Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:18, 8 May 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Title

I think it should be changed to "African Traditional Religions" (pluralized). I don't know how to do this. But the current title, "African traditional religion" suggests that there one single traditional African religion, which is clearly not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.233.9 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Length

For a search phrase with so many Google hits this article should be much longer. As Mbiti pointed out, there is no plurality of "gods", lesser or otherwise. One of the primary purposes of this book was to show that the Western practice of putting African religions at the bottom of the religious evolutionary pyramid was primarily an attempt to suggest that their religions were inferior and unevolved; perhaps this article shouldn't be repeating these myths? Also, all this talk about "worship" needs to go (perhaps "consultation", or even "veneration"?). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't know enough about traditional African beliefs to comment on whether or not the belief in a plurality of gods is true, but I do know a lot about Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism acknowledges a plurality of gods (well, in essence they're just different manifestations of brahman) and Buddhism denies the existence of a god. I don't think either are considered "unevolved" religions since they are the oldest, and second oldest recorded faiths on earth. Anyways, my point is that saying Africans believe in a plurality of gods isn't necessarily deragatory. It's just un-Christian, and there's nothing wrong with that. It might just be a misunderstanding. Out of interest, is the belief in one over-arching god a result of missionaries? Or has that always been the complement to the many nature spirits and ancestors? Joziboy 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the sangoma link was a bad idea. Sangomas are healers and diviners, not priests. Actually, religious ceremonies are usually carried out under the guidance of the malume and nkali (malome and rakgadi in Sesotho, malume and makhadzi in Tshivenda, etc). Eg at my father's funeral last year there was no ngaka (although one of my relatives is one she was not overseeing any ceremonies), but an older female relative (rakgadi) who, among other things, wanted me to shave my dreads! Naturally I declined (and, as you should know by now, I don't do traditions, African or Western). Monotheism in Africa is not actually relatively young. As Mbiti pointed out ATR is about the family and spiritual power. The (half-)dead are still part of the family since their shadows (isithunzi as opposed to umthunzi, serithi/morithi etc) still exist (Ubuntu just means that your shadow only exists as long as there are people around to experience it, even after you become a spiritual being). continuing...

Now, simply saying that ATR is polytheist animism is simple and plain wrong. God exists, but is not given much attention since it's a very old, very remote being (no one knows its shadow), however, it's used to explain great events or events in very remote time (such as the creation of people). Note that most ATR societies have no beginning or end of time myths - there's simply no reason to believe that the infinite cycle of time has not always been that way and will not always be that way. This is what I meant about it being intuitive. It's a religion as well as a folk philosophy, with lots of varied rites and mythologies added for good measure. It's the base philosophy (shadows, infinite cycles, 2D time, etc) that is shared by a surprising number of separate societies. But this is what the article currently looks like... Btw I don't appreciate people claiming to use Mbiti as a source, then asserting the exact same lies he set out to disprove. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow this is all fascinating. I love religious studies (did it in first year, but sadly they don't know much about African religions in Scotland!). So is this Mbiti the book to read? Joziboy 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, get your grimy paws on it TODAY, as a start. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional or Ingenious

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.--Halaqah 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vain attempt

I tried to make the article a tad more relevant by removing or rephrasing certain language and culture-specific parts.

Currently this article is a collection of irrelevant peculiarities. It would be nice if it actually said something usable and provided more info and a discussion of the topic.

There is an entire continent of Africans out there, and this article is embarrassing. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a number of additions. These have been noted in individual edit summaries. They include adding two titles to the bibliography. Comments added within the article come largely from Mbiti and from Wole Soyinka's Myth, Literature and the African World (this last one of those two titles).Gallador 13:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We have added some minor information to offer more clarity to some of the points made in the article. Namely removing the term pagan, and commenting on the use of the term animism, both of which we find out-dated and pejorative. We have also removed Ifa from the line of intercessionary lessor deities. Ifa is not a deity, but rather is considered a highly developed system of divination employed by the Orisha (Yoruba) and Vodou traditionalists in West Africa and in the Diaspora. Also, the use of the anthropological characterization of lessor deities is a bit awkard as well. In African Traditional Religions a "lessor deity" would be considered on the same par (or higher) as a Christian Angel. In African Traditional Religions it would be considered offensive and even dangerous to employ the term when praying to a specific deity for intercession. They are usually referred to by their cultural names i.e, Ogun, Da, Mami Wata,etc.,. This subject is very broad and attempting to cover the expanse of the African continent with so much religious diversity is quite a challenge. It would be the same as attempting to summarize all the indigenous religions of India. However, it is a start, and I hope others will assist in this effort. Apokassii 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are great -- thanks a lot!

I thought that Goddess was a bit redundant, since in ATR God rarely has a specific sex (often it's arbitrarily invented when outsiders specifically ask for it) but then of course, the English use of "God" is almost always male so it doesn't hurt to say that this is not generally the case in ATR.

It takes great care and hard work to prevent articles on African topics becoming the ubiquitous "primitive societies do all these things, without exception" I see so often in old sources and many new sources which cite from the old ones, perhaps changing "do" to "used to do" (as is often the case with Misplaced Pages).

Keep up the great work -- Misplaced Pages desperately needs more editors like this. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. there is so many articles of this nature that needs more editors. It is almost overwhelming. I am personally working on anther project now. If and when I get more time, I will try and assist with this one as well. Apokassii 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. We have removed the anthropological term cult in one of your sub-headings,and replaced it with (in this case) liturgy. Cult as it is understood in the West, carries a loaded bag of negative connotations, and has never fit or adequately described what are actually African congregational religious/spiritual clan systems. We have also added a photo if this is okay with you. The term Diaspora is used, because the priestess in the middle (white top) is an African-American priestess.Apokassii~17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolute lack of details on Ancestral Spirits

One of the defining characteristics of African indigenous religions is that most veneration is directed at ancestor spirits. There is absolutely nothing detailing this in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiranbalasuriya (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Animism and derogation

I find it hard to believe that the term "animist" is derogatory. It refers to a specific form of belief that natural phenomena and objects also have spirits - anima. That's all. Now, calling something a superstition might be considered derogatory, if this is presented as an objective statement. But calling a belief system that is animist, well, animist ... that's not really derogatory, is it now?

Antro etc 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying: "well, if they are evil terrorists then it's not insulting to call them evil terrorists, right?" Most ATR does not fall under the definition of animism (believing that every natural thing has a spirit) and therefore they are not animism. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Animism is this context is inaccurate for many reasons, and since it describes the religious values of living people, there is just cause to make the case that it is derogatory. For more on this, please see my comments on the talk page of "animism" entry. Drewalanwalker (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WANTED: WIKI-USERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY FROM THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA!

WHERE ARE THE REAL AFRICAN WIKI-USERS?

