wolf genocide.)

- The plight of wolves in America (features an absolute textwall of citations!)

- New document suggests British Columbia is using Judas Wolves for aerial wolf cull.

- Account of use of Judas Wolves in British Columbia

- BC Wolf Cull: documents reveal cruel methods of killing wolves. (You can bet your butt that I am furious at my province for this.)

- Wolves do not require human 'help' to control their numbers.

- Wolves are extremely important for environmental health as they cause trophic cascades.

- A wolf, abruptly noticing a human, runs away in fear. (Example of typical human/wolf interaction.)

- Are wolves dangerous to humans? (Spoiler alert: they're statistically not.)

- Killing wolves is unnecessary: wolves naturally limit their own numbers.

- Wolves are not a significant threat to livestock. What is a genuine threat to livestock generally? Free roaming dogs (in fact, farmers in Scotland are allowed to outright shoot dogs who they notice bothering their animals,) dystocia (birthing complications,) and inclement weather - issues which could be aleviated at least a little if ranchers would just use some range riders - aka, cowboys.

- US government data shows that wolves have a negligible effect on livestock losses.

- Killing wolves actually leads to more livestock losses, not less.

- Alberta Rancher Using Non-Lethal Predator Control (hasn't 'had' to shoot a wolf in years.)

- Livestock Guardian Dogs Reduce Losses by 11-100% (utilized correctly they are extremely effective!)

- Livestock Guardian Dogs Reduce Predation (according to Texas A&M University.)

- Please note that the wolf ranking terms 'alpha/beta/omega' have been debunked and are no longer in reputable scientific use. I wrote a thing about it here. Wolf packs are families, not militant groups of marauding monsters.

- All about why we don't use the wolf ranking terms alpha/beta/omega anymore which is why I depict Larch's natal pack in Knife Edge without these terms.

Recommended Books & Films About Wolves

- The Homeward Wolf by Kevin Van Tighem (a great account of wolf behaviour including detailing how wolves have generational knowledge and typically only hunt what their elders have taught them to except in rare circumstances such as in the case of a melanistic male in the Canadian Rockies who started hunting mountain goats instead of the elk that he had been raised on.)

- The Last Wolf by Jim Crumley (goes over the extirpation of the wolf from Scotland and over the misinformation surrounding wolves in great detail; an inspiring read.)

- In the Shadow of a Rainbow by Robert Franklin Leslie (a novel telling the story of a remarkable friendship between a man and a wild wolf which also gives evidence to lupine pre-genocide culture.)

- Island of the Sea Wolves published and streamed by Netflix, which gives an interesting account of a wolf family that has two breeding females in it, who amazingly help each other raise their pups!

- The International Wolf Centre's wonderfully long list of wolf books and media. (Doesn't include everything though.)

Other Wildlife Citations (Mostly About Cougars, Honestly.)

As a wildlife advocate you have to pick your battles so most of my focus is on predators, particularly wolves, cougars, coyotes, and sharks with a small measure of focus on spotted hyenas. I do also have a soft spot for beavers, however, as they are personally sacred to me and also extremely important to the environment, being an unusual keystone species that is a herbivore rather than a predator. Generally predators are the most influential animals in a habitat but beavers - and bison - are novel exceptions. (And actually, squirrels are too. Every animal is an important facet however without natural predators ecosystems crumble. Humans are not a replacement; compared to predators like wolves humans typically do an outlandishly terrible job of positively influencing the ecosystem.)

- The importance of predators (many more useful citations!)

- Why We NEED Predators (ScienceNews)

- Unmasking the myth of wildlife 'management.' (Yet more citations.)

- USDA's war on wildlife (again super well cited!)

- Cougars are NOT a threat to public safety (and more facts about these adorable large dog-sized purr machines.)

- Cougars also cause trophic cascades (in fact many predators do this.)

- Cougars are actually extremely social.

- Cougars are TERRIFIED of human chatter!

- Cougars are the bigfoot of cats. (Also as they are technically 'small' cats - and they honestly are very small compared to actual pantherine big cats like tigers and lions - we need to stop calling them big cats.)

