This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's some other wikipedia examples: Shinto Shinto (神道 Shintō?) or Shintoism, also kami-no-michi,[1] is the indigenous spirituality of Japan and the people of Japan.. Or Native American religion: Native American religions are the spiritual practices of Native Americans in the United States. It does what is said here: WP:DICT Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.. This is what those other wikipedia articles and this article does. Start with a good definition/description then provide other info. The dict tag is unjustified for this article. DrLewisphd ( talk) 09:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
We are assuming everything has a perfect def in space somewhere. African traditional religions (ATR) means Native religions of Africa. This means it does not include Islam, and Christianity in its definition which are also traditional. We are not describing a house, or a car, or a specific faith or theory. We are describing a term constructed by sociologist and anthropologist for studying religions which are very diverse and escape one specific tidy def. ATR does not mean Traditional African religions, as Islam is traditional and in Africa! So the name and its meaning are not Obvious. The def cannot rise above what the def means. We cannot clarify it beyond what is broadly means. It is a functional anthropological term. Now no one in Africa refers to their faith as ATR. It is not Vodon, it is not Orisha, it is not Serer. It is a broad classification of various native faiths of indigenous or largely indigenous composition. What do you want it to say? ATR are what? And on an un related subject look at the lede of Language is that good, all circular. Well i believe the lede of this article is far better than that. -- Inayity ( talk) 14:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
By definition, this is partaining to African religious studies and or philosophy(ies), hence lets keep it bang on topic. Presently, have edited the lead to express this, it is common for majority of topics about African studies to get hijacked by fundamentalist of some sort but please lets respect ourselves and keep this on topic. Otelemuyen ( talk) 06:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It has always bothered me the confusion between Traditional and Indigenous. They are used synonymous--technically they are not the same. But in many ref they use ATR to mean AIR. Mbuti, makes a clear argument that the term "traditional" is erroneous, he is not alone (most new prog scholars clarify the term). And I think the lead should clarify that. Maybe by adding the word ATR is a term which is "sometimes" used to..., and then a note, or a section on the terminology. Because let us be honest, you cannot have Islam in West Africa from the 9-10th century and in North Africa (which is still part of Africa but seems to be excluded) from the 7th century and Christianity in Ethiopia in the 3rd and 4th C and tell me they are not Traditional. sidebar: Zulu people and their religion can only be as old as the Zulu formation, which starts with Shaka, if you factor in Bantu expansion even still it is younger. The problem is in treating ATR as One great Pan-African religion. -- Inayity ( talk) 09:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
But per WP:TITLE which one is more popular in scholarship etc circles.? I only know ATR,and these names (wherever they came from) do not always follow logic (per my original point) or good Englishgrammar. -- Inayity ( talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Changing a lead created by the talk page process should not be reverted to a disputed version. Not only that but altering quotations and putting back in nonsense like "schools of thought" is inaccurate. This is not supported by references. It is not how we edit on Wikipedia. Please do not edit war.-- Inayity ( talk) 06:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Otelemuyen ( talk) 07:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
While generalizations of these religions are difficult, due to the diversity of African cultures, they do have some characteristics in common.
Generally, they are oral rather than scriptural
undue blame!
While adherence to traditional religion in Africa is hard to estimate, due to syncretism with Christianity and Islam, practitioners are estimated to number 100 million, or 10% of the population"
estimation in the lead!?
This is a typical example of hijacking a topic to serve an unrelated purpose.
Otelemuyen ( talk) 07:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, Otelemuyen. Your changes do not strike me as improvements. This article is inadequate, but it has suffered a long history of horrible writing. If you want to make substantial changes, I suggest you do three things on this talk page first: Present the problematic areas, state why they are problematic, and propose your solutions. We might accept your changes, accept that they need to be changed but not to what you propose, or reject the need to change at all. However, a wholesale change will only be reverted, no matter how many times to make it, because we're unlikely to agree with everything you propose. — kwami ( talk) 22:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
In as much as the lead is meant to first introduce the reader to the article and later summarize its most important aspects, you seem to be expressing a misintepretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
"...veneration of ancestors, use of magic, and traditional medicine".
use of magic: is definately unecessary.
"...due to syncretism with Christianity and Islam, practitioners are estimated to number 100 million, or 10% of the population".
The truth is that African religions have virtualy been around forever and therefore there are very minute cases of being under the influence of another religion and or culture, such is completely out-of place and does NOT follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Given this, neither Christianity nor Islam should be featuring in the lead of an article titled " Traditional African religion; rather outplaced.
Otelemuyen ( talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
For the use of magic, it is mentioned in this Theology of "African Traditional Religion" course in Nigeria for example: LINK: http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/cth%20692.pdf It is said:Belief in Magic/Medicine Medicine in African Traditional Religion transcends of healing and encompasses wellness and wholeness. It may include the use herbs, water or oil to effect healing. However, it could also include offerings, prayers and sacrifices to divine super-sensible powers. The state of the mind is closely related to the health of the body in African medicine, both the psychological and the physical are intertwined. Magic is the deliberate appeal to metaphysical forces in the universe towards a chosen agenda. This often involves recitations of specialized formula by specialist in African mysticism. DrLewisphd ( talk) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
ATR are not confined to Africa. Vodon being a good example. it is in Africa and in Haiti. on and one. -- Inayity ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
We go by sources. The sources says it is a term used to refer to ..... The ref by Mbiti Page 1 says the same thing. Let us stick to the sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not apply here. How could it? And I suggest you request for comments about the Dictionary thing b/c it makes no sense/. Let us take a look [ [4]] so why try to force a wiki rule that does not apply. -- Inayity ( talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So your argument is invalid, and is your own logic. Just show me a similar article that starts of like this one. And why is the link to ethnic religions altered to say traditional religions. Which is a. not true. b. not in the sources given. You see your argument is not answering my questions. It is fixated on WP:DICT but has actually not been able to explain it. But I have read it and know the difference, so explain yourself. Why are these articles and the examples are endless starting different to this one? ATR is a phrase, or term and is used in a specific way, the reader needs to know that. It is not African + Traditional + religion. It is African traditional religion (which is a specific way in anthropology, cultural studies, comparative religion) of grouping religions. Just like critical race theory is not Critical + race+ theory.-- Inayity ( talk) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the version for the last months [5] Not easy to hide from evidence. Not to mention all the talk above. But you just went and changed it to what you want against agreement and against 2 ref. BTW, I see my question about the circular nature of the lede has gone unattended, yet the POV is being pushed. -- Inayity ( talk) 08:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
copy and paste from Ip user years ago: I think it should be changed to "African Traditional Religions" (pluralized). I don't know how to do this. But the current title, "African traditional religion" suggests that there one single traditional African religion, which is clearly not the case. -- Inayity ( talk) 17:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we can agree from all the ref text and differing opinions. That we can represent them in a new section. I have kick started it and it is WIP, so please allow it to be developed. Please contribute so we can represent the issues outlined. As it is clearly a big debate point.-- Inayity ( talk) 06:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems like http://www.africanbelief.com/ is a blog see "About us" and should not be used as a reputable source- despite its claims to be "constantly reviewed by peers", From the About us:
"African Holocaust (Est. 2001) is a non-profit civil society dedicated to the progressive study of African history and culture. The society is composed of African scholars and writers, who share the desire to represent and restore an authentic, reflexive, honest, inclusive and balanced study of the African experience, past and present...We collate work from different areas of study, and use critical thinking to educate, empower and enlighten... African Holocaust Society does not at any stage advocate binary history or propaganda: The facts remain the facts, while the analysis is within African paradigms...African Holocaust does authentic in-house research. We use primary and secondary sources....We go direct to the politicians and sources for most of our content.... we have contributors and on-the-ground connections.... All of this research and information serves as the repository for African academics, think tanks, and progressive solutions for the African world. The site is constantly reviewed by peers for quality and adherence to the ever rising threshold we place on quality research/scholarship."
That is why I removed the reference. I do not think it should be used in any other part of the article either. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we must avoid making up new rules and criteria. Afrika world.com is a site which list a series of article by notable contributors Africanbelief is the same. A blog is defined here blog. -- Inayity ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if we're arguing over the article, then we need to stick to good sources. A blog by a recognized expert in the field would be another matter. If there are such articles at this site, then we can cite them directly and use the link at the site so people can access them. — kwami ( talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that http://www.africanbelief.com/ shouldn't be used as a reliable source. There's many academic book and peer-reviewed studies written about African traditional religions. DrLewisphd ( talk) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here's some other wikipedia examples: Shinto Shinto (神道 Shintō?) or Shintoism, also kami-no-michi,[1] is the indigenous spirituality of Japan and the people of Japan.. Or Native American religion: Native American religions are the spiritual practices of Native Americans in the United States. It does what is said here: WP:DICT Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well.. This is what those other wikipedia articles and this article does. Start with a good definition/description then provide other info. The dict tag is unjustified for this article. DrLewisphd ( talk) 09:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
We are assuming everything has a perfect def in space somewhere. African traditional religions (ATR) means Native religions of Africa. This means it does not include Islam, and Christianity in its definition which are also traditional. We are not describing a house, or a car, or a specific faith or theory. We are describing a term constructed by sociologist and anthropologist for studying religions which are very diverse and escape one specific tidy def. ATR does not mean Traditional African religions, as Islam is traditional and in Africa! So the name and its meaning are not Obvious. The def cannot rise above what the def means. We cannot clarify it beyond what is broadly means. It is a functional anthropological term. Now no one in Africa refers to their faith as ATR. It is not Vodon, it is not Orisha, it is not Serer. It is a broad classification of various native faiths of indigenous or largely indigenous composition. What do you want it to say? ATR are what? And on an un related subject look at the lede of Language is that good, all circular. Well i believe the lede of this article is far better than that. -- Inayity ( talk) 14:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
By definition, this is partaining to African religious studies and or philosophy(ies), hence lets keep it bang on topic. Presently, have edited the lead to express this, it is common for majority of topics about African studies to get hijacked by fundamentalist of some sort but please lets respect ourselves and keep this on topic. Otelemuyen ( talk) 06:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
It has always bothered me the confusion between Traditional and Indigenous. They are used synonymous--technically they are not the same. But in many ref they use ATR to mean AIR. Mbuti, makes a clear argument that the term "traditional" is erroneous, he is not alone (most new prog scholars clarify the term). And I think the lead should clarify that. Maybe by adding the word ATR is a term which is "sometimes" used to..., and then a note, or a section on the terminology. Because let us be honest, you cannot have Islam in West Africa from the 9-10th century and in North Africa (which is still part of Africa but seems to be excluded) from the 7th century and Christianity in Ethiopia in the 3rd and 4th C and tell me they are not Traditional. sidebar: Zulu people and their religion can only be as old as the Zulu formation, which starts with Shaka, if you factor in Bantu expansion even still it is younger. The problem is in treating ATR as One great Pan-African religion. -- Inayity ( talk) 09:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
But per WP:TITLE which one is more popular in scholarship etc circles.? I only know ATR,and these names (wherever they came from) do not always follow logic (per my original point) or good Englishgrammar. -- Inayity ( talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Changing a lead created by the talk page process should not be reverted to a disputed version. Not only that but altering quotations and putting back in nonsense like "schools of thought" is inaccurate. This is not supported by references. It is not how we edit on Wikipedia. Please do not edit war.-- Inayity ( talk) 06:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Otelemuyen ( talk) 07:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
While generalizations of these religions are difficult, due to the diversity of African cultures, they do have some characteristics in common.
Generally, they are oral rather than scriptural
undue blame!
While adherence to traditional religion in Africa is hard to estimate, due to syncretism with Christianity and Islam, practitioners are estimated to number 100 million, or 10% of the population"
estimation in the lead!?
This is a typical example of hijacking a topic to serve an unrelated purpose.
Otelemuyen ( talk) 07:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, Otelemuyen. Your changes do not strike me as improvements. This article is inadequate, but it has suffered a long history of horrible writing. If you want to make substantial changes, I suggest you do three things on this talk page first: Present the problematic areas, state why they are problematic, and propose your solutions. We might accept your changes, accept that they need to be changed but not to what you propose, or reject the need to change at all. However, a wholesale change will only be reverted, no matter how many times to make it, because we're unlikely to agree with everything you propose. — kwami ( talk) 22:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
In as much as the lead is meant to first introduce the reader to the article and later summarize its most important aspects, you seem to be expressing a misintepretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
"...veneration of ancestors, use of magic, and traditional medicine".
use of magic: is definately unecessary.
"...due to syncretism with Christianity and Islam, practitioners are estimated to number 100 million, or 10% of the population".
The truth is that African religions have virtualy been around forever and therefore there are very minute cases of being under the influence of another religion and or culture, such is completely out-of place and does NOT follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Given this, neither Christianity nor Islam should be featuring in the lead of an article titled " Traditional African religion; rather outplaced.
Otelemuyen ( talk) 19:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
For the use of magic, it is mentioned in this Theology of "African Traditional Religion" course in Nigeria for example: LINK: http://www.nou.edu.ng/noun/NOUN_OCL/pdf/cth%20692.pdf It is said:Belief in Magic/Medicine Medicine in African Traditional Religion transcends of healing and encompasses wellness and wholeness. It may include the use herbs, water or oil to effect healing. However, it could also include offerings, prayers and sacrifices to divine super-sensible powers. The state of the mind is closely related to the health of the body in African medicine, both the psychological and the physical are intertwined. Magic is the deliberate appeal to metaphysical forces in the universe towards a chosen agenda. This often involves recitations of specialized formula by specialist in African mysticism. DrLewisphd ( talk) 14:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
ATR are not confined to Africa. Vodon being a good example. it is in Africa and in Haiti. on and one. -- Inayity ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
We go by sources. The sources says it is a term used to refer to ..... The ref by Mbiti Page 1 says the same thing. Let us stick to the sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not apply here. How could it? And I suggest you request for comments about the Dictionary thing b/c it makes no sense/. Let us take a look [ [4]] so why try to force a wiki rule that does not apply. -- Inayity ( talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So your argument is invalid, and is your own logic. Just show me a similar article that starts of like this one. And why is the link to ethnic religions altered to say traditional religions. Which is a. not true. b. not in the sources given. You see your argument is not answering my questions. It is fixated on WP:DICT but has actually not been able to explain it. But I have read it and know the difference, so explain yourself. Why are these articles and the examples are endless starting different to this one? ATR is a phrase, or term and is used in a specific way, the reader needs to know that. It is not African + Traditional + religion. It is African traditional religion (which is a specific way in anthropology, cultural studies, comparative religion) of grouping religions. Just like critical race theory is not Critical + race+ theory.-- Inayity ( talk) 06:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the version for the last months [5] Not easy to hide from evidence. Not to mention all the talk above. But you just went and changed it to what you want against agreement and against 2 ref. BTW, I see my question about the circular nature of the lede has gone unattended, yet the POV is being pushed. -- Inayity ( talk) 08:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
copy and paste from Ip user years ago: I think it should be changed to "African Traditional Religions" (pluralized). I don't know how to do this. But the current title, "African traditional religion" suggests that there one single traditional African religion, which is clearly not the case. -- Inayity ( talk) 17:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we can agree from all the ref text and differing opinions. That we can represent them in a new section. I have kick started it and it is WIP, so please allow it to be developed. Please contribute so we can represent the issues outlined. As it is clearly a big debate point.-- Inayity ( talk) 06:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems like http://www.africanbelief.com/ is a blog see "About us" and should not be used as a reputable source- despite its claims to be "constantly reviewed by peers", From the About us:
"African Holocaust (Est. 2001) is a non-profit civil society dedicated to the progressive study of African history and culture. The society is composed of African scholars and writers, who share the desire to represent and restore an authentic, reflexive, honest, inclusive and balanced study of the African experience, past and present...We collate work from different areas of study, and use critical thinking to educate, empower and enlighten... African Holocaust Society does not at any stage advocate binary history or propaganda: The facts remain the facts, while the analysis is within African paradigms...African Holocaust does authentic in-house research. We use primary and secondary sources....We go direct to the politicians and sources for most of our content.... we have contributors and on-the-ground connections.... All of this research and information serves as the repository for African academics, think tanks, and progressive solutions for the African world. The site is constantly reviewed by peers for quality and adherence to the ever rising threshold we place on quality research/scholarship."
That is why I removed the reference. I do not think it should be used in any other part of the article either. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we must avoid making up new rules and criteria. Afrika world.com is a site which list a series of article by notable contributors Africanbelief is the same. A blog is defined here blog. -- Inayity ( talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, if we're arguing over the article, then we need to stick to good sources. A blog by a recognized expert in the field would be another matter. If there are such articles at this site, then we can cite them directly and use the link at the site so people can access them. — kwami ( talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that http://www.africanbelief.com/ shouldn't be used as a reliable source. There's many academic book and peer-reviewed studies written about African traditional religions. DrLewisphd ( talk) 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)