Alright, people, the African traditional religions article has been hijacked by Afro-centrists. The message in many paragraphs seems to be this: African traditional religions are just as ancient and good as European traditional religions and have suffered from terrible racism from western academia. Well, DUH!! We don't need you to tell us that in every sentence! Whoever this has an inferior complex, BIGTIME! Why not educate public by actually giving more information about the religions themselves Also, can you believe the religions they are listing as African? Yes, religions like Santeria and candomble religion do have strong roots that go back to Africa, particular West and central Africa. However, Santeria is a cuban religion, not an african one. Candomble is a Brazilian religion. Black is not always synonymous with African and African is not always synonymous with Black! I mean this for the other African articles too! No, I am not from Africa Myself, but I would really real information on the continent, not the crap Afro-centrists and Eurocentrists give me!! >:(

The problem is that there's not a great deal of Internet access in many African traditional areas. maybe One Laptop Per Child will change that, but only time will tell. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

we cannot use contributions based on hearsay anyway. This topic like any other is subject to the WP:V and WP:RS policies. --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring to Previous Version

Hi, I'm busy now, so I haven't read in detail the changes made that I reverted. However, I noted that the changer deleted a lot of text, including the bibliography. If you have substantive additions with which to enhance this page, go ahead and enhance it correctly. Kindly do not deprive the page of so much of its value in the process of contributing to it. Gallador (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A Serious Revamp is Necessary

After reading this article, I am in agreement with everyone else that this article is in need of a serious overhaul with information from credible, non-Western minded sources. I would recommend that any who knows something real and valid pertaining to this topic to contribute to this article.

There is actually very little valid information in this article, and what is valid is not clearly articulated. I will do the best I can to clean up this article and add philosophical concepts, governance, and the things that this article lacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjsmartdude (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just went through and tried to start cleaning up and "fixing" parts of this article. I also have gone through and read every article listed in the category of African Traditional Religion (which there are way, way to few of), and think this is an area that can definately be shored up. I am coming to my knowledge of ATRs fairly recently, but I hope I can be of some help in making this and similar articles well-written and easy to use.

Some quick suggestions for you all to mull over. Some sections that I think would help include a general history (including how other religions such as Christianity and Islam have affected ATRs), ATRs outside of Africa, and "Extinct" ATRs (I'm sure there is a better term for that). Likewise, the current sections should be massively overhauled to make the sections flow. Would it help to have a box at the beginning and/or end to help with this? I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds here, and hopefully these advances will continue. - IanCheesman (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Language Families and African Traditional Religion

I'm glad to see some new changes here, and especially to see some more researched thoughts added. However I am not sure how meaningful it is to link religious beliefs to languages. I admit I have not been able to locate the new resources that have been recently added on this topic, but it seems a very simplistic way of looking at things. After all, the Indo-European language family is responsible for everything from Christianity to Buddhism to Celtic to Zoroastrianism and a whole lot more. I will continue to look for resources on this issue, and will wait to see what else gets added on this topic. (As for the intro paragraph, that is exactly where we should have those simplistic statements, as often times that is the only part of the article that people read. A simple explanation of some of the key concepts of what ATRs hold in common seems, to me at least, appropriate there) - IanCheesman (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But why must they all hold things in common? Just because they are all on the same continent? As I'm sure doesn't need to be mentioned, our ancient ancestors had little idea of such modern day, politically constructed geography. Further, as you mentioned, the religions of Eurasia differ greatly. Although I see your point that they share a common language group (whose proto-religion can be ascertained btw) ultimately, the standards of academia suggest that language is a better grouping than simple modern day imposed geography. At least it connotes common lineage on the terms of the actual SPEAKERS within the language grouping. In any case, scholars like Chis Ehret are getting tenure at universities for grouping in this way. There is scholarly theory that validates the practice. What practices validate grouping by geography? Human geography? By the way, although the Greeks (Indo-Europeans) did indeed inject their own interpretations into Christianity, Jesus himself was of Afro-Asiatic linguistic stock. Christianity was not indigenous to Indo-European thought. That shouldn't be overlooked (for better or for worse). Plus, as you will see when I finish the section, many of the practices and beliefs on that list that are supposedly generally "common" to all African systems actually tend towards characterizing the Niger-Congo speakers predominantly (the most numerically dominant group in sub-Saharan Africa). Hence it leaves out the beliefs and practices of vital linguistic minorities such as the Khoi-San and the Nilo-Saharans...I guess, if you insist on keeping the list, this fact must be pointed out (ie 'the reason why most ATRs share these characteristics is because they are typical practices of Niger-Congo speakers, who comprise the majority on the African continent'--something like that...) Afiya27 (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there are indeed scholars who have reconstructed an Indo-European-proto-religion:

Zoroastrianism, founded (by Zoroaster, Zarathosht, tradition holds) in ca. 750 BCE, is an important ideological root of post-exilic Judaism, and therefore of all the Abrahamic religions. As discussed in the Overview, it is (along with the ancient Greek, Roman, Hindu, Norse, Celtic, Baltic, and Slavic mythologies) a descendent of the prehistoric, polytheistic Indo-European proto-religion.--http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/eden/progen.html

Part of the reason for the Indo-European religious diversity (in contrast to ATRs) is likely the fact that, for better or worse, Indo-Europeans lived at more of a crossroads of diverse ideas and lines of thought than did adherents of ATRs (who were "protected"/isolated by the Sahara, and, due to relatively low soil productivity, maintained lower population densities...for better or worse, ATRs retained their general integrity, while many IETRs were radically reconstituted by "outsiders"). Afiya27 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. Like I said, I look forward to reading and learning more. - IanCheesman (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As Ian has correctly pointed out, there are many problems with linking religious beliefs to languages. For one thing, linguistic groups are actually often-times a very inaccurate indication of common ethno-racial descent, and not the opposite as Afiya has suggested. I'll give you a very simple and relevant example (one which I also tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to make on the history page): The Omotic-speaking groups of southern Ethiopia are comprised of Bantus and Nilotes, not "Afro-Asiatic stock". They originally came from West/Central Africa about 3000-4000 years ago in what's known as the Bantu expansion. Only later did their native Niger Congo languages begin to take on some characteristics of Afro-Asiatic languages due to sheer proximity with the Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples of Northeastern Africa. In other words, Omotic languages, though they're currently tentatively classified as Afro-Asiatic languages, are not really Afro-Asiatic languages at all but languages that have come to resemble certain nearby Afro-Asiatic languages through a sprachbund effect. Many linguists have caught on to this fact, and the most recent works on the subject actually completely exclude the Omotic languages from the Afro-Asiatic linguistic family, contrary to what the older Ehret books suggest. An even better example of what I mean is the case of African Americans who speak English as a mother tongue yet aren't of "Anglo-Saxon stock". One therefore has to compare a lot more than just linguistic data (and recent data at that) to arrive at an ethno-racial conclusion. The African traditional religion article, however, is definitely not the place to do that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

So you suggest lumping them all together in the kind of disorganized "soup" that existed on the page BEFORE my changes? Ehret's tradition makes ROUGH generalizations that I think are more valid than just suggesting that the traditions of a whole CONTINENT are just lumpable together as "African" when the likely founders of the religions had no idea of such a concept. Afiya27 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just putting words in my mouth. I do not and would never advocate lumping all religious traditions practiced in Africa under any one umbrella term, whether "African" or otherwise. I have too much respect for and knowledge of the continent and its myriad peoples to do that. All I was doing in my previous post was correcting a few errors in statements you made above, and letting Ian know that his initial impressions weren't in any way untoward or altogether wrong. That's all. Hardly the stuff of CAPS LOCK spasms. In fact, I don't mind your edits at all now that they're actually properly sourced (or at least mostly; I've removed a link to NationMaster encyclopedia since it gets a lot of its information from Misplaced Pages itself). Middayexpress (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional, indiginous, tribal?

