Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 18 July 2012

Religion Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religions in Africa

Eritrea population is comprised of 45 percent muslims, and 45% christians, the map shows that Eritrea is mainly Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericandude (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism is a growing religion in Africa, and is wellknown in many counties, South Africa and Nigera for example. Many Africans have been ordianed as Buddhist monks and world-recognized teachers, Venerable Dhammarakkhita of Uganda, for example. Yet this aticle makes no metion of Buddhism at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.164.10 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dharmic and East Asian religions are growing in Africa. Why did you delete all my contributions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs)

The various messages on your talk page explain why. You needed to cite reliable sources for your additions, and only add information supported by reliable sources. You have failed to do that in various articles. Why did you ignore all those messages left for you? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But still, these religions are growing in Africa. All my conntributions were right. Look here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmrme4sozoI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGB0YNvaeV8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Youtube does not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines (which may be viewed here, or in the various ignored messages on your talk page). It does not matter whether your contributions are "right," what matters is that they are verifiable, see WP:Verifiability. Even then, your edits were not right. You claimed that Ashoka sent missionaries to Africa, citing indianhistory.com (which does not mention Africa) and historyfiles.co.uk (which does not mention Africa either). Indianhistory.com cites Misplaced Pages, which means that it is not a reliable source. Indianhistory.com and historyfiles.co.uk have no peer-review or editorial control, which means both sites fail our reliable sourcing guidelines. You also went off on a completely unrelated note claiming that Buddhism influenced Christianity, citing an article that said that Buddhism may have influenced Gnosticism, but not Christianity as a whole. You also cited a source on mountainrunnerdoc.com, which is not a peer-reviewed historical website, and not a reliable source.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. In short: your edits were not right.

Also, why have you ignored the messages left on your talk page? (It's linked right here, in case you cannot find it). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I know Thai people who are converting Africans to Theravada Buddhism everyday. And we all know Hinduism is a fast growing religion in africa, being the fastest in Ghana. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10401741 It's a well known fact that the Chinese has established Confucius institutes WORLDWIDE: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KH07Ad03.html http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100905072629973 http://college.chinese.cn/en/node_3821.htm http://www.focac.org/eng/zfgx/t724757.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is not verifiable and not used here. The BBC source only establishes that there is a Hindu prescence in Ghana, it does not say "fast growing." The other sources only indicate that Confucian institutes have been opened, they do not establish success.

Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Misplaced Pages) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

And again, it does not matter if your edits are "right." As I have already demonstrated, there were plainly wrong elements in them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, Bon, Taoism and Shenism are all present in Africa. http://taoism.meetup.com/cities/za/ http://www.southafricalogue.com/features/chinese-missionaries-find-a-niche-in-south-africa.html http://jainsamaj.org/rpg_site/literature2.php?id=2705&cat=40 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jainism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

People who travel to Africa will eventually know that all those religions I have written about is there in Africa.

animism

instead of saying They are deemed to follow animism, which is incorrect, there should be written that there are some animistic elements in african religions (which of course are to be found also in christianity etc.), but the term animism itself is wrong as a title for certain beliefs. the important thing is: elements! (but to be honest i don't know how to formulate it and i'm not a registered user...)

Animism is not the worship of animals, despite the existence of totem animals. Animism is the belief that everything has a spirit and the worship of those spirits. MusonikiMusoniki

Why are african religions called "animism" instead of "polytheism"? The belief in natural spirits liky nymphs, fauns etc. also existed in anciend greek, but nobody calles the greece religion "animism". I think the term "animism" is in the group of racist terminology including "tribe" (used instead of "people") and "dialect" (used instead of "language"). These religieons are politeistic, with some monotheistic component in that there is a very high creator god (often thought as neutral and neither good nor bad, in fact more abstract than the God of the Bible) and a pantheon of lesser "gods" which are thought to be created, i.e. part of the creation. This article needs a lot of work to be done. Nannus 22:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In one German dictionary about religions (Geschichte der Religionen, Edited by Günter Lanczkowski, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1972), there is a four and a half page article about African Religions. Interestingly, the term "Animismus" is not mentioned even once in that article. Does anybody have a good english source? Nannus 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

additions

Someone added some things to this article that i'm uncertain of the accuracy of, but then maybe there are things about African religions.

Gringo300 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Swahilis

I'm curious as to whether the Swahilis had another religion before Islam. Gringo300 09:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Addition to above post: I've read some things about Swahili religious beliefs that sound rather un-Islamic to me. Gringo300 08:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Amharas

I'm also curious as to whether the Amharas had a pre-Christian religion.

Gringo300 10:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The Amhara pre-Christian religion reverenced snakes as I recall. I think they had a fairly successful kingdom before Christianity so mixed in elements of Greek and Egyptian religion. This is going on memory, I'd be hesitant to write anything on it.--T. Anthony 01:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I recall hearing something about it also reverencing the sun. Gringo300 08:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Look for Saba and the Sabaeans. The writing system used today in Ethiopia and Eritrea is derived from that of the Sabeans. They had their empire in parts of Ethiopia and parts of southern Arabia (not yet Arabian at that time). Nannus 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Abacua and Palo Mayombe

Is there anybody on here who could write or at least start articles on Abacua and Palo Mayombe? About all I know about them is that they are both practiced by some Cubans, many of whom are known to have African ancestry, and reportedly Abacua involves burning candles in skulls. Not exactly enough for me to start articles based on. Gringo300 08:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at the article on Abakuá and on Palo (religion). You may also be interested in Santería.Nannus 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

all African ethnic groups

The biggest question I'm curious about is: did ALL African ethnic groups once have their own ethnic religions?

Gringo300 11:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

response to Abacua and Palo Mayombe

unfortunately, both Abacua y palo mayombe are very secret societies whose members protect (sometimes in a very violent way) their religious secrets as a matter of honor. Therefore, very little is known about either of this cults. there is a very vague description of their beliefs in this site. This information, although very biased towards mainstream christianity (http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Africa/Africa1.htm) offers a general synopsis of what these religions are. Many studies have been conducted on these religious groups with little or no results, and books have been published (as a result of incomplete research) which present speculations and conjectures as hard fact thus creating even more confussion in the subject.

Recommended page move

Recommending move from African religions to Religion in Africa. This is not only consistent with all the other "religion-continent" articles, like Religion in Europe (and even consistent with this very article, which uses an infobox at the bottom of the article linking to "Religion in Africa", which unfortunately redirects here rather than the other way around), but is also consistent with the Misplaced Pages article-naming style in general, which prefers "X in Y" over "Yan X", both because it's clearer and more specific ("African religions" could include any religions that people of African descent worship, not just people living in Africa, which makes this a racial rather than geographic listing, which is not the intent and is inconsistent and biased) and because the adjectival forms of many place-names are irregular or ambiguous. I see no reason to have; it's almost demeaning, since it suggests that every religious practice in Africa is part of a single, massed "African religions" (unlike "European religions", which are individualized enough to not belong in such an article title, right?) rather than consisting of a highly distinct and diverse range of beliefs.

Any comments, agreements, disagreements? -Silence 17:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how well your suggestion works mainly because Religion in Africa could just as easily mean any practiced faith with the continent. I think the original author is looking for a more "ethno-original faiths of Africa" piece but without such an awful phrase. Not sure what that might be but I do agree it's an interesting start for a fascinating entry. PhilipPage 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "original faith of Africa". Even the most ancient of currently-existing African faiths are at most a few thousand years old, the truly ancient religions and myths having long been supplanted or reconfigured by more recent religions. Arbitrarily picking certain religions as "African" and excluding others that have just as much, if not even more, influence on Africa both in history and today, such as Islam, is deeply biased and a violation of WP:NPOV. For the exact same reasons, a "European religions" article that attempted to distinguish "real" or "native" European religions from later migrants would be fundamentally biased, because any such distinction would necessarily be arbitrary. Likewise for "Asian religions", "Australian religions", etc. The best way to handle this article is to move it to Religions in Africa and then discuss all noteworthy, major, and influential religions in Africa's history, regardless of where or when they originated. Simply using separate sections to divide the older from the newer (as I did to some extent in Religion in Europe, for example) is an infinitely better solution than trying to label certain religions as "African" and others as "non-African". -Silence 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've simply pounced on what I admitted was a dreadful phrase and held it against me. What a rotter! I still think the original author was looking for something more specifically related to an area of interest which I'll not attempt to label. PhilipPage 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to start a page called "African traditional religion", at the request of ZyXoas (who's currently posting via my talk page from a mobile phone! The joys of not having email to hand...). Having read the above, I'm inclined to think we have two pages here:

• African traditional religion, containing much of the current page + ZyX's material (view at User talk:JackyR#African religion), and akin to Chinese folk religion. One of ZyX's comments is the perfect opening line: "African_Traditional_Religion is the term used to talk about the remarkably homogeneous, complex, yet intuitive religion shared by most Sub-Saharan African societies."
• Religion in Africa, akin to Religion in Europe: a survey of religions practised in the continent of Africa.

• I agree. I would not oppose an article like "African traditional religion" to discuss traditions more indigenous to Africa. But my point was that such an article would necessarily be a sub-article of "Religions in Africa", since traditional religions are a type of religion in Africa. So, my recommendation is to move African religions to Religion in Africa and then create a section of that article called "Traditional religions" or "Indigenous religions" or similar, which will discuss and link to the vast wealth of native African spiritual beliefs and religions. Then, if this section of the article grows large enough (I'm thinking over 2 pages long at minimum, on its own), we will make a daughter article specifically devoted to the indigenous religions, and leave a summary (summarized, but still at least around 3 paragraphs long) on this page. This would be more effective than rushing off to split the page because it would lead to a more consistent and integrated series of articles, and would centralize our efforts more on improving both versions, rather than splitting the editorial taskforce and possibly marginalizing one of the two articles from receiving much-needed attention. Once both articles are full-fledged articles with plenty of content to stand on their own, dividing the two topics will be merited, but at this point I feel it would be premature and would cripple both topics. (Another reason this is a good idea is because, though China is certainly a massive and ancient area of the world, Africa is a much larger area than China, with a much more ancient history and a much larger diversity of religious traditions; trying to pack all of those into a single article is barely any smaller of a task than that of catologuing all religions of Africa.) -Silence 19:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(de-indent) Hmm. It looks like someone has jumped the gun and created African Traditional Religion. I agree that the articles should be developed in co-ordination, and if one were working top-down, your idea is the obvious one. But if there already is an article on ATR, then I don't see the need to merge and then de-merge it. If there's demand for the ATR article (and its daughter articles as it grows), then editors are going to work on it anyway: you can't stop them. All we can do is manage the articles so that they work together.

I should admit I'm biased here. I love WP because voices which are usually the least heard get to write it. So articles are built bottom-up and then tied together. An overall vision for a topic is wonderful, because it greatly improves co-ordination: but to construct a topic top-down means we're in danger of dismissing the two-line contributions which have built so much of WIki, because they "don't fit the plan". I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, but I have seen it begin to happen on other "distance-written" articles, which are beautifully written and formatted - and highly resistant to one-liners from locals who live the subject rather than read about it... JackyR 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is a hodgepodge of partial truths and partial inaccuracies. You should not consider merging other pages into it until and unless it develops more coherency and accuracy. MusonikiMusoniki

Yep, this article is completely dum, but ATR is a bit disappointing too, you did read Mbiti, right? I'll try to see what I can do to it now. If I do change it, I'll leave messages on the talk page. NO MERGE. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the merger. There should be two articles, the "Religion in Africa" article including references to Islam, Christianity etc. and the special varieties of these religions in Africa etc., as well as references to African religions (including ancient ones). The article on African religions should, on the other hand, describe the traditional religions existing in Africa before the introduction of Islam, Christianity and some other recent arrivals. Why should these religins be denied their own article. Such an article makes sene, since many of these religins share some common traits like, for example, the belief in a supreme creator deity. From there, articles about specific religions can be referenced, including religions of the black diaspora in other parts of the world (like brazil and cuba). The current article, by the way, is in a very bad condition. It does not cite any sources. Nannus 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should be moved or renamed. But thinking about it religions in Africa would be very broad an really Islam and Christianity in Africa are too big to be mixed in a space that should be given to the "local" religions of the various regions. I think the problem is using the word "traditional" (see below). The section on religions in Africa would have to include ALL. Maybe it is best left where it is. One serious point raised here is to appreciate very few religions in Africa are more than 1000 years old so in some cases like the entire Ifa tradition is, in Africa, no older than Islam in Africa. So the local aspect of the faith has to be the focus (unique to Africa). And trying to isolate the faith by rituals is impossible as Sufi Islam in Africa is equally Africanized.--Halaqah 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

traditional and Indigenous

Often and mistakenly so the terms traditional, indigenous and classical are merged into one understanding as it relates to African culture and history. It is a fundamental mistake as it warps and limits a true understanding of Africa and its many complex international relationships thus restricting and confining African history and culture. Traditional As these words relate to the religion, Islam becomes a traditional African religion, which exists in classical and contemporary Africa. It is often said by scholars and historians that Islam has been in Africa longer than it has been in any other part of the Middle East (bar Mecca in Saudi Arabia). True also, Judaism and Ethiopian Christianity have also been in Africa for such a long period that in certain places (and this is key) there are traditional African religions. This does not mean that all forms of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are classical or traditional. And hence terms like traditional African Islam are fundamental in defining the African reality in classical African and contemporary history: Just as Christianity traditional to Rome is starkly distinctive from Christianity local to Ethiopia. Fundamental ingredients embody the essences of these religions in Africa, which makes them traditional, and this must be recognised in any constructive appreciation of African culture and history. Indigenous Indigenous is a word that can only be used to relate to something fostered by that community which claims it. Because something is indigenous to Africa does not make it traditional or for that matter classical. Indigenous thus does not by default speak to a people’s legacy only to the fostering of that item.

The Census and Traditional African Religion

What is lacking in this article is the census figures of adherants of traditional African religions. This is particularly salient given the decline in the number of formal adherants of traditional religionists in the continent since the 1980s due to increased Christian evangelism. What is also lacking is reference to and description of the persistence of traditional African beliefs amongst those who would otherwise be classified as nominal "Christian" or "Muslim" for census purposes. I believe that these two points would add rigor to the entry. --Dipendra2007 15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Does anyone know how to fix up the referencing? There seems to be 4 references in the article but only 3 provided. Also, the references are mixed with tags and contain a lot of pointless information.

And regarding the last edit, as I don't know what the reference '4' is from I don't know whether the edit was legitimate regarding the Western Africa estimates. --Ali M Saad (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 9 is broken as well. Faro0485 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Eritrea/Ethiopia

What's up with the map? In northern Ethiopia, the majority of the population are Orthodox Christians. In the Eritrean highlands (bordering Ethiopia), the vast majority are Christian as well. With the lowlands being predominantly Muslim. The overall split of the population in Eritrea is 50/50, but it'd be easy to fix this map since in the highlands, the vast majority are Christian.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.176.220 (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Sources and Numbers

Two sections, "Abrahamic religions" and "Islam", give the same source, but with different, conflicting numbers. What's more, the sentence cites the "World Book Encyclopedia", but after clicking on the references, the reader finds they cite the same Encyclopedia Britannica page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.129.215 (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

"Judaism also has roots in Africa, due to the time the Israelites spent in Egypt before the Exodus".

What sort of joke is this?

Traditional belief practiced alongside Abrahamic religions

I think it's easy to find many references to that phenomena in Africa. Many adherents of imported Abrahamic religions in Africa practice it alongside their own tradition belief. Here's one of the many quotes about it:

One reason for the religious tolerance displayed in Africa may be that its traditional religions are polytheistic (sic). Foreign gods can easily be incorporated into the local belief systems, and since different ethnic grups have always had different religions system as well, there's nothing novel in the idea of multiplicity of religions.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=B8wmGpg9nf0C&pg=PA107&dq=alongside+traditional+religions++africans&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A_gHT7D_CY2XtwfB8dXRBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=alongside%20traditional%20religions%20%20africans&f=false 76.71.205.215 (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ip editor, that is not the issue, the article already covers that under syncretism. The issue I have is one of weight. What is seen in Africa is not unique, not special and certainly not peculiar. Its a worldwide reality from India, to China to Brazil and even in North Africa and Liban. It is also true for much of what is called Xmas, its a pov which tries to make Africa look like "oh they are not pure". In addition to that it is actually not factual, there is no mass degree of mixing relative to anywhere else. Ethiopian Christians find it taboo to mix with the Oromo rituals, Muslims in Sudan and Nigeria are very fired up about what they call Bidah. Actually it was Uthman Dan Fodio who was so angry at this he clean up the place. And again we say this with Askia and many other Islamic reformers. The same thing happened in Saudi Arabia with the Wahabi movement. All proving this is a perspective and not a fact, it is also a weight issue as it tries to generalize Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. It's a widespread phenomena in Africa. It's easy to find many references about it. 76.71.205.215 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is already covered and there are many reference to say that there are Cannibals in the Congo. Many references to say it is also an aspect of the world esp. Europe. Now go and add it to the article on Religion in Europe. And please do not revert my edits again. the talk page has not resolved the issue. Regardless of your POV I have told you it is already in the article, it is in the 1st line of the lead and repeated again, it doesn't need to be explained every time Abrahmic is mentioned. It is undue weight.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cannibals in the Congo? Why do you talk about that? 76.71.205.215 (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You will be report for edit warring. It is already in the article and does not need to be repeated over and over again. you have no serious references to generalize the entire continent of Africa. It is already mentioned twice and will be removed. Adding to this the majority religious split is referenced by CIA fact sheet and other agency which only report on religion (not degrees of religion)- No quantifiable data exist to generalize the entire continent of Africa. And again for the 20th time the consideration of blending is in the first line of the lead. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To that I'd add that many communities in Africa were actually already monotheistic prior to their adoption of the Abrahamic faiths. There's also evidence that many aspects of the Abrahamic religions themselves grew out of traditional beliefs held by the larger Afro-Asiatic speech community. That's partly why the Abrahamic creeds are sometimes described as "Afro-Asiatic religions" (e.g. ). So the passage generalizing polytheism doesn't apply across the board in any case. Middayexpress (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't revert, its true and an important aspect of the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.207.58 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion but there is a majority disagreement and hence it cannot be included, please respect how wiki works and disengage from your disruption to the quality of this article. You might not have noticed but you are also deleting valuable agreed upon content. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not my intention76.71.207.58 (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Then stop doing it, how can you be right and everyone else wrong. You have just violated the 3rr rule and will be blocked. If you undo what you have done I will not report it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The current version include all part that were there before but add this information about Africa often keeping traditional belief alongside Abrahimic religion practice. It's unlike what happens in the USA (Wiki keeps an US perspective on things). I was looking for information about Abrahimic religion in Africa and found it odd that this well known fact wasn't mentioned. I didn't want to delete anything. It only add to the knowledge of Abrahimic religion practice in Africa. Please allow other people to make contributions when it's true (as you admitted). Thank you. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Polytheism is an aspect of religious practice in Africa, but in only some communities. In others, it isn't at all and never really has been. As indicated, some communities were already essentially monotheistic prior to their adoption of the Abrahamic faiths. Many characteristics of the Abrahamic religions themselves also evolved out of earlier Afro-Asiatic beliefs (c.f. ). Generalizing polytheism to the entire continent obscures this. Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for a week while you work this out. If you can't solve it on your own, please use dispute resolution. I'll watchlist the page to see how things are going and advise as necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see a page altered by an ip editor, a page edited by numerous experts on the subject, yet 2 editors have restored the edits to the agreed upon version, and request the ip editor use the talk page. Unknown reasons now suggest it is the established editors that must accept a version which not only knocks out critical stat information, but supports a edit warring unknown contributor-- someone with zero ties to the development of wikipedia or this article. This not only threatens the wiki standards but serves as a poor way to sort out an issue.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Halaqah asked me to comment here, concerned that I had protected the wrong version. In fact, that's exactly what I did--admins, by definition, always protect the WP:WRONGVERSION. If you follow that link, you'll see that no matter which version I pick, one side will certainly think it's the wrong version, so admins usually just protect the current version (unless there's some major problem with it, like a WP:BLP problem or copyright violation). Please note that I am not in any way endorsing the current version--I honestly don't care one way or the other. And if the IP refuses to engage in dialogue and consensus building over the next week, then I fully support the article being reverted to its pre-dispute state until such time as constructive dialogue takes place (including through the use of blocks or semi-protection as needed).

As to the dispute itself, looking at both the talk page here and the article history itself, I don't see any consensus whatsoever. Instead, I see 2 edit warriors, both (IP and Halaqah), both of whom I could have blocked for edit warring; I figure protection is a better method than that. Furthermore, on the talk page here, I also don't see consensus--I see an ip editor providing good faith suggestions, and 2 editors disagreeing with that person. 2-1 does not a consensus make, at least when the 1 person isn't being tendentious and isn't proposing policy-violating changes.

So, what do you do now? Keep talking. If you can't sort it out among yourselves, start a request for comment (let me know if you don't know how to do that). Or ask for more input at a relevant Wikiproject (probably WP:WikiProject Africa and/or WP:WikiProject Religion). Like I said above, I'll be watching, and I'll try to provide help where I can (without actually involving myself in the actual content issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'll add another point to: if the IP editor doesn't start responding here in the next few days, I'll make the revert myself--again, I want to be clear that it is mere chance that this is the version that was protected; it was not an endorsement of the IP's version. IP, please provide some more sources to establish that "African people often combine the practice of their traditional belief with the practice of imported Abrahamic religions." is 1) true and 2) so widely held to be true that it deserves a high level of weight by being the first sentence in the Abrahamic religions section. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even take deep info on Africa (54 + countries, 1000s of languages, 1000s of ethnic groups, 100s in Ethiopia alone, From The North Africa to South Africa, deserts, mountains, snow, lakes, complete different language families Bantu , Afro-Asiatic, Arabs, Indians, radically different histories, History of Ethiopia vs. History of Southern Africa. to then understand you CANNOT generalize the continent of Africa. The one thing wikipedia should be is a quality resource for information. Not the rehashing and sweeping generations based upon opinion-- it is a vulgar distortion. How can you claim that mixing of religion is unique to Africa that it should be repeated so much in one article? because it gives the reader the impression of a unique event (weight). You get one or two books that simplistically say "Most Africans mix religion", this is an opinion it has nothing to do with the CIA stats that say 45% Christian 45% Muslim for example. And even Jews. They cannot quantify this opinion, it is an anthropological observation of communities that do-- like everywhere else. Not only is it subjective but confuses culture and traditional healing practices as religion. So because a Christian in SA goes to the Muti healer for his finger-- he is mixing. African Judaism evolved in EThiopia and it would be unique, how are they mixing - when the current variant with all its rituals is a form of Judaism? Sufi Islam would have been influenced by many local beliefs, but it is called Sufi Islam for the last 1000 years. How can you remove hard stats in a section with "Oh but they mix", it is not the job of this article to debate if the 45% Muslims are "REAL Muslims", or "Pure Christians." And why would Africa be unique? Why would there be "mixing" in Ethiopia (as some unique event) which was one of the 1st Christian states in the world? Mali and Nigeria have had Islam for over 1000s years these religions are not brand new. Why would Africa be different to everywhere else? I actually find it ridiculous to discuss Abrahamic faiths and dare mention "they mix" that is a serious weight issue. See also opening statement of Africa's own orthodoxies. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

These are some very reasonable positions. I hope that the IP will respond to them, with reliable sources and relevant arguments. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just added some relevant information above. Especially about the deletion of the portion of the text which I left in the last edit. It's unlike what happens in the USA (Wiki keeps an USA perspective on things) and Europe. It is a true information that add to the knowledge of Abrahamic religions practice in Africa. Here's a reputable book on African religion mentioning it.

When Africans are converted to other religions, they often mix their traditional religion with the one to which they are converted.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=4wL0y9fUEB8C&pg=PA15#v=snippet&q=%22often%20mix%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please reply to what I wrote, The issue has never been that some Africans mix- ]that aside it is cannot characterize all members of the Abrahmic faiths in Africa, I am sure some Europeans mix when they converted to Christianity. and and there are limitless books which suggest the current religion in Europe is also "mixed"). But that does not mean in the article Religion in Europe that you replaced the demographic Christian majority with a quote "Most European are Christian but mix with Pagan customs" . With regard to the book by a Kenyan priest talking about colonial Africa and conversion in a vague causal way but not Ethiopia, Not Sudan, and not Islamic Africa. For e.g. What are the Amhara mixing with when the earliest record is of them as Christians? It is undue weight on a subjective opinion which disqualifies the religious integrity of millions of people in Africa who are Jews, Christians and Muslims. And if mixing is so significant where is it here ] and in the Jewsarticle, or in Christianity in Ethiopia? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a real phenomena in Africa you already acknowledged above. There's already some source of it in this article. It adds true information about the Abrahamic religious practice in Africa. It's not about the religious integrity of anybody or whether or not it is permitted in those religions (it must be in Africa to some degree, if it's done). I don't know why you are saying that. It's about providing information. 90% of the people practice Abrahamic religions but often alongside traditional belief. It is true. It's part of the same idea adding information about it. So in this case the 40% 45% is not exclusive. It's an important information to know. Here's an article (from AFP) mentioning it:

US study sheds light on Africa's unique religious mix

The vast majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa are deeply committed to the world's two largest religions, making the region one of the most religious places in the world, according to the study by the Pew Research Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Traditional African beliefs have been incorporated into Africans' Christian or Muslim belief sets, according to the study, for which Pew researchers surveyed 25,000 people in 19 sub-Saharan African countries between December 2008 and April 2009.

"It doesn't seem to be an either-or for many people. They can describe themselves primarily as Muslim or Christian and continue to practice many of the traditions that are characteristic of African traditional religion," Luis Lugo, executive director of the Pew Forum, told AFP. I also didn't remove anything from the wikipedia article in my last revision after telling you it wasn't my intention. In short, it is true information that adds the the knowledge of Abrahamic religions practices in Africa.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpKESvthJtQeyjk57vyzOnY5l9cg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

76, I have a question/suggestion: isn't it possible that it might be better to keep that information, but not have it as the very first sentence of that section? As in, would you be willing to compromise by moving it somewhere else? Remember, part of the Halaqah's concern here isn't the information, but where you're trying to put it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

On that thought, I propose switching the first 2 sentences as a compromise. So the text would read. The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. African people often combine the practice of their traditional belief with the practice of imported Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions religions are widespread throughout Africa. They have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems. It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is already covered in the first sentence of the lead, - And You are not actually dealing with my points. adding it here does nothing for the topic of Abrahamic faiths which are based on statistics. It gives the reader a false impression about the religious nature of Africa. I have catagorically demonstrated the lumping of a diverse continent is invalid. I have shown how you could equally say the samething for Europe-- but you would not put in a section on Christianity in Europe. It is a weight issue. Even your own reference says they are very religious. And it is true. Africans take Islam and Christianity very seriously, so much so (or in my opinion too much so) the statement of them mixing is contradictory because they are very adverse to it. Hence why John Mbiti was blasted by other African Christians for his tolerance. Muslims in Africa see Serer people see native beliefs as deeply taboo. I am not sure the ip is understanding my point at all. Mixing occurs, like everywhere else, not unique to Africa. Hence it is undue weight. Abrahamic faiths opening should stand as it is, by stating the demographic, not the quality of Islam or Christianity - based on some exotic reference or opinion of US survey or a vague line by a priest- which is not an authority on islam or Christianity to determine the religiosity of an entire continent. And please note these are subjective "theological debates" not academic ones. I have also given reference to David Robinson who said Africa have their own orthodoxies which evolved as Islam was Africanized. Therefore what is Islam in Senegal is African Islam, not Islam with pagan habits. Just like Christianity is European Christianity, not Christianity with pagan personalities. Islam and Christianity came to Africa by many routes. Over 1000 years in Ethiopia, dont diminish that and lump it with colonial Kenya. Dont b diminishing Judaisms long history in Africa. Islam in Mali predates Pakistan, the Swahili people are an Islamic people - so no religion to mix with. Abrahmic faiths in Africa are not ALL 5 minutes old or the result of "recent Conversion by a foreign agent".

And I dont want to get into it but for background you will find what is happening is someone has a "standard of Christianity" and where Africa seems to vary (in a Eurocentric outlook) from that standard they call it "Mixing", thus keeping the notion of a "pure" Christianity. As stated before (just for background) if i go to the Muti doctor, does that diminish my Christianity? They say we African mix by doing so. Deal with these points and stop throwing references around, the dispute is not about that. If it is mentioned it should be no where near the top, and the balance added. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph above implies that there is a single African people that adheres to the same vague set of beliefs. There obviously isn't. Only some of Africa's diverse populations combine traditional beliefs (which often aren't the same, by the way) with imported Abrahamic faiths. As Halaqah has explained, others fairly strictly adhere to Abrahamic principles, retaining arguably only faint traces of syncretism; certainly no more than elsewhere in the world. As for many of the continent's Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples, numerous core Abrahamic practices aren't entirely foreign to them in the first place (please refer again to this book). The bottom line is, such generalizations only serve to overemphasize practices that in many cases don't apply at all. A more nuanced approach is required. Middayexpress (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And also notice the USA ref he uses is limited to a few countries in West Africa. it also discounts the Nubian people(who were Christians and then Muslims), the Swahili people(Who have always been Islamic), Christianity in Ethiopia, Islam in Senegal, and African Jews - to name a few.. complex histories of people who had Abrahamic faiths for 1000s of years, ET alone had Islam for 1400 years, Mali for 1000, that's a long time! and Judaism even longer. Cant generalize what happened under Colonialism as the "norm for Africans" - including North Africa. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The citation actually doesn't even appear to discuss North Africa. Middayexpress (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Its the entire issue of how Africa is viewed through a colonial lens, "there are no written scripts in Africa", "everyone in Africa plays drums and does vodoo dancing" type generalization. You cant sum up Africa in 3 simplistic lines. God forbid you deal with North Africa and its ethnic diversity- but just call them all Arabs. See the Pew report which makes the identical claim about MOST Americans it cute but not notable. Notice how it also fails to understand as Middayexpress said some customs are common to both, sacrafice is part of Islam as well as many African faiths, you cannot then say they are mixing because they believe in evil spirits (as the report does), so then what is a jinn? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it's already covered in the first sentence of the lead, but it add information about the Abrahamic religions practice in Africa. It is true and add information. It provides the information that while true that 40%, 45% people in Africa practice one Abrahamic religion or the other, they often practice it alongside traditional belief. So the 40% and 45% are not exclusive. Something relevant to the subject of Abrahamic religious practice in Africa as anybody who read about Religion in Africa would/should know. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source that says 40% and 45%? mix? and please read what I and others have wrote, you are talking the same stuff over and over again. It is not relevant if it is not unique to Africa or religion - everyone does it per your own Pew report. and is subjective and cannot be quantified. Hence the objection is WP:WEIGHT. And no it is NOT true that most do it, I said it happens-- like everywhere else. If it is so common and unique then why is it not in all the other African and religion articles I listed? Major claims need Major sources.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't use the word "most" so that angle is moot. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

76, I have to agree with Halqah here: you're not really advancing your position, nor are you even addressing the key issue. First, all you keep doing is saying "it's true". That's not enough--you need to provide reliable sources; in this case, you need to provide several, and they need to be very broad and strong, saying clearly that this is a major issue in Africa. Second, you need to demonstrate through these sources that the issue is so important, and has such a dramatic effect on the way that Christianity and Islam are practiced in Africa that it belongs in such a prominent place. If you can't produce such references, then I regret to say that your change appears to not meet Misplaced Pages's policies (specifically, WP:V and WP:NPOV). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There's already 3 sources at the beginning of the article and I provide 3 more above on this talk page. Including Mbiti's seminal book, African Religions and Philosophy. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's more:It is difficult to give accurate figures about religious beliefs because people often mix their religions. Many who are Christian or Muslim may continue to follow some of the religious practices of their ancestors.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=dMcBcoEm8-oC&pg=PA70&dq=%22often+mix%22+african+traditional+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6mcNT6OiBoSbtwfkoazgBQ&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22often%20mix%22%20african%20traditional%20religion&f=false76.71.204.23 (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

People's of Africa does not appear to be a reliable source--it looks like a high school textbook. Human rights in the Commonwealth doesn't say they mix religions regularly--it says they can, not that they usually do. In any event, I'm not interested in getting into all of the details. What I can tell you, administratively speaking, is that your sources don't appear to be sufficient, and that at this point, since you are in the minority, you're going to need to produce something better. You're also going to need to pursue dispute resolution. I recommed starting an request for comment, which will allow other, uninvolved editors to comment on the issue.

Unless something changes dramatically within the next 24 hours or so, I'm going to drop the full protection on the article. At that point, it will be fine for Halqah to revert the IP, and I'll consider further attempts to force the article to your version to be edit warring, which will result in me blocking your account. Of course, I'll still gladly help you pursue this issue further through our appropriate channels (RfC, contacting Wikiprojects, mediation, etc.). So while the issue isn't "finished", its now up to you (76...) to do something to show that your version has consensus, or hammer out a compromise version. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not really reliable as an administator. Just before you say: 76, I have a question/suggestion: isn't it possible that it might be better to keep that information, but not have it as the very first sentence of that section? As in, would you be willing to compromise by moving it somewhere else? Remember, part of the Halaqah's concern here isn't the information, but where you're trying to put it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Which I did propose. Then you say, it's finally the information that is the problem that is sourced 3 times at the beginning of the articles, futhermore 5 times here on this talk page, including a recent survey of 25000 people in Africa and Mbiti well respected book of African religions. If we shift goal post constantly, we will go in circle in the talk page. My assertion is already proven 3 times at the beginning of the article and 5 times more here. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to move it one sentence down. However, my apologies if you thought I was misleading. I was actually wondering if it might be better moved elsewhere in the article. In any event, like I said, you should probably try pursuing dispute resolution. Let me know if you need help. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're sorry but you are also shifting goal posts. Hence making this talk page go in circles. The information is already sourced at the beginning of this article and I added many sources here. The other editor already admitted that it was true. If we do that we go in circle. I dare for anyone to find reliable sources contradicting what is already included in this article and further sourced in this talk page. It is indeed true and proven and does add information about Abrahamic religions practice in Africa. It add relevant information to the fact that the majority of African practice Abrahamic religions by noting that the practice is often mixed with traditional belief. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is some more:

'Even though the two religions are monotheistic, most African Christians and Muslims convert to them and still retain some aspects of their traditional religions.' In Transitions and consolidation of democracy in Africa By Samuel Ebow Quainoo

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-IDfqT6589kC&pg=PA40&d#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some more: It is difficult to give accurate figures about religious beliefs because people often mix their religions. Many who are Christians or Muslim may continue to follow some of the religious practices of their ancestors. In Peoples of Africa: Burkina Faso-Comoros By Marshall Cavendish Corporation

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-IDfqT6589kC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some more: This recognition had two major consequences. First, it fueled the rises of religious syncretism, with Africans drawing substantially from their own indigenous cultures in attempts to customize the newly adopted evangelizing religions of Islam and Christianity. Those two developments would have major significance for the continuing role of religion and the newly-emergent African in the post-colonial state. Regarding religious syncretism, one might conclude that one reason for the quick and widespread adoption of syncretic behavior from Ethics in intercultural and international communication By Fred L. Casmir

http://books.google.ca/books?id=fMf32jR9CRwC&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will reproduce this one here too with title this time:

When Africans are converted to other religions, they often mix their traditional religion with the one to which they are converted. from Introduction to African religion By John S. Mbiti

http://books.google.ca/books?id=4wL0y9fUEB8C&pg=PA15#v=snippet&q=%22often%20mix%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am at it I will reproduce this one here for easy consultation. Here's an article (from AFP) mentioning it:

US study sheds light on Africa's unique religious mix

The vast majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa are deeply committed to the world's two largest religions, making the region one of the most religious places in the world, according to the study by the Pew Research Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Traditional African beliefs have been incorporated into Africans' Christian or Muslim belief sets, according to the study, for which Pew researchers surveyed 25,000 people in 19 sub-Saharan African countries between December 2008 and April 2009.

"It doesn't seem to be an either-or for many people. They can describe themselves primarily as Muslim or Christian and continue to practice many of the traditions that are characteristic of African traditional religion," Luis Lugo, executive director of the Pew Forum, told AFP. I also didn't remove anything from the wikipedia article in my last revision after telling you it wasn't my intention. In short, it is true information that adds the the knowledge of Abrahamic religions practices in Africa.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpKESvthJtQeyjk57vyzOnY5l9cg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some other sources:

Many African people today have a mixed religious heritage and try to reconcile traditional religion with Islam or Christianity. from African folklore: an encyclopedia By Philip M. Peek, Kwesi Yankah

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pOcWLGktIYoC&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q&f=false 76.71.204.23 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Some other sources:

Even in the adopted religions of Islam and Christianity, which on the surface appear to have converted millions of Africans from their traditional religions, many aspect of traditional religions are still manifest. from The Oxford handbook of religion and ecology By Roger S. Gottlieb

http://books.google.ca/books?id=_LldeLvqQNsC&pg=PA266#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.204.23 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gottlieb is a pro spirituality person who is citing Mbuti (we have discussed him before. I can bring references also that discuss how fundamentalist Africans are and how intolerant they are to traditional faiths.Religion in Eritrea, Muslims and ET Orthodox only and Attack Shrine In Shariah Nigeria you cannot even do too much dancing (let alone little vodou rituals). the issue is not over if African do it *EVERYONE DOES in the world*. it is not unique to Africa. Africans are no different to Asians or Europeans in this respect, There is no STANDARD of ISLAM to benchmark Africans to, its very subjective. "The ‘gospel’ is therefore confused with ‘culture’, it has been colonialized, and a spurious ‘(European) Christian culture’ is offered in place of a genuine and relevant Christian message. ". My final position there is no problem all of these ref being in the article in a section which discusses this. it cannot be in the lead of the Abrahmic section. It is not notable, not unique and not so true for the entire continent, It is also very subjective as what is called "Traditional religions" is often "Traditional culture" - it also discounts and ignores much of Africa which cannot fit into that generalization. Please discuss this. 2 editors have illuminated this yet you continue to fail to address the issues by throwing ref around on info that is not contested. Yes they mix (some of them) How is it unique to Africa that it stands out? you are taking a human habit (mixing) and placing it on a continent as if it is peculiar to Africa, so much so that the reader assumes every other continent is "NORMAL" (dont mix) and only Africans are Unique. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here. As requested, I provided many more sources above noting this fact while talking about the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. Qualifying their practice among "many" people in Africa in the same sentence. Clearly it's noteworthy for many authors and survey pool results. Please allow other people to make contribution to this Misplaced Pages page. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please address the issues raised by both myself and the other editor, the admin has also asked you to prove the weight issue and why it should be in the lead? you have NEVER address any issue raised from day dot I have made the same objection. It is not noteworthy and for the last time I will tell you why (repeating myself) IT IS NOT UNIQUE TO AFRICA. also it is already in the lead. Those ref have been also challenged. One looks only a a few countries (US survey), The other say "everyone in the world mixes", the other is a priest, the other is someone quoting a priest. None deal with Ethiopia or Somalia or North Africa. And your real issue is you are not familiar with what you are talking about only that "It is true." True or false is not the debate but is it so unique so noteworthy that it should characterize ALL of Africa? It cannot be placed in the lead, it must be elsewhere. I will not reply to your circular reasoning after this. it is like talking to a automated machine. "They do it, yes it is true" without address 1 issue raised.. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Our personal interpretation of the uniqueness of it is not the issue here but whether or not this fact is mentioned by many sources in the same breath of discussing the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. I think I provided more than enough further sources above to say that it is indeed the case. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In an article on African people could you say "African people like to sing and dance" in the lead? Yes it is true they do. Well WEIGHT means you do not put it because it is not unique to African people, and the lead is for noteworthy or unique things that characterize or sum up the subject matter. It gives the reader the impression of something peculiar happening in Africa that does not go on in Asia, or even Europe. not to mention a gross over generalization. In this case "religious practices." are what you are reducing. (see the challenges to your ref and also have a look at mine".--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No sources talk about "African people like to sing and dance" while discussing the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. But many sources cited above (and in the wiki article) do talk about the mixing of religious practices when discussing the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. Clearly, I would have difficulty to find something like: 'While the majority of people in Africa practice Abrahamic religion, they also often like to sing and dance.' On the other hand, we can see many sources mentioning the mixing of traditional practices with Abrahamic religions. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The point here is you are not getting WP:WEIGHT and how this wikipedia operates. I dont see any of your sources dealing With Ethiopia, Islamic Nigeria, Somalia or North Africa, and I have thrown out your sources or didnt you notice they are weak and opinions rather than empirical evidence from all of Africa. Many sources also mention they are fundamentalist and purist. so which is true? Also take a back seat and notice how you are the only one holding onto this idea, maybe all of us are failing to get it. or grasping at straws. Until now you have never address any issue raised-- can you at least admit that?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The many sources cited above in this talk page and in the article as well as this wikipedia page (subject) talk about the practice of Abrahamic religions in general in Africa. Noting that they often mix traditional religions with Abrahamic religions. It's something you already acknowledged. It's also acknowledge at the beginning of this wikipedia article. You can't now deny it and say the contrary, if we do that we go in a circle discussion on this talk page. Please allow other people to make factual and sourced addition to this wikipedia page. Remember this is not about your personal opinion but the assessment of many sources. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

case closed, Ip is speaking in circles.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Some basic points just don't seem to be getting through or even acknowledged. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dropping protection

Alright, since I don't see this discussion getting any further, I am going to revert to the pre-dispute version and drop the protection. At the same time, I have started an Request for Comment below, which will hopefully bring other, uninvolved editors to provide more input. I will continue to monitor the discussion, and will re-protect or block as necessary to prevent edit warring. IP, this means that you should not attempt to re-add the sentence unless you can show there's a good, clear consensus for it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP user twice attempted to insert the disputed sentence. If xe were a registered user, I would have blocked xem for edit warring. As xe is on a dynamic IP, semi-protecting the article is my only option. At this point, the RfC discussion needs to run its course. Should no useful comments come from it, then we can pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The cheek, after all of this "talking" do you see what I mean about the ip? There is no debate with someone that has no respect for the debate process. I have rarely seen such a persistent "failure to get it" whew. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not mistake what I did. I still believe that the IP user is raising valid points, and that you and Middayexpress have failed to answer them completely, though you have answered them in part. I believe that, while the IP user failed to stop edit warring, that in part is probably at frustration of the fact that xe has produced numerous sources that explicitly state what xe wants to add, and the two of you keep blowing xem off with, in part, original research (commentary about your own lives, your general opinion that this is exoticizing Africa, etc.). I just also happen to believe that edit warring is not the way to solve anything, and I have protected the article only to stop that problem. I concur that in part the IP isn't understanding the issue you're addressing (WP:WEIGHT), but even though I'm not the one arguing with you even I find it frustrating that you keep rejecting the claims based upon what appears to be your desire to "protect" this article from overemphasizing something you personally disagree with. The reason I started the RfC myself instead of just leaving it to the IP is because, though I'm not actually sure xe's right, I do believe xe deserves to get a better hearing than xe's getting, and I'm hoping outside editors will have some useful input. Which reminds me, I forgot to notify the relevant Wikiprojects of the RfC; I'll do so now. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed 2.5 sentences that the IP correctly pointed out on my talk page were added that were specifically objected to and that are a part of the ongoing RfC below. While the RfC is in progress, modifications should not be made to this portion of the article. The whole reason I semi-protected the article was because the IP kept edit warring for their version, not so that you could change the article to a new version you prefer. Use the dispute resolution process, and let it play out. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. Both religions are widespread throughout Africa. Christianity and Islam have entered Africa via different agents, most of Christianity has come via European colonialism and proselytizes. However, in Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan Christianity has been part of that history for 1000s of years. Islam also has been in Africa for thousands of years starting with the first Hijrah in the early days of Islam(we tweak it). Like all over the world, They have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems forming Africa's own orthodoxies (David Robinson). It is estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%.

The section in bold is enuff.(I have no idea why the ip needed so bad to add what he added when it is covered in the lede and already in adapting local beliefs. It covers N africa and is across the board accurate, academic, and NPOV. it is notable at summing up the Abrahamic faiths in Africa. Another new separate section can deal with syncretization which can go into the complexities surround so-called fundamentalism, tolerance, mixing and the forming of new Orthodoxies Like Islam in Senegal (which is unique to that country). All of those references by the ip editor can go into there and i will NPOV it with some of my own. Baka --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal I make is more in line with the formulation showed in the many sources above and in the article. I will make again the compromised proposal I made earlier. That is switching the first 2 sentences:

The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. African people often combine the practice of their traditional belief with the practice of imported Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions religions are widespread throughout Africa. They have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems. It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%.76.71.204.23 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reject, switching around discounts everything we have wasted time explaining per weight. It is not unique to Africa so why is it being stated? I dont think you are hearing us, those sources fail because of weight. Dear OTHERS, I think it is clear the ip is taking us in loops. "Let others edit, I have sources, It is true, I want to change it"- I have just summed up his arguments. And never has he address one point raised in the above except to say "I have sources", sources yes , but no weight. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think by providing many additional reliable sources of this phenomena in Africa. I proved that this phenomena was far from being a fringe or minority view or something like that, but something acknowledged by many authors. By many sources. From Oxford encyclopedia to Mbiti reputable books on African religion passing by recent survey and many others. It add knowledge to the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. The sources cited above (in this talk page in bold letters) made it clear it was an important phenomena. It's something that is often mentioned in works about religions in Africa or the world. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it unique to only Africa? Try answering a question. will you not find it all over the world in every society and culture. Wahhabi would say mixing was a problem for Saudi Arabia also. The Haredi Judaism may also complain about "mixing" and "corruption" of Judaism. Do you realize Europe waged a Jihad over "religious purification", witchcraft, blending with Paganism, Spanish Inquisition. see Christianity and Paganism, So explain how mixing is unique? and none of your sources included Somalia, Sharia Nigeria, North Africa or even Ethiopia.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You say something (its widespread around the world and in Africa) and its contrary. The sources discuss Africa in general as this wikipedia article. I never pretended that it was unique to Africa or not, I will leave the comparatives studies to sociologists/theologists, but it's something often cited by many sources stated above on this talk page and in this article (and many others) in relation to Abrahamic religion practice in Africa. They noted that it was an important phenomena. Something "often" done, done by "many" people. 76.71.204.23 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Like all over the world, they have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions" is better as "Like all over the world, they have replaced indigenous religions" since we are talking about the world at large here. Other than that, the proposal sounds reasonable. Middayexpress (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I reject this proposal because the phenomena according to the many sources is placed in relation to the Abrahamic religions practice in Africa. The whole point of my edit. For example somebody reading this intro on Abrahamic religions will have the 'often cited' knowledge that Abrahamic religions practice are widespread in Africa but that their practices is often mixed with traditional religions. Often mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph or book. Something that add to the knowledge of Abrahamic religions practice in Africa. Something done "often" by "many" African people.76.71.204.23 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@Middayexpress agreed, and there are no shortage of R.S. sources to back it up. we can also add in info about African initiated churches to broaden out the topic.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

76, since you're in the minority here, is there some reason why you haven't yet tried to pursue some form of dispute resolution? I don't see how else you can prevail on the article itself.

I do have to make one point against Halqah's proposal: the phrase "Like all over the world" needs a source just as much as anything else would. Just sayin'. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not have a problem getting a source for that, i.e. that all over say South America Christianities expansion has replaced native beliefs, all over Indonesia it has replaced the local faiths. It is only there to avoid the issue that something unique is happening in Africa that isn't happening in Asia. My issue has always been distorted "truths" "yes things happen in Africa" - like corruption, but no more or less than anywhere else, (for example). the ip editor has categorically failed to make the case and we should be allowed to continue to develop this article to a higher standard. anyone is free to continue to comment-- and that will always be an ongoing development, so I see no need for the full protection. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you'll need a source that says "All over the world". You can't take 3 sources about 3 different places, add them together, and get "the world". That's synthesis, not allowed per WP:OR. And I'm not dropping the full protection, yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian Minority is a big word when there's only 2 editors reverting my reliably sourced and verifiable edit. This is my first attempt at conflict resolution by talking on this talk page. If after today the other editor still want to revert this edit, I will try other conflict resolution. Do you have any suggestion to which "board" or place I should post to resolve this particular form of reverting of sourced edit?

For the record and in light of your input above I will still repeat my last proposal and ask those 2 people if they will revert this edit again:

The majority of Africans are adherents of Christianity or Islam. African people often combine the practice of their traditional belief with the practice of imported Abrahamic religions. Abrahamic religions are widespread throughout Africa. They have both spread at the expense of indigenous African religions, but are often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems. It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%. Thank you Halaqah and Middayexpress in advance for allowing other people to make contributions to this Misplaced Pages page. If you don't accept I will have to pursue other form of conflict resolution tomorrow (or the following days) for that I would like some suggestion from you Qwyrxian. Thank you everybody.76.71.204.23 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Circles is what we are doing. I have never seen an article fully protected for a week because of an dispute with an edit Waring ip.(look at his edit history) It seems like over kill considering the issues at stake. You can only broker a resolution by first dealing with stated objections-- NOT DONE. The burden is on the ip to refute the challenges - NOT DONE. I am finish wasting my time. Regardless of what me and Middayexpress have written it is "balanced" by "I want to edit, It is true". --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Another source: Although a large proportion of Africans have converted to Islam an Christianity, these two world religions have been assimilated into African culture, and many African Christians and Muslims maintain traditional spriritual beliefs. from Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices: Religions and denominations, p1. http://books.google.ca/books?ei=o6cQT_aGJ6Tu0gHXovydAw&id=uTMOAQAAMAAJ&dq=worldmark+encyclopedia+religions&q=%22many+African+Christians%22#search_anchor Again we see the wide practice of Abrahimic religions put in relation with the practice of African religions. The word "many" is used again. Clearly showing again, its "weight", importance. 74.12.213.179 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the Abrahamic religions section of this article revert a reference to the claim that Africans who practice Abrahamic religions may also practice other, traditional religions? Please see the discussion above; note that until January 7, there was no mention of this possible in this section; the compromise addition was last made in this edit. Discussions have begun above. Note: I have no opinion on this matter; I'm starting this RfC as the admin who fully protected the page to stop an edit war, because the IP requesting the change is unfamiliiar with dispute resoution. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 74.12.214.67 (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The passage in question as it was phrased, and again rephrased in the proposal above, implied that there is a single African people that adheres to the same vague set of beliefs. There obviously isn't. Only some of Africa's diverse populations combine traditional beliefs with Abrahamic faiths (customs which often aren't the same, by the way). As explained in the discussion above, others fairly strictly adhere to Abrahamic principles, retaining arguably only faint traces of syncretism; certainly no more than elsewhere in the world. With regard to the continent's Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples, numerous core Abrahamic practices aren't entirely foreign to them in the first place (c.f. ). The bottom line is, such generalizations only serve to overemphasize practices that in many cases don't apply at all. That's the crux of the issue. It's not mentioning syncretism at all that's problem, but rather a) implying that it applies across the board when it doesn't; b) adding this over-generalization to the lede; c) refusing to identify which actual groups practice instances of syncretism (the Yoruba, Nandi... who exactly?), but instead vaguely asserting that "Africans" do; and d) not identifying what exact syncretic customs said groups have retained (idol worship, animism, sacrifices... what exactly?), and explaining why they qualify as examples of syncretism. A more nuanced, population-specific approach is therefore required. This is something which has been resisted for some reason. Middayexpress (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: how do you explain the fact that at least some of the sources that the IP gave do just generalize about Africa? No, let me take that back--I know why, but how do you propose Misplaced Pages deal with this fact? Per WP:V, we can't make our own analysis--we are bound to say what reliable sources say. Is there a possible compromise--something that says, "Some sources report a widespread syncretism,(+refs) while others argue it is limited to certain areas.(+ refs)"? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me just add everything Middayexpress said 100% represents my issues and observations. I have suggested it all be beaten out in a separate section. Really that is the best way. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Words used in the sources like "often" and "many" convey the idea that the mixing of traditional practice are not done in every instance but are done "often" and by "many" people. The paragraph makes it very clear that the majority of African people are practicing Abrahamic religion but often alongside traditional belief.76.71.201.33 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Those references are speaking in general terms, obviously not in reference to every population in Africa. In many cases, they don't apply at all. The simple and npov solution to the issue is therefore to state w/ ref(s) that "many tribal communities in Africa practice syncretic faiths", then actually identify some of those communities and their exact syncretic practices. Case in point:

"The world religions, particularly Christian missionary activity, have also influenced tribal traditions. This influence has led to a variety of syncretic movements that have synthesized aspects of certain world religions with traditional tribal practices. Amalgamative movements among tribal peoples in North America, influenced by Christianity, include the Peyote Religion or Native American Church and the Longhouse Religion. In Africa, and elsewhere, many tribal peoples have adopted modern religions, at least on the surface, while maintaining traditional beliefs and practices. New religious movements in Africa, influenced by Christian missionaries but with distinctive teachings and, in some cases, new prophets, include the Zionist Churches and the Nazareth Baptist Church of characteristically Zulu heritage. Other small-scale movements, influenced by modernity and modern religions but with strong ties to tribal practices, have surfaced in South America, Melanesia, Fiji, Jamaica, New Zealand, Siberia, India, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia, and the Philippines, among other places."

Middayexpress (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What Middayexpress is saying is synthesis. He gives is own personal opinion about the mixing of religious practice in Africa. He doesn't have sources that says this is a rare occurrence in Africa in general. But the reliable sources as well as this article are talking about Africa in general and are very clear in placing the mixing of religious belief in relation with the practice of Abrahamic religion and the proportion of it. The general idea is. A majority of Africa are practicing Abrahamic religion but often alongside traditional religious belief. All the multiple quotes written in bold above in this talk page clearly display that position. Words like "many", "often" are used. Clearly something that add reliably sourced knowledge to the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. 76.71.201.33 (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I am stating is that the religious situation in Africa is more complex than the reductive "Africans practice syncretism" or variations thereof. This is commonsense and easily demonstrable (see above). And even if one were to add such an over-generalization, nothing is preventing others from likewise specifying that this Abrahamic adherent community or that Abrahamic adherent community in Africa actually doesn't practice syncretism to render the claim moot. That's why a nuanced approach is required per WP:NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Middayexpress here, that the religious situation is more complex than that sentence would convey. The word "syncretism" covers a lot of ground. Let's consider some non-African examples: one would be Halloween, which is not a pagan festival which has been given a Christian coloring, of sorts -- would any Christian who observes Halloween be considered practicing a "syncretic Christianity"? Then there is the fact that a lot of proper nouns with pagan associations -- the names of the days of the week in many European languages, the name of the high Christian festival in English, Easter -- all come from indigenous pagan sources. Does saying "I'll see you Wednesday" make a Christian in North America a practitioner of syncreticism? Then there is the issue that to explain abstract ideas -- such as redemption, faith, & belief -- one needs to use familiar examples; an African explaining such ideas will use African examples, which inevitably leads to the error of the example being confused with the idea. (This happens frequently outside of Africa, & beyond explaining religious ideas.) On the other hand, there are examples of indigenous beliefs being blended into Christianity & Islam to produce something which can be considered heretical -- but I don't think anyone here is denying this happens, so I won't mention any examples. However, I don't know whether this is simply a symptom of transitioning from one belief system to another, or is proof of the emergence of a new religion; stating one or the other is a dangerous oversimplification. If it can be shown that it is important to mention syncreticism in Africa, then I would be happiest with a bare mention of the fact, followed with a list of the better known & documented examples of this phenomena. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Llyrwrch, it sounds like you're recommending that we remove the entire syncretism section in the article, along with the several other mentions it currently has. This is a much more strict position than either Middayexpress or Halaqah are recommending. Do you mean to take such a strong position? Note that I'm not questioning your point (though I am concerned about the fact that you're arguing from principle rather than from sources)--I just want to make sure your point is being interpreted similarly to how you "meant it". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My input was primarily a response to 76.*'s insistence that religious syncreticism exists in Africa & must be included; I hadn't looked at that section of the article until now. I could not help but get the impression that 76.*'s was motivated -- whether or not it is her/his belief -- to argue that African forms of Christianity & Islam are inauthentic or heretical as compared to non-African forms. (Both religions have had a presence in Africa from their earliest days: in the case of Islam, one of the oldest Muslim communities, founded in the lifetime of Mohammed, was in Ethiopia at Negash.) Yet now that I have read that section, I'm not very happy with it, because it appears to have suffered from this disagreement over syncreticism, & is at the verge of becoming a polemical argument that syncreticism doesn't exist -- although it does, to some degree. An example is the Judeo-paganism of the Qemant, a faith which appears to be in decline, if not extinct. However, is this issue truly important enough to mention in this article? Are there sections on religious syncreticism in the articles on Religion in Asia (the Kakure Kirishitan would fall into that), or Religion in North America (here Santeria or Native American Church would be mentioned)?

• Comment-Let me also add that we cannot ignore fundamentalist(neutral usage) characteristics in Abrahamic practices in Africa. those that know, also know how many wars and Jihads have been fought in Africa in the name of "purity", You just have to read Uthman Dan Fodio or even ibn Yasin. They would take you off the throne in Ancient Mali if you mixed-- Africans can be said to not take the issue lightly. too much counter evidence to refute this generalization. In Christian Ethiopia people were squashed for even being tolerant of Islam, let alone what they would call Paganism. I will quote David Robinson and Randall Lee Pouwels (who all agree on this point): Africans might appropriated Islam in a more inclusive way, or in the more radical (fundamentalist) way of the Almoravid. Robinson (a world expert not some causal commentator goes on to state Chapter 4 Africanization of Islam "1400 of islam being appropriated created African Islam ...This process is the same one that happened throughout the world that became Muslim or indeed through the world that became Christian or Buddhist" (not unique)African Islam in itself is also varied Swahili vs. Hausa. It is a fully orthodox Islam, not Islam and paganism mixed. I also want to repeat something said not identifying what exact syncretic customs said groups have retained (idol worship, animism, sacrifices... what exactly?), and explaining why they qualify as examples of syncretism. A more nuanced, population-specific approach is therefore required. The reason the ref do not do this is the ref are causual generalization with zero specific info on religion in Africa. You read Karen Armstrong, Randall Lee Pouwels, or any serious person on the subject deals with the complexity. i.e Wodabee people... blend ...xyz with Islam. while Amhara people do not. And again "culture" is often confused with religion.(African belief.com) I go to the Muti doctor does that impact my Islam?- No. I wear an Kente cloth at mass- does that affect my Christianity?- no. A new section would beat all of this out. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Many people give their personal opinion but here it's not about personal opinion which constitute WP:NOR and breach the WP:Verifiability what is important is the reliably sourced information. The sheer quantity of sources saying about the same thing warrant its inclusion in the article as stipulated above. If fact there's more source about it than editors who commented here:

'Even though the two religions are monotheistic, most African Christians and Muslims convert to them and still retain some aspects of their traditional religions.' In Transitions and consolidation of democracy in Africa By Samuel Ebow Quainoo

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-IDfqT6589kC&pg=PA40&d#v=onepage&q&f=false

Some more: It is difficult to give accurate figures about religious beliefs because people often mix their religions. Many who are Christians or Muslim may continue to follow some of the religious practices of their ancestors. In Peoples of Africa: Burkina Faso-Comoros By Marshall Cavendish Corporation

http://books.google.ca/books?id=-IDfqT6589kC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false <span style="font-size: smaller;"

Some more: This recognition had two major consequences. First, it fueled the rises of religious syncretism, with Africans drawing substantially from their own indigenous cultures in attempts to customize the newly adopted evangelizing religions of Islam and Christianity. Those two developments would have major significance for the continuing role of religion and the newly-emergent African in the post-colonial state. Regarding religious syncretism, one might conclude that one reason for the quick and widespread adoption of syncretic behavior from Ethics in intercultural and international communication By Fred L. Casmir

http://books.google.ca/books?id=fMf32jR9CRwC&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

I will reproduce this one here too with title this time:

When Africans are converted to other religions, they often mix their traditional religion with the one to which they are converted. from Introduction to African religion By John S. Mbiti

http://books.google.ca/books?id=4wL0y9fUEB8C&pg=PA15#v=snippet&q=%22often%20mix%22&f=false

While I am at it I will reproduce this one here for easy consultation. Here's an article (from AFP) mentioning it:

US study sheds light on Africa's unique religious mix

The vast majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa are deeply committed to the world's two largest religions, making the region one of the most religious places in the world, according to the study by the Pew Research Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Traditional African beliefs have been incorporated into Africans' Christian or Muslim belief sets, according to the study, for which Pew researchers surveyed 25,000 people in 19 sub-Saharan African countries between December 2008 and April 2009.

"It doesn't seem to be an either-or for many people. They can describe themselves primarily as Muslim or Christian and continue to practice many of the traditions that are characteristic of African traditional religion," Luis Lugo, executive director of the Pew Forum, told AFP. I also didn't remove anything from the wikipedia article in my last revision after telling you it wasn't my intention. In short, it is true information that adds the the knowledge of Abrahamic religions practices in Africa.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpKESvthJtQeyjk57vyzOnY5l9cg

Some other sources:

Many African people today have a mixed religious heritage and try to reconcile traditional religion with Islam or Christianity. from African folklore: an encyclopedia By Philip M. Peek, Kwesi Yankah

http://books.google.ca/books?id=pOcWLGktIYoC&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q&f=false

Some other sources:

Even in the adopted religions of Islam and Christianity, which on the surface appear to have converted millions of Africans from their traditional religions, many aspect of traditional religions are still manifest. from The Oxford handbook of religion and ecology By Roger S. Gottlieb

http://books.google.ca/books?id=_LldeLvqQNsC&pg=PA266#v=onepage&q&f=false <span style="font-size: smaller;" 174.89.249.171 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Order of Christianity - Ethiopia first

Christianity in Africa starts with Ethiopia and North Africa. The largest African initiated church in Africa is Ethiopia. That is the reason I believe priority in the Christianity section should be given to the Ethiopian orthodox church. It is no small matter that in all of the World Ethiopia was the 2nd nation to make Christianity the state religion, this is before Anglicans existed or before America was born. And you see the section Christianity and the poor quality? The way i understand it, you worry about the worst issues first. I challenge anyone to read the Christianity section and ask "What is it saying?" so its a threshold issue. the standard is so poor I dont know how energy could go into a placement of text issue.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New Section on Syncretism in Africa

I was hoping (lol) by representing a NPOV section which beats out the issues of religious mixing it would solve the above conflict. At least I am clean when I say I have included most of the ips refs and concerns in that section. I cannot judge myself that well but I think any Africanist scholar or reader will appreciate a detailed NPOV approach reflecting the complexity of the issue is far better than the alternative proposed."All Africans mix with imported religions" . Every religion by continent has syncretistic personalities, Africa is not special in this respect. Beyond this anthropological observation the weight doesn't get it in the lead of other religion by continent articles. I could be wrong-- But even this shows the issues with generalizing ATR and mixing, where they admit the casual usage of "Africa" which excludes the North and Islamic Africa (i would add it also excludes Ethiopia). See how other African Christians comment on the issue of rigid purity in Africa. I mean the more I research the more the point is reaffirmed. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead : What about Orthodox followers of African religion?

Hi editors,

Just a comment regarding the lead. I know some issues have been boiling above and is somewhat linked to my concern. The lead spend some time telling us the Abrahamic religions are the dominant religions and their followers sometimes mix it with the Traditional African religion etc. This is all fine, but my concern is that, the lead left out Africans who are fervent followers of African religion and do not mix it with any of the Abrahamic religions. Is it possible to reflect this in the lead section with respect to weight? ThanksTamsier (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's Show restraint

As the heading suggest, this is a topic about African philosophies and or philosophies operating in the African continent. Religions that do not directly originate from the African continent should in no way shape or form think to dominate this topic. Those who think they've discipline related content that bears little relevence should rather sanbox a brand new topic e.g "your religion and its relationship with the African continent", "your religion in Africa" e.t.c Otelemuyen 23:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not what this page is about. It's not "Religions originating in Africa", it's about any way that religion operates or has operated in Africa. Plus, your exclusion would be extremely difficult to draw a line on anyway. Does Coptic Christianity count as originating in Africa, since that particular denomination originated here, or would you exclude it since the broader Christianity originated somewhere else? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this is not aimed at excluding any group or religious sect operating in the continent. But a prevention of such groups that fall into this category in taking over the topic.

Hence, "should in no way shape or form think to dominate this topic". In actual fact i probably would be one of the first to encourage accurate stats and figures so as to enhance the present condition of the article, but my point is that these should be put into their correct place(s).

As for the origin of Coptic Christianity, this is NOT the real issue here. As would rather arguements of sort be made in their various maiden topics i.e the arguement for the origin of Coptic Christianity may be well accomodated and or thrashed out in an article bearing the same or similar name - as in "The origin of Coptic Christianity"? and definately NOT Religion in Africa.

However, if one was to include Coptic Christianity (and rightfully so)into this article, one would make sure to include and stress it is TOPICAL as to its origin. Otelemuyen 10:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that maybe I don't understand. Is there some specific change that you propose be made to the article now? Is there something that you think is over or under-represented? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As the heading suggest, this is a topic about African philosophies and or philosophies operating in the African continent. Religions that do not directly originate from the African continent should in no way shape or form think to dominate this topic. Those who think they've discipline related content that bears little relevence should rather sanbox a brand new topic e.g "your religion and its relationship with the African continent", "your religion in Africa" e.t.c Otelemuyen 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And, as I said before, your claim is flat out wrong. That would be like arguing that the article Religion in the United States should not be dominated by a discussion of Christianity, even though that is the largest religion, used to be the majority religion (maybe still is, I'd have to check), and had a tremendous role in shaping the political, social, and economic nature of the US. Your position that this article should be dominated by only religions originating in Africa is merely your idiosyncratic one, and does not match the very title of the page. In fact, I believe the page you are looking for is Traditional African religion. This articles purpose is to discuss the general topic of the religions that have in the past and are currently active in Africa. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is indeed not about African philosophy. That separate topic is discussed on the African philosophy article. Hence, discussion of African philosophy here rather than there is WP:OFFTOPIC. Please also note that this article is not solely about traditional African religion. The traditional African religion article is there for that. This particular article is reserved for discussion of religion in Africa in general. By definition, that primarily, though not exclusively, pertains to Christianity and Islam since those are by far the two most practiced faiths. This can readily be seen in the page's religious distribution table and the included map. Hence, why that section on 'misleading terms' vis-a-vis traditional African religion is inappropriate per the WP:UNDUE weighting policy. Even if the material were better presented, it would still be more appropriate for the traditional African religion page. Middayexpress (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed an article bearing Religion in the United States is an incorrect example here, a more appropriate example would be for an article bearing Religion in Asia to be dominated by christianity or any other major non-Asian religion for that matter.

As in this particular instance can hardly be replicated anywhere else in the world. Religion in Africa is hardly divorced from African tradition as Religion in the Middle East is hardly divorced from Islam.Otelemuyen 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Otelemuyen's major change to lead

I had to revert your change to the lead for a number of reasons. First, a lead should, primarily, summarize the contents of the article. It is not the place to make novel claims not appearing elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, the vast majority of those references do not meet WP:RS, and thus cannot be used to verify the claims made. Third, that whole section on "misleading terms" is original research--you can't pick out terms you've heard used for Traditional African religions and then argue that they don't apply based on dictionary definitions. Even if you found reliable sources that specifically talk about how those terms have been used for those religions, and then explained why they are wrong, that information would belong at Traditional African religion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The contents in the lead is perfectly justified, if you have any objections, rather than reverting, try to state your arguement for the whole world to see.

For instance "Religion in Africa has been a major influence on art, culture, philosophy and law." What is your arguement regards the non-factual or "Novel" nature of this truth. Eventhough you probably are simply in denial or are completely in above your head on this subject altogether; it would still be right for you to present your arguement clearly. Simply stating that because it has not been highlighted elsewhere therefore it cannot be true, is trivial at the least.

Secondly, have you checked out the citations and the relation with the context to which they belong?

Thirdly, again if you check out the inline citation(s) correctly, you will find out that the section misleading terms is NOT original research but the product of a reliable and published source.

Otelemuyen 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. The majority of those websites do not meet our standards. The previous version was better. Also, as expressed above, we already have the article African traditional religions; you may not attempt to turn this into a duplicate of that article, nor may you decide that the title means something other than what it, you know, actually says. Standard editing practice at Misplaced Pages is that if you attempt to add something, and others revert it (disagree), and especially when multiple people disagree, it's up to you to make your case, first, on the talk page for the change. Simply going back to your version (especially when it violates policy) is edit warring, and is a big no-no. I'm happy to continue discussion here, and maybe part of what you suggested could be included elsewhere in teh article (if it's properly sourced) but do not reinsert it until you have consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority of those websites may indeeed not meet our standards, however, the citations provided in the content of my edits do. Simply personalising this specific case by stating that (according to you)"The previous version was better" cannot be said to be plausable.

Face it, the references from my edits indeed pass verifiability and are indeed from reliabile sources, but thats not what this is about is it? I put it to you that you have just jumped face first with all the shutters up. Check closely and carefully and you will find that the majority of the edits refer the readers to either complete works or indeed extracts from published material; but i dont think you bothered to check.

Furthermore, there are procedures to follow if you are indeed disputing the edits in question.

Otelemuyen 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there sure are. WP:BRD. You made a bold edit. I reverted. Now we discuss. In the midst of that discussion, a second editor disagreed. No part of that process is you edit warring to try to get the information back in. And there is no process on Misplaced Pages when you can add information that you know to be based on unreliable sources. If you don't think the discussion here is getting anywhere, then try WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, an RfC, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What information do you know to be based on unreliable sources are you refering to. I'm afraid i might have been misunderstood.

"The majority of those websites may indeeed not meet our standards, however, the citations provided in the content of my edits do".

In essence, my contribution with regards the article possess adequate verifiability and are indeed from reliable sources. Kindly read what is being written and refrain from miscontruing what is intended.

As for the issue of WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and or RFC and the likes, it is you disputing a legitimate contribution. If you think that the content is contentious then follow the correct procedure. Even with the request for mediation that you recently declined. Otelemuyen 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The citations provided in the content of your edits are those websites! At least half of them do not meet WP:RS! Your contribution is not a legitimate contribution for exactly the reasons I have laid out above. You are 1) Hijacking this article to make it be about something that doesn't even match the title; 2) Attempting to turn this article substantially into a duplicate of African traditional religions; 3) Pushing a POV that somehow those religions are "more important", despite them currently being minority religions in Africa; 4) using unreliable sources; 5) changing the lead of the article so that it doesn't match the article text, which is always wrong; 6) edit warring to keep that unreliably sourced info in the article. But I'll give you a few specifics on the sources:

• Africanbelief.com/: Self-published website, no evidence of editorial oversight. Not RS
• Encyclopedia Brittanica is a reliable source, but we generally do not use tertiary sources; sources should generally be secondary sources.
• Newapologia is a biased apologist site, whose only purpose is to promote Christianity.
• Religious Tolerance.org appears to be a group with no particular authority or expertise, which says that they "have many of our essays reviewed by persons familiar with the issues who represent all sides of each topic". Note that it doesn't state "all", so we can't trust any given article on their site; it also doesn't sound like a clear editorial oversight required for an RS

Now do you understand the problem? At least half of your sources are inappropriate. Your position on the edit warring is 100% wrong. Otherwise, I could go to any article, add a bunch of stuff that I insist is correct, and then force others to make an argument to reject it. That simply isn't how Misplaced Pages works. You want to add the info, the burden on you is to show how that info is better than the previous info, to show that the sources are reliable, to show that the lead you created matches the article as written, and to show why we should have 2 articles on the same topic. Please self-revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The post above pretty much sums up what's wrong with the material. Besides the fact that much of it is badly sourced and puts undue weight on traditional African religions, I would add that it's also written in an unencyclopedic register. Whatever the case, revert-warring is indeed no way to resolve the issue. Only actual consensus can ensure an acceptable, stable version. Middayexpress (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Would have to disagree with your hypothesis, have made an effort for a fourth party's involvement in respect of my request for mediation but you rejected this outrightly.

As for the sites

• Encyclopedia Brittanica is not the reference, you will find that in the appropriate section of the article.
• Africanbelief.com/ states the material as West African traditional religion by Kofi Asare Opoku
• Religioustolerance.org: Assuming the reader scrolls to the bottom of the page, they would find a host of material sourced by the article i.e E. B. Idowu, "Olodumare: God in Youruba Belief, The Yoruba Religious System," Africa Update Archives, Vol VI, Issue 3, 1999-Summer, Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity," UNESCO, 2005 to name but a few.
• Dr J.O. Awolalu, Studies in Comparative Religion Vol. 10, No. 2. (Spring, 1976). is infact an electonic book that the reader can get access to immediately.

All the above sources are indeed both verifiable and reliable unlike the ones below:

• islamandafrica.com
• kebranegast.com
• greenwoodsvillage.com
• .h-net.org

If anything, these are the sources that ought to be contested.

Otelemuyen 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I rejected it because we have a process, just like you said. Even if I had accepted it, the mediation committee would have rejected it, because Mediation is never accepted unless other dispute resolution processes have been followed first. Two editors have told you that your revisions are wrong, for multiple reasons. Forget about the RS part for a bit (I only went into such detail do start giving some specific examples). Let's start with the the first three, very basic problems.

First, this article is titled "Religion in Africa". That means that this article must be a broad description of how religion exists currently in Africa, with some mention of historical events (though, usually, that would go into a "History of religion in..." article). It should be "balanced" (NPOV) by focusing on those religions which are most prevalent and have the most impact on Africa as a whole. I don't mean to sound mean, but this is based on the simple meaning of the phrase "religion in X". At the same time, we have another article, called "African traditional religions". That article should be entirely about those religions that originated in Africa. I don't edit that article, but presumably it should also be balanced by prevalance, although in that case historical factors my come into play (but you'd have to ask editors of that article). Again, the analogy to any other country or continent is pretty clear: one would not go to Religion in the United States expecting it to focus on native american relgions, which are practiced by such a low number that they fall under the 1.2% of "other" religions; instead, I would expect to find that information at Native American religion. The same thing must be the case here. Now, even if you disagree with this assessment, the more important procedural issue is that one person cannot come into a somewhat stable article and suddenly declare that the focus of the article is completely different, and then edit war to keep your new version.

Second, WP:LEAD says, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Your version does not do that. Your version summarizes some hypothetical article which does not currently exist. Leads must be written after body text, so that they match that text. Right now, someone reading the article will simply be confused--the article starts about talking about one thing, then goes and talks about something different.

Third, "Misleading" is OR and UNDUE. You have arbitrarily chosen a number of terms that, I assume, you think are used for African religions, and provided no sources for that. I could just as easily add something like "Boring" or "Fascinating" to that list, because there is no logic to why you've included those terms and not others.Unless you first provide some evidence that these terms are widely misused to described AR, that stuff has no business being here.

I really, really hope you will self-revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on the flow of arguments, I agree that if contemporary religion has more prominence in Africa today than traditional religion, this article must emphasize the contemporary religion. If there are small influences that traditional religion has, it will be apparent from the sources (i.e. Christianity in Africa has X, because in the past people did Y) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, have reverted back to revision 484521386 as of 17:52, 30 March 2012.

No offense, but you should STOP edit warring immediately if you would like complete resolution on this issue.

Now! kindly explain to me what is wrong with the statement "is multifaceted and has been a major influence on art, culture and philosophy" to which you further reverted from. Now do you see why it is YOU that is infact edit warring.

Will further agree with the fact that the religions that have prominence in the continent should be reflected in the article. However, for there to be a fair balance, edits are mostly made by authorities on the subject matter; where the given spirituality/religion is the subject.

How can there be an article on religion in Africa and not feature philosophies local to the continent?

More importantly, with no logical justification offered, the lead shows an attempt to both demonize and or supress those religions born out of African tradition. Otelemuyen 11:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The article, including the lede, actually does discuss traditional African religions. Per Misplaced Pages's weighting policy, it just does so in proportion to the number of the continent's residents that adhere to traditional faiths. The traditional African religion article more fully discusses indigenous African faiths, and the African philosophy page is reserved for that separate topic. Middayexpress (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, this would suggest that we are in agreement.Otelemuyen 13:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain where in the body of the article the influence of religion on art, culture, and philosophy are discussed. Because I don't see it. And a WP:LEAD must be, primarily, a summary of the text below. Also, I question the use of the word "countryside"--do those sources actually state that syncretism occurs only in the "countryside" (which is pretty vague), and not in urban areas? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style.

According to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, the lead should briefly:

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

Kindly explain your material contribution as is a prerequisite of further discussion.

Otelemuyen 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." I believe that the first sentence is so far removed from what is included in the article that it is a bit misleading. This is why I've always believed that a lead should be written "last", so that it adequately reflects no more than is covered in the article (with a few, minor exceptions). However, I'm not too terribly worried about the first sentence; the use of "countryside" bothers me more, because it seems to contain the specter of a hierarchy ("pure" urban vs. "impure" country) that I don't think we should include unless it's verified by sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the phrase originally alluded to "tribal areas"; it was drawn from the following quote : "In Africa, and elsewhere, many tribal peoples have adopted modern religions, at least on the surface, while maintaining traditional beliefs and practices". However, if I'm not mistaken, Otelemuyen felt the term "countryside" would be more appropriate. Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Religious distribution table has to be corrected

In the Religious distribution table: Ethiopia and Central African Republic have the values for Christianity changed with the ones for traditional/other. I think this is because some people expect that the blue (first column) to be the one about Christianity. Other countries like Cameroon have the values right. I think all this table should be reviewed. MariusMa (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims but broken links especially parts of Dharmic section

Many sources cited with extraordinary claims are either broken links or source does not support claim especially Bon and Sikhi. Tried to look for sources but I am not having any luck. Please provide reliable sources that support the claim. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT : Good that an administrator has protected this article considering the amount of edit wars going on. . Tamsier (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Africa articles
• Top-importance Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles