Talk:Traditional African religions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Issues with old lead clarified

• Traditional African religions are based mainly on oral transmission; which forms part of cultural customs.Makes no sense, what does forms part of cultural customs mean?
• refers to the indigenous spiritual theological culture of people of African ancestry, usually Sub-Saharan Africa (no reference for this either.) it was me that added it in a draft attempt to fix what was so poorly written anything was better.
• The role of humanity is generally seen as a harmonizing relationship between nature and the super-natural forces .

See WP:LEAD to understand what notable info needs to be there to summarize the entire article. --Inayity (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think, it's important to note that in Africa, traditional religion and culture are inextricably linked. It is mentioned here in the Oxford Handbook of Global Religion. In Chapter 52, Traditional African Religious Society the chapter start with: African traditional religion is inextricably linked to the culture of the African people. In Africa religion has been understood as an integral part of life in which every aspect was knit together into a coherent system of thought and action, giving significance and meaning and providing abiding and satisfying values. Religion, culture, politics, and society were part of a seamless whole and no part of it could stand on its own.

It is also mentionned here:http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/cth%20692.pdf African culture and African Traditional Religion have been described as two sides of the same coin due to the close affinity of the two. African Traditional Religion is embedded in African culture and vice versa. This is explainable in the light of the pervasive influence of religion in the African worldview. Everything finds explanation and validation in religion in Africa

I think the first sentence of the second paragraph should be read as follow: Traditional African religion ideas and practices have been passed down from generation to generation orally and also through symbols and art, rituals and festivals, names of people and places, songs and dances, proverbs and wise sayings, myths and legends.

But the problem is why is that unique, is that not true for everything? Has Islamic culture and Africa not also fused in the same way? In Mali and Senegal. What about Christianity in Ethiopia. I do not see a problem with it --it is true--why is it so notable because it is a little obvious. If religion culture are part of the whole why state the obvious. It is true across the board. It is like saying AIR (African Native religions) are spiritual (yeah, but what isnt?). This is my issue. Generation 2 generation is not good writing.

I am enjoying reading teh PDF . The sentence is about generation to generation sounds like poetry not encyclopedic content. It is not notable info. Every religion is put in prosperity by these tools (wise sayings, Proverbs, mythology (which is what all religions have). etc. Not unique. --Inayity (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be unique to be an appropriate description of African traditional religion, it only need to be true and it's from a good source (The Oxford Handbook Of Global Religions), so it's certainly notable. For example, belief in a supreme being or ancestor veneration is hardly unique to ATR. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

But it does have to be Notable. See WP:LEAD. Islam is spread via being passed down generation to generation, praying, proverbs, rituals, immolation (which you left out of AIR). That is true also isnt it, is it notable for the lead? I suggest re-writing it, cuz it is not written in a way to add unique critical info. The difference in your example those are MAJOR virtues. Dance is not, proverbs is not. Good source =/= should be Lead material.--Inayity (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See Native American religion as an example. people and places, songs and dances, proverbs and wise sayings is very redundant. esp names of places and people. I mean that is mundane.

It's certainly notable since it's include in both the introduction to ATR in the pdf I posted and in the The Oxford Handbook Of Global Religions (which provide an overview of many religions including ATR). It does provide more info about ATR without removing what is already there. I also read many other books mentioning the linkage between African culture and African religion. What you consider mundane may be unknown to other people. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I dont hate it that much. Refine and hedge it. I think the people and places, wise sayings etc is just a joke. it is a endless shopping list of obvious. And I do not like generation to generation better ways for an encyclopedia. And you need to add immolation, cuz that is something major. And rites of passage I am pretty sure other editor (who deleted it) may delete it again. --Inayity (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Immolation is not mentioned in the sources and it's the first time I heard about such thing. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

sacrifice and libation is not part of African religions? [1] See my other concerns as opposed to put in that shopping list wholesale. compromise the list, because it is in a book does not mean it should be listed in the lead. --Inayity (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sacrifice and libation are part of the 'rituals' of ATR. DrLewisphd (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the section in the Wikipedia lead where concise summation was a factor in lead writing? Do you think listing all of those things is keeping with that? people and places, songs, proverbs AND wise sayings, why not add Proverbs, Maxims, and Wise sayings? I will not waste anymore time on this discussion. Let teh record reflect, that entire section should not be in the lead. I will wait for other OPInions. --Inayity (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead is veering back into gibberish with statements like "Native or folk religion may be syncretism alongside other faiths". It doesn't appear that the writer understands what those words mean, which will raise a red flag with readers that the content may be unreliable. It's also trying to be a Wiktionary entry with the opening line "Traditional religions of Africa refers to the indigenous beliefs and practices of people of Africa." I've tagged it for copy editing. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no issue with the opening because that is what every single book and ref says they are. Every last one. I have removed that line but it has been re-inserted, I will remove it as a 2:1 against. I refer to other articles on umbrella religious terms such as Native American religions (which are defined as organized). My suggestion as always is we gain agreement here (first) before major additions such as they are pass down in song, dance, words of wisdom. Despite the Dreditor saying let us use the talk page he has gone right ahead and added disputed material which has not been agreed. it does not help, because it has been disagreed with for a reason. That reason has NOT been resolved, then why is it back?--Inayity (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the content that I object to, but the fact that the content is often unclear. For some reason, in this article the text keeps evolving into a string of words with little discernible meaning. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you be specific in ref to the current version which has been trimmed?--Inayity (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not too bad now, except that it begins as a dictionary entry when this is an encyclopedia. See WP:DICT. — kwami (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