I suppose the terms "traditional", "indiginous", "tribal" should not be used in the article. I think these terms are all pejorative and stem from a mindset rooted in colonialism and eurocentrism. This article seems like Ghetto in which some religions have been locked away.

The term "traditional" just lumps distinct religions together that should be viewed on the same level with all other religions. This term contains the view that there are some advanced religions like christianity and islam and then there is the traditional ones. If you read Ehret's book, a very different picture emerges: There are five distinct religious traditions in Africa (Khoisan, Koman, Niger-Congo, Sudanic and Afrasan, another one, Aksumitic religion with Asian origins should also be mentioned). The "Mosaic" or "Abrahamic" religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are a branch of the Afrasan religious tradition. The Egyption religion is a cross-breed of Afrasan and Sudanic religion. Why is there an article about "Traditional African religions", but no article about Eurasiatic traditional religions lumping together the belief systems of Koreans, Indians, ancient Romans and so on.

The term "indiginous" is used to distinguish certain cultures ("indiginous cultures") from other "non-indiginous" cultures. The article should not use it but discuss it for what it is: an unscientific, pejorative term that should be avoided.

The same holds for the term "tribal". To cite from Ehret's book: "Clearly, "tribe" is an appellation Europeans have reserved for non-European ethnic groups and nationalities and most especially those of Africa" (The Civilizations of Africa, p.7). The article now states that "African religious traditions are defined largely along community lines". In the light of Ehret's book, that is clearly not so: There are a number of distinct religions that can be described without referring to single ethnic groups. Since these are very old, there is a lot of variation, but they are distinct religions. Why does nobody call Judaism a tribal religion (or Taoism).

This pejorative treatment of most African religions can also be seen from the fact that neither Egyptian nor Meroitic nor Aksumitic religion is included here. This shows that double standards are applied here (there seems to be a distinction between "indigenous peoples" and "civilizations" and these terminologies come from that mindset).

I suggest, we first write distinct articles about each of these religions. Then we include referencdes to these in the "Religion in Africa"-article (that is now very poor) and give that article a more historical perspective, explaining the historic links between some of these religions. Let us give African religions their rightfull place inside that article. Material from "Traditional African Religions" should be moved to the articles about the single religions and to the "Religion in Africa" article. The article "Traditional African Religion" should be emptied, stating only that this term is used to lump distinct African religions together.Nannus (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some material, mainly but not only from Ehret, who is the definitive source on the topic at the moment. I have concentrated on Section 1 and expanded it. I suppose sections 2 etc. need a lot of cleanup. I intend to move the stuff from section 2 into the "Religion in Africa" article and then integrate the section on the Abrahamic Religions found there under the Afrasan tradition, where it historically belongs. So much for today. Nannus (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the terms "traditional", "indiginous"(sic) and "tribal" are "pejorative" perhaps you should write your own prescriptive dictionary of "terms liked and disliked by Nannus". It would be nice if this article could slowly be recognized as a serious topic of comparative religious studies instead of a playground of people who like playing political mindgames and are trying to turn "Africa" into some kind of mystical abstraction. If Africa is a "ghetto", the problem is very much in the real world, see Human Development Index and not with Misplaced Pages. These real problems aren't going to go away if you simply decide that Africa is only in your head, and damn the politically offensive bastards who keep insisting you cannot define your own dream-Africa.

"African religions" are even more of a super-umbrella term than Chinese folk religion. This article can never be more than a boring list of sub-topics. There is nothing that unites the religious traditions of the Khoi people with those of the Berber that would not also unite them with any other human group in the wide world. The concept of "Africa" is purely geographical and purely for convention. Any discussion of actual substance will need to address the more narrow topics such as "Bantu religion".

Yes, I am ranting at a comment from 2009 because this very important article has been completely broken since 2009 by people who make up their "dream-Africa" for the purposes of "Afrology" instead of taking the pain of a "fact-based" approach. This, and not terms like "indigenous" or "tribal", is the true insult to the peoples whose traditions are supposed to be described here: these are real peoples, and they exist in their own right, and not just to provide alienated African Americans (or, in this case, alienated Germans on a PC rampage) with a cozy warm feeling of "Africanity" ). --dab (𒁳) 06:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So I assume someone named Ehret wrote this article....

But seriously artiaoismcle is ridiculously bad... wtf is an afraisan? there are africans in northern and north eastern Africa but no Afraisians. two options. Fix the article or just delete it. vap (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Ehret is professor for African history at the University of California in Los angeles UCLA. He coined the term "Afrasan" as an alternative to the term "Afro-Asiatic". The older view of the Afro-Asiatic language family is that when agriculture wasw invented in the middle east, these people moved into northern Africa. It is now known that this view is wrong and it is an originally African language family with just one branch in Asia, the Semitic languages. To emphasize that it is not really an asiatic language family, Ehret uses the term Afrasan in his book "The Civilizations of Africa". The article has actually improved a lot since I have seen it the last time. I came here today to start including the relvant stuff from Ehret's fantastic book and find to my pleasure that somebody has already started doing so. There is potential for improvement, but a start has been made. Nannus (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ehert wrote the article since no actually African can read and write or study themselves we are left to assume Ehert is the only person in the entire globe who is an expert on religions in Africa which he . A. Doesn't practice, B. Was not raised with. C. Studies from a Western slant, D. Probably is not fluent in any African language. E. Visits Africa in his holidays from USA. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Cushitic religion part of the Sudanic Tradition or not?

There seems to be a difference in oppinion between me and Middayexpress about the status of the Cushitic religion. I wrote into the article that it belongs to the Sudanic tradition and this was reverted. So let me justify my oppinion: In "The civilizations of Africa", Ehret writes (page 79): "The history of these southern Erythraites provides an intriguing example of the spread of religion without the existence of either missionaries or religious writings." (page 79). I understand this to mean that the Sudanic religion spread to the Cushitic people. The resulting religion, like the Sudanic religion, is a monotheistic religion, not a henotheistic one as the religion of the older Erythraites had been. Ehret writes: "The Cushitic system of clans with clan priest-chiefs ..., which derived from their ancient Afrasan cultural roots, still persisted as the basis of social loyalty and cooperation amon the proto-Cushites, but the belief i a clan deity lost its salience. In its place, and no doubt as a result of their long association with the Northern Dudanic peopels to theri immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Dudanic concept of Divinity." I think it is justified, based on this citation, to say that the Cushitic religion is basically a branch of the Sudanic religion, retaining some Afro-Asiatic elements, and not the other way arround. The old main elemnet of Afrasan religion (belief in Clan deities) was replaced by the belief in a single god. That is a change of religion. Since some elements of the Afrasan religion (like priest-chiefs and the belief in dangerous spirits where retained, one can call it a syncretistic religion that inherited something from both sides, but I think the main element is Sudanic. So I think when I wrote this into the article, that was no original research.Nannus (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. I don't think it is at all justified, especially based on the Ehret source, to say that "the Cushitic religion is basically a branch of the Sudanic religion". But before I explain why, let me quote Ehret's passage in full here for reference.