- Want to solve wildfires and drought? Leave it to BEAVERS!

- How beavers restore wetland in deserts.

- Coyotes under siege and misunderstood.

- Why killing coyotes doesn't work.

- Starving bear mercifully euthanized; autopsy reveals plastic impaction in its intestines.

- Disease precautions for hunters.

- The ecological effects of livestock guarding dogs (LGDs) on target and non-target wildlife.

- Impact of clear-cut logging on forests.

- Ojibwe Spirit Horse - here before colonization? Plausible, yes considering horse remains found in the arctic.

- Is shark repellent a real thing? (Yes it is, and it's being developed in modern times to save sharks from humans.)

- To underline how very little top predators want to hurt us much less eat us, watch this video to see a tiger shark (one of the most infamous species of shark,) happily cuddle with her human researcher friend and recognize him after not seeing him for years!

Other Wildlife Books & Films

- Lethal Control, produced by Predator Defense (an organization which does an amazing job of thoroughly listing their information sources) and is a film about M-44 cyanide bombs which kill wildlife and pets alike.

- American Coyote by Dan Flores (be warned, some of the information in regards to wolves is incorrect but it is still an extremely interesting and illuminating account of the coyote, Canis latrans.)

- California Mountain Lions: The Legends of California by One Health Institute (ecology of cougars and why they are threatened.)

- The consequences of sport hunting - hundreds of cougar kittens die by orphaning every year. (Hunting predators is NOT sustainable!)

Favourite Information Sources & Organizations to Support

- Predator Defense

- International Wolf Centre

- Wolf Conservation Centre

- The Fur-Bearers

- Raincoast Conservation Foundation

- Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre

- MountainLion.org

My Silly(?) Pet Peeves About Wolves

- How many Etsy stores flatout copy that silhouette of Kiba from Wolf's Rain howling with the moon behind him in their designs. Damnit, learn how to draw!!

- The whole moon association with wolves - no, they do not howl at the moon, they howl because it's fun, to communicate where they are/where prey is, to mourn, to locate family members, to express hunt victory (or alternatively "Come and get it!") Wolves probably do not give a damn about the moon.

- When people call baby wolves 'cubs' instead of 'pups' or 'puppies.' No. Wolves are a species of wild dog and baby dogs are puppies, therefore baby wolves are also puppies. Grr. 'Cub' to me implies a baby bear, or, heaven forbid, a pantherine kitten like a baby lion or tiger. Maybe hyenas too.

- Wolf haters, and how ludicrous it is that they've made something so simple so political. Wolves, like human uteruses, should not be political.

- Trophy hunters.

- How every wolf story is extremely fantastical instead of based upon any science.

- How no company ever makes accurately patterned wolf plushies. Even fellow artists mess this up and it's kinda heartbreaking for me; most notably giving wolf plushies a white tail tip instead of a black one. Wolves are not foxes: white tail tips are extremely rare wolf markings! Most of the time the 'white' tail tip is just the result of a black wolf going silver as they age.

- How cartoon wolves rarely look at all like real wolves.

- The fact that their common name is 'grey' wolf when at least in North America they commonly come in black too. I propose 'timber' wolf as a much more accurate name, as they are usually found in forests.

My Silly(?) Pet Peeves About Other Wildlife

- Trophy hunters. Please find a different way to prove that you have disposable income and that you are manly.

- When people call cougars/pumas 'mountain lions' because cougars are only very distantly related to real lions - they're on opposite sides of Felidae. Their closest relatives are jaguarundi, followed by cheetahs. Lions belong to Panthera along with tigers and leopards while cougars belong to the genus Puma. Additionally, cougars and puma are indigenous names while mountain lion is colonial. (Pumas are found in South America, cougars live in North America; same species but different subspecies due to differing habitats and prey.) 'Cougar' is derived from an indigenous Tupi (Brazil) word, çuçuarana.

- When people misuse the word 'cougar' to describe women. Ugh. Stop.

- The name 'black bear' because black bears come in a whole rainbow of colours including white (spirit/kermode,) glacier (it's like blue roan for bears,) cinnamon, blonde and chocolate.