fair enough can you suggest what can be done to resolve this. b/c i am at a lost for what else to state in the opening. Unlike Islam, Judaism ATR it is a general umbrella, only general will do. and when stuff is added it gets cloudy. Maybe we should add Umbrella term for native African beliefs and ...?--Inayity (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people believe that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, or that Europe is a country. Those are beliefs, but they aren't traditional religions. Also, the article is not about its title, but about the subject. There's also way too much detail as to how they're passed down. "Oral" sums it up; details belong in the body. I'll work on it. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Beside the sources already mentioned, we can also refer to the book Introduction to African religion By John S Mbiti. This is also accessible through google book for those interested. Chapter 3 mentions "Where African religion is found" and goes in details about each aspect mentioned. The quote just provide an overview. Same thing with the Oxford Handbook of Global Religion, which mentions the same things. DrLewisphd (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am agreement, and would respect the reverts of DrLewisPhd (the current version) be seen as stable lead. Talk page and do not delete ref, while not adding any to make exotic statements about vodon being dogmatic. It is not helping, it has not helped.--Inayity (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Stable does not mean "what I like", it means "stable". You wanted to know how to clean up the badly written lead, so I cleaned it up. If you want to add more info, fine, but please don't revert to incoherent or unencyclopedic writing. Writing like that is one of the main reasons this article has been garbage for most of its history. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you use the talk page, esp when you see the rvt cycle. you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that, you are not only disrupting agreed edits you have inserted unref utter nonsense. If it has been garbage for most of its history, then WP:NORUSH and your complaints about what 2 editors have found acceptable hardly warrants YOUR version being the winner. esp when his is accurate and yours ver is not accurate (incoherent) and has no ref for some strange statements. So we can move on respect other peoples additions, esp when they seem to understand what a ATR actually is.--Inayity (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OR is back

"They include both organized dogmatic religions such as Vodun, and local ethnic religions without dogma or priests, often lumped together as animism." This is acceptable? A little better than the lede which stated (w/o) ref that they all predate Christianity and Islam in Africa? This is what is being put in an article on ATR while deleting referenced material, work by Kofi Asare and Opoku, Mbti, Oxford. At least Vodon has been now promoted to being organized, what are the others? Chaos? This Eurocentric tone is not represented by the references given by African scholars who actually might know their own continent. What animism, lumped by Who? Africans or the colonialist?--Inayity (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to challenge that, fine. But please don't put the rest of the garbage back in the article. It's bad enough that this article is neglected without purposefully making it a joke.

You obviously don't understand what organized religion is. Perhaps you should read up on the topic. Vodun is one of the few traditional organized religions. I'm sure there are more, but most local religions are not.

Yes, of course lumped together by outsiders, such as most of the people our readers would read. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

— kwami (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

We're back to crappy writing, so I put the cleanup tag back. Does purposeful crappy writing mean the author thinks the subject is crap too? It does seem rather insulting. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And don't delete the cleanup tag without fixing the problem. Or are you intentionally making a mockery of other peoples' religion? — kwami (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop using tags with 'crappy writing' as reason and your previous tag grammar and style problem have already been addressed and corrected and reliable sources demonstrated. That's why it was removed by the other editor. DrLewisphd (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you two are reverting to crappy writing and making the article look like a joke. It's bad enough as it is, no need to purposefully make it worse. — kwami (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to talk to you if you keep saying crappy writing without anything else. If you read the sources provided, maybe you will get a clearer idea. DrLewisphd (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And it's pointless to talk to you if you are more interested in mocking traditional religion than in improving the article. I've been trying to keep the crap out of this article for years, and often I was the only one doing so. I admit that I haven't done much to make an actually good article, but then it's not my field. I'd like to see some references for your claims and implications, however: That we know the number of adherents to within half a percent; that we don't know what the syncretism is with; that it's easy to estimate the number of adherents in the Maghreb; that traditional religion is a matter of people's names; that this is a Wiktionary entry rather that a Wikipedia article; that medicine is a belief system rather than a practice; that a supreme being is not a divinity; that spirits are not spiritual forces; that the super-natural forces are the ones our readers know about; and that rituals, songs, proverbs, myths, and names are not orally transmitted. If you can justify those claims, I'll accept your version; otherwise I have to wonder why you keep insisting on them. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there are no objections or better suggestions, I corrected the silly claims (like religion being found through the names of people), ungrammatical phrases, and misquotations that I found. I made incremental changes with explicit edit summaries; if you have a problem with one, please say why. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I already responded to your previous concerns by modifying some aspects of the article based on what you said. I don't mind any edit you made beside the removal of the intro and the Mbiti and Oxford sourced quote about where ATR can be found. They were both already supported by the other editors. The intro provided a good description of ATR and a good way to introduce the subject. A similar one is used by Britannica Encyclopaedia: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/973712/African-religions. They start their article by writing: African religions, religious beliefs and practices of the peoples of Africa.. Google search or book search show that it's a formulation often used to describe ATR. While the information about where ATR can be found are well sourced. If you read Mbiti books on the third chapter (and the rest of the book), you will understand better how ATR can be found in people's names. Since ATR are orally transmitted instead of scripturally other aspects such as art, rites, sacred places etc, have a bigger importance. This line provide a good overview of ATR and where it can be found. Which are explained more deeply in this wikipedia, Mbiti seminal book about ATR and other works. Read the sources provided. DrLewisphd (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine if that was what you had actually written. But your version is so twisted that it doesn't actually follow your sources: It uses the same words, but to mean something else. You can't have the bad writing if you refuse a tag to request copy editing of that bad writing. And if someone is willing to copy edit the article, you shouldn't revert it just because ... what? You haven't given intelligible answers to my policy-based objections above. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For one this article, is already your version. Almost all part of it were rewritten by you. I just added the 2 parts which were already there and agreed upon by the other editor. Give proper explanation beside crappy writing to justify removing any part of the article. In fact, it's all the contrary what is written is pretty close to the sources if you actually take the time to read the source (as anybody can since I think those are available through google books and at any library). Britannica has the same intro as this article, and what is written about where ATR can be found is very similar to what is written in the Oxford book on Global Religions (and Mbiti's book) (which are the 2 sources cited in the article). DrLewisphd (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we're arguing about the first sentence, which violates WP guidelines. Could you fix it? It has the form "X means Y", which means that our article is not about traditional African religion, but about the phrase "traditional African religion". That is, you've turned this from an encyclopedia article into a dictionary entry. Per WP:DICT, our articles are supposed to be about their topic, not about whichever word we chose for their title. (For example, the religion article starts off with what religion is, not by stating that the English word "religion" is a count noun derived in the 14th century from the French.) Would you please correct the wording so that it's encyclopedic rather than lexical?