"The history of these southern Erythraites provides an intriguing example of the spread of religion without the existence of their missionaries or religious writings. The religious beliefs of the proto-Cushites, probably as early as the seventh millennium BCE, came to blend two distinct religious traditions. The Cushitic system of clans with the clan priest-chiefs, the *wap'er, which derived from their ancient Afrasan cultural roots still persisted as the basis of social loyalty and cooperation among the proto-Cushites, but the belief in a clan deity lost its salience. In its place, and no doubt as a result of their long association with the Northern Sudanic peoples to their immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Sudanic concept of Divinity. They chose their own word for the new concept of spirit, expanding the meaning of the old Cushitic root word *waak'a for "sky" to apply to both "sky" and "Divinity". The *wap'er still had religious duties, but these duties came to be redirected toward Divinity. The Cushites retained the old Afrasan practice of attributing bad happenings to dangerous spirits, although they now sometimes also viewed evil as a Divine retribution."

As can be seen, the Ehret passage is about the early Cushites, not modern Cushitic-speakers. If we are talking about modern Cushitic speakers and their religious beliefs, then we would indicate that they follow mostly Abrahimic faiths since those are the religious traditions most adopted (not Sudanic ones). Also, Ehret makes it clear in that passage that these early Cushites had pre-existing Afrasan/Afro-Asiatic religious beliefs/traditions distinct from those of their Sudanic neighbors. Only later circa the seventh millennium BCE would the early Cushites adopt the Sudanic concept of Divinity into their existing belief system. It is therefore I think highly misleading to suggest that the adopted Sudanic concept of Divinity itself is part of the early Cushites' original Afrasan religion, when Ehret himself makes it clear that it is not but is instead completely distinct from the latter. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this Misplaced Pages article is about traditional i.e. indigenous religious traditions, not adopted religions or aspects thereof. Thus, if we are to discuss the actual ancient Afrasan religion of the proto-Cushites, then let's do that and not insist that, according to Ehret, the Sudanic concept of Divinity (which the early Cushites adopted after the fact) itself forms the core or even any part of their original Afrasan religion, when of course he has indicated the opposite: that it is actually part of an altogether separate, non-Afrasan religious tradition. Middayexpress (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When I refer here to "Cushitic religion" I do not mean the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, that are probably dominant among speakers of Cushitic religions today. As we are speaking of religious traditions here, this article has a historical perspective. The African religious landscape cannot be well understood without this historical perspective. So I think it is generally justified to include old and also extinct religions here (I don't know if this religion is extinct now, I guess it has been replaced by Islam in most areas, do you know anything about this or have sources?). The term "Cushitic religion" as I have used it here also was not meant to refer to the Afrasan religion of these people before the events described by Ehret in the citation above.

The citation by Ehret means that there was a change in religion: originally the (Proto-)Cushites belonged to a version of the Afrasan religion, with clan gods and henotheism. This religion is covered by the general description and I did not intend to give it a special treatment here. Then, under Sudanic influence, the religion changed. I want to describe in the article the particular religion that was the result of this change since this was something new and unique that deserves to be mentioned separately. If you don't like this religion to be called "Cushitic" (although it seems to have been the main religion among Cushitic peoples for several thousand years) , we could use another name, e.g. "Waak'a-Religion", or "Cushitic Waak'a-Religion" or "Afrasan-Sudanic Syncretism among Cushitic Peoples" or "Cushitic Sky-God Religion" or something like that. We can search the literature if there is an established term. Since there are still Cushitic people today (most of them probably Muslims), the term "Cushitic religion" may be misleading and may be irritating for Cushitic readers who belong to another religion. So maybe we should just find another term to avoid missunderstandings and irritations.Nannus (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that when you state "Cushitic religion", you are not referring to the Abrahamic traditions which the Cushites later adopted (neither was I, for the record). What you don't seem to understand is that, unlike the Abrahamic religions which the populations in the Horn adopted wholesale very early on, the Sudanic religions were never "adopted" by the Cushites; aspects of the former just came to influence aspects of the latter's original Afro-Asiatic religion. Specifically, per Ehret himself, the early Cushites' belief in a clan deity was replaced by the Sudanic concept of Divinity; not that the Sudanic concept of Divinity itself was the original Cushitic belief: "...the belief in a clan deity lost its salience. In its place, and no doubt as a result of their long association with the Northern Sudanic peoples to their immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Sudanic concept of Divinity". You have also suggested that "the citation by Ehret means that there was a change in religion", when this is not at all the case since Ehret himself writes that "the religious beliefs of the proto-Cushites, probably as early as the seventh millennium BCE, came to blend two distinct religious traditions". Note that Ehret does not state either that Cushitic religious beliefs were a blend of the Sudanic and Afro-Asiatic traditions, but expressly that they came to be that way and only from the seventh millenium BCE onwards i.e. after the Cushites' abandoned their original belief in a clan deity (which was part & parcel of their original faith) in favor of what he describes as the Sudanic concept of Divinity. Also, this blend of two distinct religious traditions was brought about specifically due to the Cushites' prolonged contact with their Northern Sudanic neighbors to the east ("as a result of their long association with the Northern Sudanic peoples to their immediate east, the early Cushites adopted the Sudanic concept of Divinity"). This is no different to the early adoption of the Abrahamic faiths by the Cushites as a result of prolonged contact with Semitic peoples from the Near East; only in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, these new religions completely supplanted the Cushites' original belief system, whereas per Ehret, the Cushites' only adopted the singular concept of Divinity from their Sudanic neighbors. In fact, he indicates that the Cushites still kept right on attributing bad events to evil spirits as they had before, and that the clan-priest chief still retained religious duties but that these were now just redirected to Divinity: "The *wap'er still had religious duties, but these duties came to be redirected toward Divinity. The Cushites retained the old Afrasan practice of attributing bad happenings to dangerous spirits, although they now sometimes also viewed evil as a Divine retribution." I therefore must reiterate that it is misleading to suggest or in any way imply that the Cushitic religion was replaced by a Sudanic one since Ehret of course only indicates that the Cushites simply exchanged their pre-existing concept of a clan deity for the Sudanic concept of Divinity i.e. a "blend" of two distinct religious traditions, not a replacement of one by another. And even if it were a replacement, that would be no different to the early wholesale adoption of the Abrahamic faiths by Cushitic groups since these faiths aren't, after all, "indigenous" to the Cushites either nor are they treated as such in this article (although, unlike the completely distinct Sudanic religious traditions, the Abrahamic faiths at least also ultimately stem from common Afro-Asiatic religious traditions as the original Cushitic religious beliefs). Middayexpress (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy"

Iam going to remove the section titled "Controversy". I think it does not belong into this article. I am saving it here so it may be put somewhere else.

Christian pastors in Nigeria have been involved in the torturing and killing of children accused of witchcraft. Over the past decade, over 1000 children have been murdered with some being set on fire. Church pastors, in an effort to distinguish from the competition, establish their credentials by accusing children of witchcraft. When repeatedly asked about the matter, the Church has refused to comment.