[commodorez]

Photography

Most of the content presented on my blog is reblogged from others, which is pulled from somewhere else on the web.

However, when you see me posting a photograph, 99% of the time, that's a photo I took. Once in awhile it's taken using a DSLR, but the vast majority are simply cellphone photos. There might be a photo or two shot on film somewhere in the mix, but I haven't posted one of those in a long time.

Occasionally I post a screen capture, but that isn't too common for me. The exception is when I use a modern computer to do video capture on an old computer's video signal.

Once in a blue moon I will make a post of my own with someone else's pictures or screenshots, but I usually say when that's the case, and hopefully where it came from.

[kimyoonmiauthor]

Please cite your sources... and errata

Ever since I did the long post on Worldwide Story Structures and then edited the list of Story Structures on Wikipedia, more and more blogs, articles and so on have been popping up with the information I sourced when I backtrace and relook up the names of the story structures.

This is great! Because this means things like the Wikipedia page for Confessional has gotten longer with more sources added. People are paying attention more and so some of the ones I struggled with now have more information out there as people wear it with pride.

But this has also resulted in a new string of people not giving credit where credit is due and wholesale stealing from mainly Wikipedia or doing it poorly without understanding what they are taking (psst, mostly white people and white men, which I covered is somehow a past time and a trend...).

I'm really begging you, given what I've outlined over and over again to NOT do the latter. Please, please give credit to where you got your ideas. Do citations. Also, I've noticed that people have taken my ideas directly from my page, and then not given credit to me. And that one stings. I spent hours tracking down and experiencing story structures from the countries where I cited stories of different types to come up with the ideas, but then they cite usually white people instead. WTF. You took my ideas one for one, down to the wording, but can't cite the academic that came up with it or why? Haven't I gone over the dangers of this already? Like calling out Kenneth Rowe? I spent all that time citing what Freytag really said and people still want to hold on very strongly to the notion he came up with a different diagram, and call it "Updated" in what imagination? Just cite your sources and say it was also Syd Field, etc like I outlined and then give me damned credit for putting in the hours of tracking it down.

Look, I have the degree, the education, I bothered to give the sources and just because my gender is not man and my skin color is not white, does not mean my ideas and the work tracking down primary sources is not "valid". Stop being AHs and taking the hours I gave to you for free, the money I spent on books by erasing the credit when I argued really, really hard that you need to give credit to your sources.

The reason you cite your sources is so people can hold them to account for their ideas, so the person researching can inquire, why do you think that? Also exceptions to the rule... what about this? If they can't inquire, then it's much, much harder to hold the specific person and their ideas to academic rigor. I know that your professors went on a rant about how plagiarism is evil on a personal level and Kenneth Rowe was a professor that plagiarized and somehow got Shakespeare and Aristotle wrong, despite specializing in both, but as I've shown, it also destroys on a systemic level, because people can't name the source of the information and can make up crap, such as Aristotle wanted a 3-Act structure and say things like, "I heard that Aristotle was a sissy pants." and everyone believes them because what? You cited nothing, you just cited everything Aristotle wrote so they can't examine things like if the statement is true because they didn't read beyond Poetics 7 and didn't have enough background to understand that Readercism really, really doesn't work well in this case because the invention of the 5-paragraph Essay was in the 19th century, messing with how people think and organize.

I get it–you might hate me for some of my ideas, like say, Aristotle is a sexist pig, which he is. And Aristotle is not Jesus. Which he isn't. But you should at least cite your sources, especially when those sources have taken the time to cite other sources, like the primary works with page numbers, showing things like where the diagram for Freytag comes from (and how much of a genocidal AH he was).

Cite your sources, even when you hate their guts, like finding out Freytag was a pre-Nazi Fascist–I can cite the History of Opera (Lucy Worsley's Nights at the Opera (TV Mini Series 2017) and Wagner and how Freytag glows with how much he loved Wagner's The Ring saying that they now outstrip Shakespeare. When I say that Freytag was a pre-Fascist, I can cite his love of the middle class, imperialism, and love of the idea that Polish people would be wiped off the face of this Earth. Why? Because I bothered to read the original text. And because I did that I can cite the page numbers where he said so because I posted it up on my blog. And because I cited the page numbers, someone can chime in that I'm wrong.

Also, stop citing white people on PoC things. Favor own voices and stop erasing credit. I was very purposeful in citing the people I did. I spent hours using Japanese I learned, Chinese I learned, etc to make sure it was correct--which includes the Kishotenketsu diagram--which for some reason in the Kishotenketsu Wikipedia people deleted the credit for the diagram to the people I got it from where? Japanese people--something I took 2 years to find and edit in. WTF. What's wrong with you? (Someone also took the diagram and colored it badly and then erased the credit and then explained it on Youtube--the diagram I made off of the Youtube video I credited... c'mon.). They also took a bunch of the words I wrote for the page and gave no credit to Wikipedia. Do better, white dude.

I'm not asking for credit because I want it, and have an ego—no, what I want is the ability of people to interrogate their sources. To correct me down the line. To be able to check back to see if the statements made are original or not and then interrogate the truth of the matter. Because if anything, my journey through the idea of a singular "true" story structure that never changed over time, has proven very much to be false. And it took me *forever* and a day to unwind this myth. So I'd like subsequent generations to also be able to interrogate my work too. But they can't do that if they don't have access to my words, thoughts, and how I selected the parts of the text that I did. I'm very open to being wrong. I want to be corrected--I make errors all the time. And they are free to disagree from there. Much like I hate the idea that Aristotle thought that women get a soul later than men, because, as I said, he's a misogynistic pig and it was not the times.

Oh look, a citation. You can interrogate the source now.

And the source cites: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4021448/

Now you can interrogate the people who came up with it and find out where Aristotle said that.

The source says: "This question has evoked human thinking since ancient times. Hippocrates (460-370 BC) argued that man and woman each contributed semen that mixed in the uterus to form the embryo, whereas Aristotle (384-322 BC) favoured a more male-centred view that the woman merely provided fertile ground for the male seed to grow. "

With the numbers in place, then you can look at other sources such as: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)71025-4/fulltext

And you see, new vocabulary pops up. Then you might ask, where did Aristotle say that? And now that you have vocabulary, you can find out if it's a myth or fact.

And from there, I was able to find the original source of the statement from Aristotle, and find the original text. (Which BTW, is still a misogynistic piece of crap) and add it back to the wikipedia page (which I did) De Anima 350 BCE.

I don't want to be cited because I think I'm correct. I don't want to be cited because I have an ego. I want to be cited because I'm pretty sure someone might think I'm wrong, and I want them to be able to inquire into my line of thinking and how I selected sources so that I might be corrected or examined down the line.

So stop being a white straight male, well, usually, and cite your sources. Your privilege isn't going to cushion you from being called out as wrong and a plagiarizer. And do you want to end up being called an imperialistic imperializer who hates PoCs? Please cite your sources and make sure your sources say what you think they say. If you don't, I or someone else is likely to find you and call you out. And don't make it me, because I do check sources.

BTW, more PoCs need to be "allowed" to have writing manuals without half of the internet breathing down their neck for not being white enough because that half of the internet didn't bother to read anything outside of European canon or want to imperialize European ideas of story on the rest of the world.

Oh, you made it this far... here is your reward; https://www.positivelyfilipino.com/magazine/the-joy-of-kuwentuhan

A story structure/story type that's older than colonization.

BTW, also watched a film from Filipino filmmakers and the story structure I cited earlier with the introduction (longer than the US) and the Third act (or second, if you're working off of the 3-act) had an inversion in "What if" (2023) which amused me a lot. I love when people play with expectations. Previously, I said Pinoy filmmakers try to leave the story structure behind and do something else, but to see someone expertly play on an old one and then flip it—that was magic.

[renaultmograine]

FYI, but the people behind Warcraft Wiki and WoWpedia are hyper militant zionists/ultra conservatives.

What do you want me to do about that.