Also, you put the word "indigenous" in italic type, which serves no obvious purpose, unless you're assuming that our readers are too illiterate to know what "indigenous" means. Contrastive emphasis would be appropriate if we were contrasting indigenous religions with imported ones, but we're only talking about the former. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that indigenous shouldn't be in italic (I don't know why the original editor used italic). Secondly, I didn't turned it into a dictionary entry in any way. All the contrary. Yes the first sentence gives a definition of ATR, but then the article add information about the subject. If you read: WP:DICT it says: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.. That's what this wikipedia article does. It begins with a good definition, a simple description, then provides other types of information. DrLewisphd (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A good definition of the topic, as at religion, not a definition of the word! That is inappropriate. I will give you some time to rework the first sentence to make it encyclopedic; if you choose not to, I'll delete it. It doesn't add anything anyway. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence do give a good definition/short description of the topic which is African Traditional Religion. I don't understand why you say it's inappropriate or not encyclopedic. It was already agreed upon by other editors. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica uses about the same first sentence... The tag you've put up is completely inappropriate for this article. DrLewisphd (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand. It's a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia definition. It does not define what African traditional religions are, it defines what the English phrase "African traditional religion" means. It's like Magritte's Ceci n'est pas une pipe. In general, we do not start articles with the formula "word X means Y". The only exception is when the article is actually about the word, and this article is not such an exception. If you don't know how to fix it, I do: Just delete the line, as it adds nothing to the article. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix. I don't agree with you placing a dict tag on this article at all. The first sentence defines what Traditional African religion are, then the rest of the article goes more into depth into the subject. Encyclopaedia Britannica uses about the same sentence/formulation to start their own article. Let's recall: WP:DICT it says: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.. Which is what this article does. I don't know about any exception for group of words/concept or something. Did you notice Encyclopaedia Britannica uses about the same first sentence too? DrLewisphd (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's some other wikipedia examples: Shinto Shinto (神道 Shintō?) or Shintoism, also kami-no-michi,[1] is the indigenous spirituality of Japan and the people of Japan.. Or Native American religion: Native American religions are the spiritual practices of Native Americans in the United States. It does what is said here: WP:DICT Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.. This is what those other wikipedia articles and this article does. Start with a good definition/description then provide other info. The dict tag is unjustified for this article. DrLewisphd (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are other examples of encyclopedic leads, of what this article should have. Instead, it has a dictionary definition. Come back when you figure out the difference; evidently explaining it to you doesn't do any good. — kwami (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain in what way those leads are any different and more encyclopedic than the current lead for this article. They seem pretty similar. And again, nothing said here: WP:DICT justify placing the tag you created on this article all the contrary it is mentioned that: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.. Which is what this article does. Start with a definition/short description then provide more info on the subject. You have not shown than this article contradicts any of WP:DICT guidelines, all the contrary. DrLewisphd (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I can say it more clearly. One defines a topic, as is appropriate for an encyclopedia, while the other defines a word (or phrase), which is appropriate for a dictionary. Encyclopedias are not about words, except in the few cases where argument about a word is itself a notable topic [for example, American (word)]. Our opening line defines the phrase "traditional African religion". It does not actually define what traditional African religions are, unlike the examples you brought. Note that the opening at Shinto does not talk about the word Shinto, but about the Shinto religion. (It does talk about the word in the 2nd paragraph, but not in the opening of the lead. It would be inappropriate to swap the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Also, editors judged that the word shitō has an etymology and history that is of interest, whereas here we have a transparent phrase that requires no explanation.) Whenever you say "X means Y" or "X refers to Y", you are talking about the word itself, not about the topic the word stands for, and such definitions of words belong at Wiktionary, not here. There are quite a few WP editors who go around correcting leads with dictionary definitions like this. If you or I don't fix it, someone else will.

Maybe part of the problem is trying to repeat the article title in the lead. There is no need to do that. It is commonly done when there is a set word for a topic, as at Shinto, but it is commonly not done when the title is a descriptive phrase, as it is here. Sometimes people twist the lead trying to get the title to fit in, which can make it awkward to read; this is one of the more common mistakes when writing the lead to an article.

And I have given the guideline this violates, several times: WP:NOTADICTIONARY. If you continue reading that, and the guidelines it links to, you'll find "An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns". That is, it's about the topic, not the word. It also says "A good definition is not circular, a one-word synonym or a near synonym", and ours is: It essentially says that traditional African religions are the traditional religions of Africa, which is useless. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Again what you show is that the tag you have put up makes no sense whatsoever. In WP:NOTADICTIONARY it is mentioned:Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic Which is what this article does, then provide more information. This guidelines: "An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns". Is not related to word or something like that but linguistic concerns are those found in a dictionary like pronunciation, gender, plural form, etc. Which this article doesn't (need to) provide. While the definition is not circular, or synonym. It's about the same one used by Encyclopaedia Britannica (the other source provided and a google search also gives the same results). Encyclopaedia Britannica provides about the same formulation to start their own article:African religions, religious beliefs and practices of the peoples of Africa.. Your tag is completely unjustified. DrLewisphd (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your inability to understand this. This is gradeschool-level logic. If you can't see the reason for the tag, then perhaps you should ask for a second opinion, someone who can explain it to you in a way you will understand. Maybe you can ask for clarification at the WP:DICT talk page? I was hoping you would be able to do this yourself, but since you can't, I will remove the tag along with the offending Wiktionary-style, circular, and semantically empty definition. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're just avoiding answering my reply and arguments to you above. I have shown that there's nothing in the guideline [WP:NOTADICTIONARY] to support your position. All the contrary. It would have been surprising because even Encyclopaedia Britannica have a similar formulation to start their own article about the subject(one of the cited sources).DrLewisphd (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't avoiding anything. I was simply stumped as to how I could simplify the point any further. And no, the EB does not do this: On the contrary, they are consistent with the WP guidelines that I've been trying to explain to you. But at the guideline talk page, an editor linked to another guideline page that puts it more explicitly: WP:REFERS. Does that clarify what I've been trying to say? — kwami (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you've minimally edited it so that it is not a technical violation of WP:REFERS, though it still violates WP:DICT. Now can you reword it so that it doesn't sound like broken English? — kwami (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being explicit about WP:REFERS (which is not guideline per se). What do you consider broken english in the intro? I used the singular form because the article title is singular and African Traditional Religion is most often used in the singular (one of the source provided also talk about the issue IIRC). And again, the [WP:NOTADICTIONARY] tag is completely unjustified for this article as stated above and should be removed. DrLewisphd (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Try reading it again. It says defs should not be circular or a synonym. Your def is circular and little more than a series of synonyms. Anyway, I'm tired of belaboring the obvious. If the tag goes, that line needs to go too, unless you are willing to fix it. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I already changed the aspect related to WP:REFERS per your suggestion (as well as many other aspects already, you're the one who almost rewrote the whole lead), then you say it's broken english and now you're talking about something else when asked about specifics. It's obviously not a synonym, it's the same definition used by many sources including the ones cited. A quick google/library search also confirms the issue. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica use almost the same formulation in their first line about African religion as stated above: African religions, religious beliefs and practices of the peoples of Africa.. Same as the other source (Studies in comparative religions): When we speak of African Traditional Religion, we mean the indigenous religious beliefs and practices of the Africans. You're grasping at straws. The dict tag should be removed and the quote should be maintained. It provides a nice introduction to the ATR topic. I don't know why you have reservation about it since it's almost the same definition/short description used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica to introduce the topic. It's certainly not in the spirit of the WP:DICT guideline to place such tag for the current article( WP:DICT is mostly for articles which are so limited that they only have a dictionary definition as the complete article, which is obviously not the case here). Maybe the issue should be brought to one of the noticeboards, if you still want to maintain the tag and your objection. DrLewisphd (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that definition is stupid. Okay, in a dictionary "African" may be defined as "of Africa", but here at WP that violates NOTADICTIONARY. "Region" and "religious beliefs" are essentially synonyms. The only ones that aren't close synonyms (though still close enough to appear together in a thesaurus) are "traditional" vs. "indigenous", but that pairing is factually incorrect: There are indigenous forms of Christianity and Islam that are not considered traditional African religions, as your sources note. So you have two synonyms and a falsehood. The entire line is useless. And what's the point? Are our readers really so stupid that we have to explain that "African" means "of Africa", that "religion" means "religious beliefs and practices", and that "traditional" means "indigenous", especially as it doesn't? The fact that you found a source with crappy writing does not mean we need to make our article crappy too. DICT calls for a "good" definition. We have a bad definition. — kwami (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I left you two alone praying that since I seemed to have caused the problem, me leaving would resolves the problem. I will not take sides but this is a fringe point (a nit pick). The def of ATR is provided by so many sources and this is what it is (we can get more to say the same thing). The def of Native American Religion is no different--go put a tag on there. I think we need to also avoid this language/tone of STUPID and CRAPPY (come on we are supposed to be professionals). Religious beliefs is a discrete way of identifying beliefs in a religious system. Hajj is a religious duty/belief in the religion of Islam. Tawhid is a religious belief in the religion of Islam. Mitzvah is a religious aspect of Judaism. religious beliefs collected in a bucket become a RELIGION. Either way, this lead is identical to all pan-religious groupings everywhere on Wikipedia. My challenge is to find an article on Wikipedia of a similar theme. (grouping religions of a massive continent, or diverse people) and show us a good example of NOT dictionary. --Inayity (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a Definition

We are assuming everything has a perfect def in space somewhere. African traditional religions (ATR) means Native religions of Africa. This means it does not include Islam, and Christianity in its definition which are also traditional. We are not describing a house, or a car, or a specific faith or theory. We are describing a term constructed by sociologist and anthropologist for studying religions which are very diverse and escape one specific tidy def. ATR does not mean Traditional African religions, as Islam is traditional and in Africa! So the name and its meaning are not Obvious. The def cannot rise above what the def means. We cannot clarify it beyond what is broadly means. It is a functional anthropological term. Now no one in Africa refers to their faith as ATR. It is not Vodon, it is not Orisha, it is not Serer. It is a broad classification of various native faiths of indigenous or largely indigenous composition. What do you want it to say? ATR are what? And on an un related subject look at the lede of Language is that good, all circular. Well i believe the lede of this article is far better than that. --Inayity (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to say anything. Saying nothing is preferable to saying something that makes us look stupid. Not every article has to fit the cookie-cutter shape of an ideal article. Twisting the lead to make it fit does a disservice to the topic and to our readers. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topical

By definition, this is partaining to African religious studies and or philosophy(ies), hence lets keep it bang on topic. Presently, have edited the lead to express this, it is common for majority of topics about African studies to get hijacked by fundamentalist of some sort but please lets respect ourselves and keep this on topic. Otelemuyen (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Vs Indigenous we need a note

It has always bothered me the confusion between Traditional and Indigenous. They are used synonymous--technically they are not the same. But in many ref they use ATR to mean AIR. Mbuti, makes a clear argument that the term "traditional" is erroneous, he is not alone (most new prog scholars clarify the term). And I think the lead should clarify that. Maybe by adding the word ATR is a term which is "sometimes" used to..., and then a note, or a section on the terminology. Because let us be honest, you cannot have Islam in West Africa from the 9-10th century and in North Africa (which is still part of Africa but seems to be excluded) from the 7th century and Christianity in Ethiopia in the 3rd and 4th C and tell me they are not Traditional. sidebar: Zulu people and their religion can only be as old as the Zulu formation, which starts with Shaka, if you factor in Bantu expansion even still it is younger. The problem is in treating ATR as One great Pan-African religion. --Inayity (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Terms mean what they're used to mean. You can't break them down into their components and take them literally. A dwarf planet is neither a dwarf nor a planet. South Sudan is not the south of the Sudan. The English language is named for the English, but that doesn't mean that Australians don't speak English. If TAR is the conventional phrase for the religious traditions whose roots predate Christianity and Islam, then that's what it means, and it does not mean that Christianity and Islam are not traditional. AFAICT, "traditional" is the term used for this third tradition.

How is Shaka relevant to Zulu religion? Did he start a new religion? These traditions have roots older than the modern nations which practice them. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I will give a ref to the sources, because words in English are not some divine structure, most linguist will tell you that words have all kinds of meanings. Words like Islamist and Jew mean dif things to dif people. And you will never find any RS ref that say they "predate" Islam and Christianity (that is nonsense), Traditional is a misnomer. Not even the Afrocentrics make that claim. I am 100% sure no one in 15th century Mali ref to something called ATR (it is something European anthropologist started). Shaka is central to Zulu identity and the religion that came out of that formation when it merged a plethora of pre-existing spiritual customs. (many papers on this) As for the problem with the term John deals with it here. Mbiti Since he is the foremost scholar on the topic of ATR I think what he has to say on the problem of terminology becomes notable. It is echoed across the discourse. --Inayity (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And on this note, Does the term even include North Africa b/c this article does not?--Inayity (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Mbiti calls it "African Religion" with a capital R. Per your argument above, this is incorrect because it means Coptic Christianity is not African. But really, whichever term is used in the lit is the term we should use. Mbiti may be the foremost authority, but whether we use his term would depend on whether his choice is generally followed in the literature.

Yes, North Africa is certainly relevant. But while there are traces of TAR in Islam, AFAIK there are no non-Judeo-Christian religions remaining in North Africa.

BTW, I'd like to see where he gets his numbers from. I always thought the figures commonly given for Xty in Africa seemed exaggerated, and many of the "Christians" I've met would not be recognized as Xian in much of the West. But this is the first time I've seen a claim that the majority of the population practices TAR. (Though he contradicts those numbers elsewhere.) But he also speaks of African Religion as "a" religion, which is nonsense, and speaks in general of traditional religion vs. world religions. So, according even to Mbiti, "traditional religion" is an appropriate term. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick Reply: I did not argue against the term wholesale, I just said we should make a note, because the term is confusing and deserves an explanation'--Inayity (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe, if we can ref sources which also feel the need to clarify, so we're not engaging in OR or SYNTH. But we define traditional religion as ethnic religion, which I would think should be clear enough. But a point maybe about how "traditional" does not mean "indigenous", if we can support it. — kwami (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If i knew nothing at all about Africa and religion and read this article my question is would i be clearer or still confused. Now since we here editing understand the topic we assume (big word) that it services the topic. I do not think Mbiti is a flawless scholar, for one he seems to ignore N Africa and Ethiopia (sometimes) and focuses on colonial Africa. But On this point of "traditional" Ali Mazrui also takes even deeper issue with it.--Inayity (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And I just noticed something is it ATR or TAR? per wiki name convention?--Inayity (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TAR makes more sense to me. ATR actually sounds ungrammatical for this context. TAR implies we're talking about African religions, and these are the traditional ones. That's the topic of books like Mbiti's. ATR implies we're talking about traditional religions, and these are the ones in Africa. But I've never known of a book that contrasts African traditional religions with American or Oceanic traditional religions. There are lots that contrast traditional African religions with imported or syncretic African religions. Analogously, I'd speak of "new African religions" rather than "African new religions". — kwami (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

But per WP:TITLE which one is more popular in scholarship etc circles.? I only know ATR,and these names (wherever they came from) do not always follow logic (per my original point) or good Englishgrammar. --Inayity (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Authors switch back and forth within the same text. Perhaps which sounds better depends on what their emphasis is at that point. But it seems to be the words which make the meaning, not their order. In Aloysius Lugira's book, for example, he chose African Traditional Religion for the title, but more commonly uses traditional African religion in the text (though there are both). ATR and TAR get about the same number of hits at GBooks. (TAR has a slight lead, but the results aren't very precise.) I can't tell if that's because authors are about evenly divided, or because nearly everyone uses both. I think it's not so much a set phrase as the context of religion that defines what "traditional" means, just as "African" means different things depending on context. In one book on TAR, the author makes a point that by "Africa" he means geological, biological, and linguistic rather than modern political Africa -- that is, up to the Zagros Mountains and Anatolian Plateau. That means that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all indigenous African religions in his view, but he still contrasts the world religions that were imported across much of the continent from the traditional religions which developed locally. — kwami (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the link for that book. Did he say Islam was traditional or indigenous? This is what I found further proving we need to clarify with a note. As he calls the new of African Christianity - indigenous. ref --Inayity (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, read it years ago on a different continent. Don't even remember the title. Yes, I'd agree that African sects of Xty would be indigenous. — kwami (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Use the talk page before altering the lead outside of agreement

Changing a lead created by the talk page process should not be reverted to a disputed version. Not only that but altering quotations and putting back in nonsense like "schools of thought" is inaccurate. This is not supported by references. It is not how we edit on Wikipedia. Please do not edit war.--Inayity (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The content has line-for-line citation, any reader can follow for reference, suppose you did not bother to check.

--Otelemuyen (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead is not fit for purpose, no offense; it reads like a narrative from another planet, unethical, un-African and more importantly inaccurate. Riddled with allegories.

While generalizations of these religions are difficult, due to the diversity of African cultures, they do have some characteristics in common.

Generally, they are oral rather than scriptural

undue blame!

While adherence to traditional religion in Africa is hard to estimate, due to syncretism with Christianity and Islam, practitioners are estimated to number 100 million, or 10% of the population"

estimation in the lead!?

This is a typical example of hijacking a topic to serve an unrelated purpose.

Otelemuyen (talk) 07:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your argument you will need to gain agreement on this talk page before altering the lead by yourself. Do you understand that point? Because this is how wikipedia works. You cannot go and remove agreed work without first using the talk page and gaining agreement to make these changes. So only after getting agreement can these major changes by added.--Inayity (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Afraid not so, this is so badly delivered that needs immediate attention. --Otelemuyen (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable to follow the rules of wikipedia then you should not edit here.WP:TPHELP The topic certainly does not require your personal opinion outside of consensusWP:CONS. I asked you not to edit war WP:EDITWAR but you continue to do so. As for "urgent" please read WP:DEADLINE--Inayity (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A self-proclaimed muslim, edit warring in a topic about African religion!--Otelemuyen (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I will suggest you limit your comments to how to make this topic better. Which you still have not done or even counter argued for. If you are unable to do so refrain from using this space.--Inayity (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Content has line-for-line citation, any reader can follow for reference, suppose you did not bother to check.--Otelemuyen (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you get consensus for this lead change? per wikipedia policy or are you an authority on the subject hence able to contravene Wikipedia policy. For example where in the ref does t say "school of thought"? Which ref gives the def you now have in the lead? which ref says "many Africans?". see the lengthy discussion on this talk page about fixing the lead. And what does this ref [2] have to do with ATR, it is a literary discussion.--Inayity (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Otelemuyen. Your changes do not strike me as improvements. This article is inadequate, but it has suffered a long history of horrible writing. If you want to make substantial changes, I suggest you do three things on this talk page first: Present the problematic areas, state why they are problematic, and propose your solutions. We might accept your changes, accept that they need to be changed but not to what you propose, or reject the need to change at all. However, a wholesale change will only be reverted, no matter how many times to make it, because we're unlikely to agree with everything you propose. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Otelemuyen. I think some of your change can be interesting, as long as they are backed by reliable sources. But I don't think they should be included in the lead. I don't think your edit add to the quality of the intro at all. But the overall article, the body of the article, about traditional African religion certainly need some improvements. I suggest to leave the intro as it is for the moment maybe add some of your sourced edits to other parts of the article. DrLewisphd (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In as much as the lead is meant to first introduce the reader to the article and later summarize its most important aspects, you seem to be expressing a misintepretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, the lead should briefly:

• define the topic
• establish context
• explain notability
• summarize

"...veneration of ancestors, use of magic, and traditional medicine".

use of magic: is definately unecessary.

"...due to syncretism with Christianity and Islam, practitioners are estimated to number 100 million, or 10% of the population".

The truth is that African religions have virtualy been around forever and therefore there are very minute cases of being under the influence of another religion and or culture, such is completely out-of place and does NOT follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Given this, neither Christianity nor Islam should be featuring in the lead of an article titled "Traditional African religion; rather outplaced.

Otelemuyen ^(talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

How I understand quality lead means we are loyal to the topic per RS sources. You will see Islam and Christianity mentioned because they are relevant. You are therefore offering your Personal POV not one which reinforces by ref given. all the ref esp Mbuti discuss Islam and Christianity relationship to ATR, why? Because they share the same space, the same continent and interact/compete/syncritize.refMbuti ATR are a serious minority in Africa that is key to the lead. ATR are also not one big religion and being "older" than Christianity or Islam certainly does not apply to all of them. Zulu religion for example is younger than Islam. And you have not actually explained how it "does not follow Wiki Manual", last point. Thanks for ending the edit war and using the talk page. --Inayity (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a distinction between traditional African religions, and indigenous African religions. Some of the latter are quite recent. However, even the older traditional religions have in many cases been influenced by Xty and Islam. I don't know of the Zulu case, but I have heard of others which are supposedly quite different than they were before those religions arrived. Also, any introduction to African religion will begin with the three great traditions: traditional, Christian, and Muslim, and then note syncretism.

I don't understand the point about magic. Why is it not appropriate? — kwami (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For the use of magic, it is mentioned in this Theology of "African Traditional Religion" course in Nigeria for example: LINK: http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/cth%20692.pdf It is said:Belief in Magic/Medicine Medicine in African Traditional Religion transcends of healing and encompasses wellness and wholeness. It may include the use herbs, water or oil to effect healing. However, it could also include offerings, prayers and sacrifices to divine super-sensible powers. The state of the mind is closely related to the health of the body in African medicine, both the psychological and the physical are intertwined. Magic is the deliberate appeal to metaphysical forces in the universe towards a chosen agenda. This often involves recitations of specialized formula by specialist in African mysticism. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

ATR Can exist outside of Africa due to the African diaspora

ATR are not confined to Africa. Vodon being a good example. it is in Africa and in Haiti. on and one. --Inayity (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's shouldn't be hard to find good reference about it as it is often mentioned. Brazil and Cuba are also well known. Some people also practice it as a minority in other countries such as the USA due to recent or not so recent immigration. DrLewisphd (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If Islam exit outside of Mecca then my argument is ATR exist outside Africa. Per Opoku [3]--Inayity (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

African traditional religion Def again

We go by sources. The sources says it is a term used to refer to ..... The ref by Mbiti Page 1 says the same thing. Let us stick to the sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not apply here. How could it? And I suggest you request for comments about the Dictionary thing b/c it makes no sense/. Let us take a look [[4]] so why try to force a wiki rule that does not apply. --Inayity (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're on the wrong web site. You want Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Your sources are perfect for that. If you don't understand the difference between a dictionary, which defines words and phrases (as you're doing), and an encyclopedia, which explains topics (which the rest of us are doing), then I suggest you take a look at WP:DICT. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

YOu are incorrect because 1. The ref define the term. And we cannot go beyond what the term means. 2. Can you please tell me why these Article starts like :

• Abrahamic religions (also Abrahamism) are the monotheistic faiths of Middle Eastern origin,
• Ancient Egyptian religion was a complex system of polytheistic beliefs and rituals which were an integral part of ancient Egyptian society
• Pan-Africanism is an ideology and movement that encourages the solidarity of Africans worldwide
• Native American religions are the spiritual practices of Native Americans in the United States.
• Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in
• Organizational theory is the sociological study of formal social organizations, such as businesses
• Judean et)hnos[3] is the religion, philosophy and way of life of the Jewish people
• Afrocentrism (also Afrocentricity) is a cultural ideology, worldview mostly limited to the United States and is dedicated to the history of Black people

So your argument is invalid, and is your own logic. Just show me a similar article that starts of like this one. And why is the link to ethnic religions altered to say traditional religions. Which is a. not true. b. not in the sources given. You see your argument is not answering my questions. It is fixated on WP:DICT but has actually not been able to explain it. But I have read it and know the difference, so explain yourself. Why are these articles and the examples are endless starting different to this one? ATR is a phrase, or term and is used in a specific way, the reader needs to know that. It is not African + Traditional + religion. It is African traditional religion (which is a specific way in anthropology, cultural studies, comparative religion) of grouping religions. Just like critical race theory is not Critical + race+ theory.--Inayity (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your examples prove my point: None of them start like "Ancient Egyptian religion is a term used to refer to the ancient religion of Egypt". It would appear you still don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary, among other things. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It would appear you do not get it. Why would Ancient Egyptian religion say that when it is NOT a term. Either way what is ATR? So we can sit down here and exchange silly remarks about who gets it and does not get it. Do you see the first word in every article starts with the The title of the article. This does not. or did you not see the pattern? What is ATR? is it a religion? A groups of religions? The first line of the lead does not tell you. According to the lead ATR are African traditional religions native to African people. (circular) --Inayity (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Good thing about Wiki is it is all recorded

This is the version for the last months [5] Not easy to hide from evidence. Not to mention all the talk above. But you just went and changed it to what you want against agreement and against 2 ref. BTW, I see my question about the circular nature of the lede has gone unattended, yet the POV is being pushed. --Inayity (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Title sounds like ONE religion when we are discussing Plural religions

copy and paste from Ip user years ago: I think it should be changed to "African Traditional Religions" (pluralized). I don't know how to do this. But the current title, "African traditional religion" suggests that there one single traditional African religion, which is clearly not the case. --Inayity (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is actually one religion, just followed differently by the people of various regions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us get serious now. And when you find the scholar (in religion, not Afrocentrism) who says from North - South - East- West, Desert- Jungle- temperate SA only have one big religion called TAR, hit me up with a note. --Inayity (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

New section on Terminology

I think we can agree from all the ref text and differing opinions. That we can represent them in a new section. I have kick started it and it is WIP, so please allow it to be developed. Please contribute so we can represent the issues outlined. As it is clearly a big debate point.--Inayity (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.africanbelief.com/ as a source

It seems like http://www.africanbelief.com/ is a blog see "About us" and should not be used as a reputable source- despite its claims to be "constantly reviewed by peers", From the About us:

"African Holocaust (Est. 2001) is a non-profit civil society dedicated to the progressive study of African history and culture. The society is composed of African scholars and writers, who share the desire to represent and restore an authentic, reflexive, honest, inclusive and balanced study of the African experience, past and present...We collate work from different areas of study, and use critical thinking to educate, empower and enlighten... African Holocaust Society does not at any stage advocate binary history or propaganda: The facts remain the facts, while the analysis is within African paradigms...African Holocaust does authentic in-house research. We use primary and secondary sources....We go direct to the politicians and sources for most of our content.... we have contributors and on-the-ground connections.... All of this research and information serves as the repository for African academics, think tanks, and progressive solutions for the African world. The site is constantly reviewed by peers for quality and adherence to the ever rising threshold we place on quality research/scholarship."

That is why I removed the reference. I do not think it should be used in any other part of the article either. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we must avoid making up new rules and criteria. Afrika world.com is a site which list a series of article by notable contributors Africanbelief is the same. A blog is defined here blog. --Inayity (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the name for it blog, weblog, etc. the point is it does not meet criteria for reliability:

"Are weblogs reliable sources?In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy.Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.Blogs may be used in certain conditions as secondary sources on living persons; see WP:BLP." The About Us for the source does not demonstrate any indicia of reliability. I removed the new section so we can continue the previous conversation. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would first appreciate if you not alter my edits on the talk page, you can create your own thread if you so please. Does not meet the criteria of a blog. The about page is not under discussion. The about page does not indicate anything bloggy, just a site which features contributions from established African authors. AllAfrica is a news site which has an about page, there is no difference, Pamaamburka . And that wikipedia proves it is not a blog, it is not a self-publish from Opoku, it is not updated , it is not blog hosted (wordpress), it has not pseudonymously. It list sources.

Okay let us not say "blog", the point is that this website does not meet the criteria for reliability for any source. This website is self-published as the "about us" explicitly sets out. This website collates material and acts as a repository for writers and scholars. This website is not reliable. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're arguing over the article, then we need to stick to good sources. A blog by a recognized expert in the field would be another matter. If there are such articles at this site, then we can cite them directly and use the link at the site so people can access them. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes if there are articles cited on the website let us include them in the article. Perhaps it can be a good resource for that, the website does seem to cover a lot of material. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I think Dr. Kofi Asare Opoku is very established on the topic. Now it would be strange that BBC sites Africkaworld as a source, Al-Jazerra cites Africanbelief as a source, and we ignore them. It would be very hard if sources were limited b/c they were not google or BBC. Not every source can be used for everything, but when I look at the statements I have no doubt that it is proper content. The same with Afrikaworld, which is the only site of its kind I have come across. Its content does not go against anything all of us are discussing. --Inayity (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not self-published. Opoku does not run the site, it is contributions by African scholars on a single Africa-focused platform,. And when a reader wants a comprehensive overview (for free) I am afraid you guys just deleted all the sites that do that. B/c by the same rationale. you will have to delete the rest of the ref which are not google books. And most books here have zero peer review and are out of print. It did not help the article. --Inayity (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that http://www.africanbelief.com/ shouldn't be used as a reliable source. There's many academic book and peer-reviewed studies written about African traditional religions. DrLewisphd (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)