Nannus (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ehert did write this article since he is the main one talking

Almost 85% of the references in an entire article on Africa are the opinions and study of one man C Ehert. Now he aint even an African (he is white American from America). Does that matter, YES. Because I think the best people to tell you about cars are mechanics. The best person to tell you the ins and outs of being African is probably an African scholar. Now during colonialism one voice Tarzan got to speak about all things African (and that became the unchallengeable authority on African people - as if African people cannot speak about their own reality). So some plurality demands the inclusion of diverse opinions. Not one white guy from LA. Now is there a shortage of Africans? Kwesi Prah, Molefi Asante, Maulana Karenga, and I am guessing numerous others with deep insight into things like Libation like Kimani Nehusi. And religion isnt even my specialty but already I dug up all of these guys. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't evaluate people based on race. That would be, well, ignorant. We evaluate people by how well their ideas are received in the scholarly community, and that includes evaluation by African scholars. That said, I deleted almost all of the refs to Ehret, since he based his conclusions on linguistics, and other linguists reject his linguistics. Just by WP:WEIGHT we can't give so much credence to hypothetical religious reconstructions. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

3 - 1 Editors have cited an issue with the Ehert weighty opinion (see talk page above). I would go far to call them well researched fringe theories, doesnt mean they are not nice to have in here but I am sorry but 80% of a page on African religion cannot be What Ehert (a linguist)thinks. Impossible. And while I was not the one who deleted it, you have gone and undone other edits. now before adding it back maybe we should use the talk page as it is a massive section on one mans opinions on someone elses religion. You could never in a million years do this anywhere else, try it here Judaism or Islam see WP:WEIGHT I repeat and agree with this statement: concepts depending solely on Ehret, whose linguistics has been debunked, and who's not an authority on religion. Also removing paragraphs which don't actually say anythin --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Halqh, I apologize for removing your edits. I didn't mean to. I was just so shocked by the willful removal of ALL of the other/original stuff based solely on someone's top-down STATEMENT suggesting that 'Ehret was debunked' (rather than solid reasoning/rationale as to why/how this is so given Ehret's fairly respectable credentials, etc). In my humble opinion, such actions are disrespectful, and inappropriate. I looked on the page of the guy who did it 'Kwam...' something ... It seems that he has some linguistic training. But, in my humble opinion, it's still very patronizing to think that, solely on that basis, he can just come in and do what he did without providing reasoned argument. As you said, would he try that on 'any other page ...'? Heck, he could have even just added the criticisms of Ehret's analysis to the TEXT (i.e. after the initial mention of Ehret therein)! That could've added wonderful perspective/nuance. Instead, he just comes in and makes those sweeping changes! I mean, honestly/technically, regardless of what others (like him) say, Chris Ehret is a tenured prof at UCLA last I checked. So his colleagues THERE must see SOME merit in him! I could see if he were some kind of non-degree'd amateur. But he's actually 'paid his academic dues'! If people know of others who have differing views from Ehret, feel free to add them within the context of the text! That'd be great in terms of offering diverse perspectives. But, in my view, it's not cool or fair to erase Ehret 'just because' his views are THUS FAR the only ones presented/addressed! If one professional linguist (with tenure at a reputable university, etc) happens to have published a lot on a topic (compared to others), that is what it is! If people know of others who have different perspectives, feel free to add those! But don't just come by, offer up a single flippant comment, and then erase EVERYTHING! That doesn't make any sense to me! Before the addition of Ehret's lens, this page was a junk yard of random, jumbled, confused information on African Traditional religion. The addition of Ehret's style of linking the various traditions to their linguistic-roots at least added a DEGREE of nuance!

I see that 'Kwam ...' decided to retain the linguistic categorization for the Niger-Congo family traditions ... but none of the others ... Am I to assume from that that he agrees with Ehret's support of the idea that that mega-family exists (but not the others?)? I don't get it ... If you're going to dump on Ehret's approach, why even keep the label of the category as 'Niger-Congo'? Doing so implies that that's the only language-family in Africa that gave rise to a spiritual tradition! ... That's GOT to be inaccurate! And not just because 'Chris Ehret says so'! In other words, if 'Ehret's approach has been debunked', why not just randomly fling out examples of 'African traditions' SANS language-association? Why keep things in such piecemeal fashion with little to NO justification beyond a CLEAR dislike for Ehret('s analysis)? Because, again, in my humble opinion, disagreement with Ehret's rationale/approach could have simply been added to the text WITH the alternative rationales/approaches of Ehret's critics on this topic (PLUS references)! That would have actually been helpful! Afiya27 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is Weight, not if he has merit. I think we should discuss how to not lose a big piece of info but also make sure Weight is not violated. I think we can probably add it to his page, that means at least the information will not be lost. Cuz someone took the time to add it and I respect that. But far too much weight, regardless of how well researched it is. suggestions?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Niger-Congo religion" is probably a meaningless concept, about as worthwhile as "Niger-Congo people", as if there were some kind of cultural connection among them. I only left it in because there were other refs involved, ones I knew nothing about. Replaced it with "West African", which in this context means the same thing.

Yes, Ehret is tenured. But other linguists don't think much of him: he doesn't bother to cite nor, it seems, even consider other research in the language families he postulates, for example, and no one person can do it all. And now he's extended his generally unaccepted linguistic conclusions to comparative religion, which isn't even his field. — kwami (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there any link to other academics refuting his theories?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kwamikagami, So you're saying that you're perfectly fine with information you have NO idea about. It's just that when it comes to Ehret, because you recognize the name (and dislike your impression thereof), any and everything he writes deserves wholesale erasure??? As Halqh suggests, can you at least link us to a site that offers a more elaborated critique of him? Or do you expect us to just go along with this because YOU say so? Wouldn't that be mimic-ing what you claim to dislike about what Ehret does??? If that's the case, just as this section of the discussion page suggests that that whole section of the cite was only attributable to the views/intellectual-aesthetics of Chris Ehret, NOW it'll be say-able that the erasure of the section is mainly attributable to YOUR views/intellectual-aesthetics! What's the difference? Why do YOU get to trump Ehret based solely on your word? What CITATIONS can you link us to? There's not even any indication of your critique on Christopher Ehret's page! So why should we believe you? Afiya27 (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I tend to edit things I know something about, and tend to leave alone those things I don't know anything about. I leave them to people who know something about them. Would you prefer that I edited things I knew nothing about? And the fact I haven't reworked Ehret's page is utterly irrelevant to this article. There are millions of WP articles that I haven't edited.

BTW, there's some criticism of Ehret at Nilo-Saharan languages#Ehret 1984 (1989, 2001). He's radically reworked that family, with consequently radical implications for linguistic history, but no-one follows him. Hardly anyone even bothers to debunk him (Blench is an exception), since there's nothing to debunk: it's just unsupported speculation presented as theory, speculation which fails to even respond to the criticisms leveled against it over the years. — kwami (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kwamikagami, Okay. So then now my understanding of the controversy surrounding Ehret is that it has to do with things he's done WITHIN the more-or-less collectively-agreed-upon (amongst members of the African linguistic community) 'Joseph Greenburg-ian' language families of Africa. Hence, Ehret's assertions of the EXISTENCE of the language families 'Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Khoisan, and Nilo-Saharan' aren't, in and of themselves, the core of your and/or his other peers' 'beef' with him. Correct? .... Because, if that's the case, would I be correct in presuming that the core reason you erased the language-family categorization scheme is more because the details therein were ALL attributed to Ehret's ideas? In other words, if the page had been arranged that way due to the ideas of OTHERS, who were, in you and your peers' judgment, more linguist-community-accountable scholars, you'd have been okay with it? ... I ask because my impression of the existence of Misplaced Pages pages such as proto-Indo-European religion and/or books such as 'Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Religions' by Julian Baldick (see Amazon) is that, although it might not be the most 'politically correct' practice in the field of linguistics, people OTHER than Ehret have applied similar logic within the identity space of being 'respected/respectable linguists who desire to make evidence-based arguments that are accountable to the evaluation-standards of their peers' (i.e. something you seem to be intimating that Ehret doesn't do?, and/or has stopped doing post-tenure?). Afiya27 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the well referenced undue weight text to his page. I hope one his fans can go there and sort it out. I am no fan of his but also think moving it there is the best solution.Christopher Ehert--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Afiya, one of the problems is reification of language families. Modern cultures are generally not going to follow language-family boundaries very well; certainly when linguists change their minds on which languages belong in a family, the speakers of those languages don't change their culture! When the Kadugli languages were removed from Niger-Congo, Kadugli speakers didn't abandon monotheism. Take Mande: there's legitimate debate over whether these are Niger-Congo or not, but that has nothing to do with which religion they practice. Rather than saying someone is monotheistic because they speak a Niger-Congo language, we should say they're monotheistic because they follow a monotheistic religion.

What Ehret is attempting to do is to reconstruct the ancestral religions of Africa based on linguistic evidence. If a bunch of people have similar religious beliefs, and speak related languages, one may infer that their linguistic ancestor had similar religious beliefs. That, however, is a historical question that is rather parenthetical to this article. Although extremely interesting IMO, even if Ehret were demonstrated to be correct it wouldn't warrant the amount of space it's been given here: It should be a section on religious reconstruction, not the basis for the entire article. Secondly, linguistic reconstructions are highly sensitive to the classification one uses. Since other linguists do not accept Ehret's classifications, his linguistic conclusions are thrown in doubt. And without his linguistics, what's he doing here? He's not an authority on African religion. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your point is super valid. When they finally re-classify these unknown languages it will not alter their religion. Language classification is a funny field anyway. They must be some other experts who can add to the article that we can reference. I only know Opodu from Ghana.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Semitic as part of Afro-Asiatic/Afrasan

Given that Semitic religion also started as henotheistic (with plenty of evidence surviving in current religious books), isn't there any data on the relation between Semitic religion and the other (linguistic) branches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.33.185 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Try this book: "Black God: The Afroasiatic Roots of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Religions" by Julian Baldick ... It's a good start. Afiya27 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian/Nubian Religion

Why are these two not included as part of the African religion page? Egypt and Nubia are in Africa. Africans practice these traditions. Not griping as I really do not care, I'm just curious as to why these are always excluded (and any of these practices for weaponry, culture, etc) as being a part of African classification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.64.64 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have info please be free to add it. As you know they have always try to discuss Africa and exclude anything North of the Sahara. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead of this article for start is inappropriate

Am I the only one here who has a problem with the opening statement of this article? I too adhere to the old African religion (Serer religion) so when I come to read about the old African religion I don't want to be hit by Christianity and Islam in the lead section (religions which came much later). Personally, I strongly believe they should not even be in this article. This article is about the old African religion not Islam or Christianity. If others however strongly believe that they should be added, well then they should not be in the lead section just like one would not find Paganism or Animism in the lead section of Islam and Christianity. Also, why the biased tone in the lead when talking about it being orally transmitted rather than written? The old Pagan religion of Europe e.g. UK was also transmitted orally before writing was introduced by Christian monks (a religion which came later). Many of the Druid tradition of UK is still rooted in orality does that make it less of a religion to the written religions? Of course not. The old African religion is is passed down from ancient chants, religious practices, etc, passed down through the ages and is a way of life. There is nothing to be ashamed of that. As regards to Islam an Christianity, if others really want to add them in here, I think they should have a short subsection of their own dealing with when they came in, how, their effects on the old African religion and the fact that most African Christians and Muslims particularly in the Western and other parts of the Continent still link the old religion to the new religions (Christianity and Islam). That addressed, the entire article should be devoted to what this article is all about. I think this article needs a lot of work and many aspects of the old African religion has been left out e.g. cosmology, astronomy, symbolisms, laws, saints, initiation of priest and priestesses, medicine, the religious secret societies, believes regarding what happens after death etc.

I think all African devout followers of the old religion who are specialist in this field should come to the rescue of this article. Although efforts have been made in this article, each section or subsection is mainly full of two liners and mostly unsourced. Sourcing may be difficult but their are some. Several authors have written about African religion. Tamsier (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not understanding the article which is about "TRADITIONAL / INDIGENOUS" African religions. None of those definitions have anything to do with age. A 18th century South African "Religion" is therefore both traditional and indigenous. It is not older than Christianity in South Africa. The lead mentions the link to the indigenous stuff. In 200 Years time Karenga's Ngubo Saba may be a traditional African-American religion. I do think the lede could better explain these beliefs because script is not a serious factor in classification of traditional religions.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Again, my issue with this article is the lead, the unsourced content, the two liners and missing sections etc. The word "old" was used descriptively. The title of the article is another issue, but that is the least to worry about. It is the content. Now do you have anything of value to add to this article? Tamsier (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Traditional", by convention, means the mostly animistic religions of Africa which predate Christianity and Islam. "Indigenous", on the other hand, includes forms or offshoots of Christianity and Islam that arose in Africa. That is, the religions of Africa are conventionally portrayed as three traditions: Christianity, Islam, and "Traditional" (essentially the same as "Pagan", which would have unwanted connotations in this context). The latter is, of course, a gross simplification, but I think we need to develop this article a lot further before we start worrying about that. — kwami (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit clash, I hope you didnt lose anything cuz I was bursting my brain thinking of how the lead could reflect the "generalization" of African religions. Now I am not inclined to this simplification and would argue no such "generalizations" exist, but still the lead needs to identify key commonalities, just like ALL religions have certain things in common. re: convention you will find the word Pagan used more than anything else, a note should be added that it is considered out dated an Abrahamic-centrism. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline and factors

I have added a general note about decline, it is very important to the lead. although I think it can be articulated better. I think a section should also deal with this decline and why. The different waves and factors impacting native beliefs. Including modernity and socialization. The rise of the Pente church, urbanization, marginalization should be in the lead because of its significance.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Traditional African religion () → Traditional African religion – stable name, and the norm in the lit. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title needs correction: ends in ()

The empty parentheses at the end of the title ends up creating redirects such as:

Traditional African religion ()

Redirected from Traditional African religion)

Sorry that all I can do is point this out.

Thanks in advance, --Geekdiva (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't see the section above. Sorry for the duplication.

--Geekdiva (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Separation of terms

This article seems to be a catch-all page for re-directed terms such as "African mythology", "Africa folklore", ... oral traditions, etc. These are NOT all synonymous with "African religion"! - and frankly, it seems a bit condescending to make that assumption. There needs to be a separation of terms. ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC) "African folklore" even redirects to this article, but the article doesn't discuss African folklore in any detail. Jarble (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Valid point. --Inayity (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Classification and statistics first paragraph Erroneous and lack Contextualization from the book

The first paragraph, only use one source for information that is the book by Ehret. Also, it confuses people as it leads readers to think henotheism is something shared only by Afro-asiatic (Afrasan) when it is widespread in African traditional religions. 'It must be noted Ehret was only referring to probable very ancient religions using his own linguistic conjectures.' For example, The Spirituality of African Peoples: The Search for a Common Moral Discourse By Peter J. Paris mentions: African henotheism has always assumed that every so-called tribe or ethnic group has its own patheon of divinities, each of which is relevantly related to the specific needs of the community. The source also mentions later on:Unlike Christianity and Islam, traditional African religions exhibited an enviable spirit of toleration towards different worldviews, philosophies, and religions. In large part this was due to their belief in henotheism (that is acknowledging a pluralism of gods).. Also in Encyclopedia of African Religion, Volume 1 edited by Molefi Kete Asante, Ama Mazama it is mentionned Africism is more correctly understood as henotheism, that is, the acceptance of the existance of secondary deities and lesser spirits, without being distracted away from monotheism, that is, the idea of a Supreme being.. In Making the good news relevant by Morris A. Inch, it mentions: 'West African traditional religion has often been described as henotheistic, which is to say that the lesser deities derive their powers from the High God - who is sovereign over all.'. Since the first paragraph is the product of Original Reasearch and create some confusion, I think it should be the removed. DrLewisphd (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As a published source has been cited, this is not what Misplaced Pages considers original research (see WP:OR). If you would like to improve the neutrality of the article, please add other notable views citing reliable published sources (see WP:RS). HelenOnline (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DrLewisphd (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Still, the Misplaced Pages quote doesn't place Ehret ethno-linguistic conjectures in his proper context and the wikipedia quote is contradicted by the wikipedia article itself a bit below (Odinani chapter, Deities chapter) and many other sources. So there's, two aspects, first, the relation between the wikipedia quote and what is written in Ehret book is wrong (the paragraph makes a bad resume of it) and second, in relation to the first, it's contradiction with current knowledge about African traditional religions. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). HelenOnline (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I want to make some edit but first I would like to discuss the issue with other editors on this page. For one of the issue, it would be interesting for people to have the Ehret book, since the passage from the book wasn't meant as a classification of Traditional African Religion but was intended to try to gather the religious belief of people in a certain period in African history before and around 5000 BC (using mainly comparative linguistics). Obviously for that early time period, a relatively limited amount of data is available and also some religious beliefs can change with time and thus may not be a appropriate description and classification of current Traditional African Religion. DrLewisphd (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose to delete the Ehret passage since it wasn't meant as a classification of current African traditional religions and is thus misleading. DrLewisphd (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's misleading it should be reworded, not deleted. It should be deleted if you have RS's that it is nonsense. (Ehret's linguistics is largely nonsense, but I don't know about his theology.) — kwami (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just shown above that many other sources contradicts him, including this very wiki, about current African traditional religion classification. As I said, Ehret proposition wasn't meant as a classification of current African traditional religion at all!! DrLewisphd (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So? How does that address my objection?

There's no reason you can't add the info you present above, assuming the sources meet RS criteria.

Also, I find it dubious that all traditional African religion is henotheistic. One of the comments you frequently see is that it is difficult to find common religious features across the continent, and from what little I know first hand, some of the smaller ethnicities would not appear to be henotheistic. It's also hard for me to see how Vodun is henotheistic, when they see God as God, not just their own god. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In 'The Spirituality of African Peoples: The Search for a Common Moral Discourse' By Peter J. Paris quote above explains a bit how (they know about other ethnic groups and they know they have their own name for god and divinities). But for me that's a whole other (interesting) subject that the Ehret quote in question which wasn't even meant as a classification of African Traditional religion at all. It's erroneous. That's the important part. It's true that some sources say that it's hard to find common features among traditional African religions (but then they usually go on by stating some of those common features). DrLewisphd (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read some of that Asante book, and I would not trust it when it comes to be a reliable source for conclusions. But the quote of henotheism seems ok without the "most" (because we need to . Much of Afrocentrism is politically motivated and lacks the rigor of scholarship. I am worried when I see "All African religions..." I am also worried when I see Islam and Christianity reduced to "Unlike Islam and Christianity..." which Islam? We see much tolerance in Sufi Islam the kind that dominants West Africa. Ehert is suspect, but after re-reading I dont see any alarm bells going off.--Inayity (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "It's erroneous" requires confirmation. Ehret's linguistics and archeology are shoddy, but that could simply be because he thinks he has something to say about subjects he has no training in and knows little about. He may have something intelligent to say about the history of religion. I wouldn't count on it, but I'd prefer a source saying it's nonsense.

Another possibility would be evaluation per WP:WEIGHT. If RS's on the history of African religion don't mention Ehret, or only mention him in passing, then we could argue coverage of his views is inappropriate in a summary article. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing his name as it is a weight issue. turns him into an authority. Too many people are experts on African religion (John Mbti (i think), quote one of them. but the specifics about the Khoisan etc is valid.--Inayity (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "too many" or which specifics are valid. — kwami (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead Quality OR

Before you revert, use the talk page if you see a cycle. It is how things work on Misplaced Pages. Let me share what I know. a Traditional African religion is not defined ANYWHERE by predating Islam and Christianity. three ref and did not say that. The book by or Asante, or anyone defined ATR relative to the arrival of Abrahamic faiths. To fix the so-called mixing religions error you add back in your - how is that constructive? A traditional religion is a native religion in Africa -- There is no date stamp on it. What happens to all the 15th and 18th century Traditional religions which come about post-Islam? Are they then not included? Where is your source, why is it being added to the lead about ATR? Please follow policy and use the talk page. Please follow ref system. In citations Given. Not OR. If this was so central then where is it in the sources below?

According to source 1: When we speak of African Traditional Religion, we mean the indigenous religious beliefs and practices of the Africans. According to Source 2: It is mainly developed on African soil, it is original in most part (rephrasing)

the lead says ATR are native faiths which may be mixed with other faiths, a million times better than the circular material that was there last week--Inayity (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are the one proposing new material, so you need to justify it here rather than edit warring about it. Granted, the article was in rather pathetic shape. However, your version isn't all that much better. For instance, nowhere do you define what traditional African religion is; that should be the first line. Your recent criticism is that traditional religion does not predate Xanity and Islam, but that's how I've seen it defined. How would you define it? — kwami (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have requested you use the talk page. That is the first stage. I have defined according to the above ref. I requested you add a source for your def. None exist. I have read the books as well as the ref given (it is not new material). It is not how you seen it, you are not an expert the sources are the xperts on the topic Cite them. What worries me most is your hostile non-wikipedia attitude on this page to me and other editors inclusions. I have cited the sources above take time to read those def. Your additions (i will repeat) make no sense. There are 200 year old religions in South Africa which are post-Christianity which are traditional. --Inayity (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

* You said I added ""new"" material? I have not. This lead never said predate Islam etc. Where does that come from? It makes zero sense. Do you realize Christianity is almost 2000 years old in Ethiopia and the Oromo religion is 18th century? --Inayity (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the syncretism comment, which was just silly in the opening line. You also inverted the meaning of another line: rather than the role of humanity according to religion, you changed it to the role of religion in humanity. I'm not sure I know what that is even supposed to mean. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you hope to achieve by this behavior. I am reasonable and only here to make it better. This is the process of making it better, people working constructively respectfully, make it better. as opppose to chop stuff wholesale, discuss what is wrong respectfully. --Inayity (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea what I hope to achieve by removing garbage from the article, or by tagging incoherent statements or statements which are edited to say the opposite of what they did originally? I hope to have an article that is not a joke, though I've tried that before and after a few months it tends to turn back into gibberish. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I edited Compare

compare. See this line.

Many Africans and descendants adhere to their traditions as a philosophical school-of-thought, with traditions of folk religion or syncretism practised alongside other adherent's tradition

I did not add something new, I included it. --Inayity (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to include incoherent text, why bother editing at all? This is what you started with:

Many Africans and descendants adhere to their traditions as a philosophical school-of-thought, with traditions of folk religion or syncretism practised alongside other adherent's tradition.

Although partly incoherent, at least it attempted to note that traditional religion is often syncretistic as one characteristic among many. It didn't present that characteristic as the primary topic of the article. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The sycretism is notable in the lead. --Inayity (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and it is in the lead. But it does not define traditional religion. — kwami (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

See my section below, that is what we are trying to do. It is not easy I suggest agreeing on what is good (like oral tradition) and going through the list by merit. i.e. what defines ATR, ancestors is one item common to all. --Inayity (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What is an ATR? Not easy

There is a struggle to define ATR. Just read the book by John Mbti where a generalized def escapes him. Every author has a shopping list of things which are "unique" to ATR. See

• Native Faiths are religion that is based mainly on oral transmission. It is not written on paper but in peoples' hearts, minds, oral history, rituals, shrines and religious functions... has no founders or reformers like Gautama the Buddha, Asoka, Christ, or Muhammad. It is not the religion of one hero. It has no missionaries, or even the desire to propagate the religion, or to proselytise.(Joseph Awolalu)BTW, I do not 100% agree with him (see Serer which has reformers, and heroes.

• Although varied in outward appearance, African religions display similarities. There have been many attempts at describing African Traditional Religion according to its main characteristics. Turaki (1999:69) lists the following main characteristics:belief in a Supreme Being, belief in spirits and divinities, the cult of ancestors, the use of magic, charms and spiritual forces. Krüger et al. (2009:35–39) identify the following three common traits of African religions that enable scholars to talk of African Religion (singular): belief in a Supreme Being, the realm of spirits a unified community.ref

I propose we use the talk page to beat this out to add clarity where others have struggled. --Inayity (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Those sound fine. Of course they are not correct, because no statement that addresses hundreds of different religions as if they were one could possibly be correct, but what we're concerned with is reflecting respectable sources. Your approach of summarizing and comparing various authors is a good one. — kwami (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes the use of sources should be the cornerstone of any edit and revert. I read many different sources about African Traditional religion there doesn't seem to be a single definition. The word indigenous does comes up often. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from roll back you are deleting numerous agreed edits. the current state is not in dispute. We are not contesting the current state but ADDIng to it. --Inayity (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with those edits and they are not justified by sources. If you want to make a specific edit, I more than open to it. (very much). Discuss it in here with your sources and I will more than happy to support it as other editors will probably will. I do think the intro do need some improvement, but a complete re-writting during an edit war with limited justification or sources is not the proper way to do it. That's why I roll it back to the previous stable version (before any edit warring) DrLewisphd (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont think you understand wikipedia. It is not a stable state because it was being reverted. how is it stable. Two editors disagreed with your inputs. There is no edit warring now until you started it. What is wrong with you? You leave the agreed state and make improvements. You have deleted all kinds of critical info on Population. How is it better right now. Do you see the rules of wikipedia on your talk page--read them. It is exhausting dealing with this. Your edits (and that is key) have been removed by Kwamikagami, and I also agree with that removal of your oxford content? So the version you have restored is yours. --Inayity (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

funny logic, to solve an edit war a new editor reverts what has been agreed by adding in what is not agreed by edit warring. The entire discussion has already happened, (see all the notes above). You have deleted all the ref, and the agreed commonalities, Why have you removed this: While adherence of traditional religions in sub-Saharan Africa are hard to estimate, due to syncretism, they are estimated to number about 70 million, or 12% of African population. You are not helping the lead.

Also the references do not match the lead now. indigenous spiritual theological culture of people of African ancestry, usually Sub-Saharan Africa -. --Inayity (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss one edit at a time. I do agree that the intro do needs some improvements. For the population statistics I think it should be included in the Classification and statistics header not in the lead. It seems like the proper places for such statistics (if they are from good sources). DrLewisphd (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of what a lead is? It sums the most vital information of the entire article. Pop of ATR then becomes key. As with every single other wikipedia page Judaism, Islam the pop is in the lead. Second the content about indigenous spiritual theologically was voted out, only you adding it in. It is unclear. and unreferenced. I return to procedure. You disagree so you revert to a version which two editors where fighting over, you revert from a "agreed" version to a disputed version. This is un constructive. --Inayity (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We can add the population information in the lead without removing what is already included. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me remind you of how it works. The lead when you just arrived was no longer edit warred. We were all at the talk page, I messaged you to come and add to making it better. We are supposed to discuss here and then make changes to the revised lead. The current version (which I did) was disputed. Hence info stripped out. you added it back. We are here to discuss it b4 adding it back. --Inayity (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Explain also why you have deleted this in your reversion? Was it is dispute also?

have a supreme being, belief in spirits and divinities, have in elements of ancestor worship, use of magic, charms and spiritual forces.

--Inayity (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You did a lot of modification in one day. This: have a supreme being, belief in spirits and divinities, have in elements of ancestor worship, use of magic, charms and spiritual forces. seems interesting but I want to know your sources for it. I especially want to change "use of magic, charms" by "magic/medicine" and don't use the word worship but venerated in relation to ancestors. In Theology of African religion in an Nigerian university they say:Ancestors are venerated in African Traditional Religion but they are not worshipped.. The aspect about supreme being, belief in spirits is something I agree with. LINK: http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/cth%20692.pdf For example, your edit could be read as: have a supreme being, belief in spirits and divinities, have in elements of ancestor veneration, use of magic/medicine and spiritual forces. (with sources added). This could be added without removing anything already present in the intro. DrLewisphd (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am vindicated. the revert was not needed. I agree 100% they are not worshipped, they are venerated. And I am happy for that correction as It would often say ancestor worship (which is on thinking about it incorrect). The sources are cited above in the talk page. for this. ref--Inayity (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont forget it was the other editor Kwame, who had issue with the stuff that still remains. I have tagged all those areas to prevent another edit war. I dont have a major problem with the lead theological cultural etc, he does.--Inayity (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say I don't like the first paragraph of the intro either. I never read such wording to describe African religion in any source. But I'm certainly open to suggestions. Many of the definition I have read seems to at least include the word 'indigenous' but I'm not sure about 'spiritual theological culture' even if I have nothing against it beside that it looks slightly convoluted. Some improvements may or may not be welcome depending on the source(s) and quality. DrLewisphd (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues with old lead clarified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR is back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Churches involved in torture, murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches
2. Churches involved in torture, murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches
4. Juergensmeyer, Mark (2006). The Oxford Handbook Of Global Religions. ISBN 0195137981.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Africa articles
• Mid-importance Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Start-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles