Talk:Persecution of traditional African religions

Nonsense article

This article fails to come across as anything but another POV agenda pusher piece. That entire section on historical analysis is a beautiful example of cherry picking nonsense. There are so many scholars on Islam in Africa who are experts and NONE of them say this stuff. Actually what they Say (see David Robinson, as well as Nehemia Levtzion). Utter garbage that makes no sense. The economic relationship between Arabia and Africa is not a secret and Islam coming and how that relationship was modulated has too many historians like Ali Mazrui commenting on. WP:CHERRYPICK is no use to us. And technically the sentence structure is like a child is writing it. --Inayity (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof it is an agenda pushing section that has no scholarly value.

It has been noted that the relationship between Arabia and Africa enjoyed (what is this a AU economic paper?) enjoyed what? economic ties, but after the establishment of Islam, religion became a bigger issue. Although African traditional religion is also regarded to have influenced Islam, but despite this African customs were simply rejected by the Muslims. Muslim missionaries in Africa have often used violence as a means of conversion. (this contradicts all major historians on Islam in Africa)

Possibly due(a lot of this language shows this to be a POV sentiment) to the traditional African religion's point of view, which allows the existence and tolerance for multiple religions, it has been regarded by some authors to be another reason behind the rise of other religions in Africa. Neither the followers of Traditional religion saw any threat from Islam during the start of its spread in Africa. --Inayity (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)So now we come to a filmmaker to discuss Onslaught of Islam Ceddo, a Senegalese film by Ousmane Sembène, depicts the onslaught of Islam, Christianity, and the Atlantic and Arab slave trades in African history. It shows that the representation of history was changed by destroying the older beliefs. This fails at every level to be a. accurate, b. Well written c. Well referenced by notable commentators on this subject. And there is no shortage of RS, so it is strange we hear from Sharon Russell and her view on African cinema over Ali Mazrui. And the reason for this is b/c this is a POV article of cherry picking. --Inayity (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Notable Information Missing

For this article to make sense, the agenda editing has to go. Some key points which must be raised:

• ATR (which has to be pluralized as this is a scholarship discussion of specific instances of persecution. Islam's relationship with Serer is not identical to its relationship with the Maasai religion (as an example).
• The expansion of Islam was an aspect of nation building, the focus on "religion" distracts and mask reality behind POV. So do we look at the Invasion of Iraq 200 years from now as a religious conflict between White Christian Americans and Muslims in Iraq? NO. that is not the only thing framming the confict religious conflicts.
• The real motives behind the destruction? What are they. 1. To control the people for colonialism and slavery on the plantations of the West. In the case of Islam it was to create a stronger polity. See David Robinson
• It is not a one-sidded war, and that needs to be documneted.
• Accomodation of Islam, and Islam's tolerance is totally missing from this entire article. Asante (an ardent Afrocentric) mentions in his book on Africa, that the Africanized Islam was very tolerant and this is why it gained mass followers.
• Native Faiths were intolerant to each other also, and sidded with Muslims for politic reasons, conversion was often economic and politic per Balance that is missing from some of these remarks. (See Warfare in Africa by Richard Reed and the original work by John Thornton

--Inayity (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a shopping list of POV

Per NPOV if an article is about any topic it must represent Balance. What this article is a anti-Abrahamic list of events to support the position of persecution, with NOT ONE SINGLE sentence of balance. And if this article wants to do this, we can then do a list called The Jewish problem and compile every negativity ascribed to Jews and call it an encyclopedic entry. This is what bigots do. So a list of a. Muslims did this in 1812, Muslims did this in 1902, Muslims did this in 2012. Is not an proper Wiki article--Inayity (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be Abrahamic religion either. Because there are no evidences of anyone else, except muslims, christians. Abrahamic religion counts just every religion, even Bahai'faith, which has to do nothing here. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical analysis

"The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to African Religions", published by John Wiley & Sons, seems reliable sources. What is wrong?

"African traditional religion in the modern world" by McFarland & Company, what is wrong with it?

"Encyclopedia of African Religion", by Molefi Kete Asante, seems to be credible as well.

If Ousmane Sembène wrote a documentary, depicting the violence, persecution. Why it shouldn't be added? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It fails in absolute terms the core tenant of Wikipedia NPOV. it is devoid of balance and reads as a bigots list of SYNTH to push a point. No one who knows anything About Afro-Arab trade would talk that nonsense. And you tell me you dont know that just because you string (aka Cherryppick) from books it consitutes something we MUST include. I dont think so. And a note to you who is in a hot spot, you see me write an entire section discussing why it is garbage and you come and restore it!@ --Inayity (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is cherry picked, neither it is deniable, regarding the refs. Can you present some more rational thought than rejecting the reliable sources? This page has underwent the edits, by series of users. I don't see anyone having conflicted them, except you. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have done that already and I will not waste my time engaging in the obvious. And please I am not interested in your "no one else" fallacies. I am an expert on the topic and a major contributor to Islam in Africa topics on Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't give you any right to remove sourced material, it does? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Direct me to the Wikipedia rules where content, because it is sourced, cannot be removed. Here is a sourced statement Islam is the biggest threat to World Peace (Tony Blair), should we included that because it is well sourced?--Inayity (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, the whole section included reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not lecture me on RS. Tony Blair is a RS go and add it to Islam lead. Hitler is a RS go and add it to Who is a Jew, do not pretend you do not understand NPOV and side track and discuss RS.--Inayity (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, get back to the topic that why you are removing "Historical analysis", when it remains unchanged by related users. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear you find convenient policy, you poorly understand, and throw it anywhere hoping it will fit. I have been around for a while. Thanks.--Inayity (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not capable for presenting a meaningful reason behind removing the heavily sourced section. What is the reason? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Inayity, you asked someone to direct you to the Wikipedia rules where content, because it is sourced, cannot be removed. It's right here. I think you might profir from reading that page. IN particular note that: "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time.... there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there. Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." While I sympathise with your position in regard to this topic, you are clearly violating the NPOV policy by deleting contentious text on the basis of neutrality. The policy quite clearly says that this may be done as a last resort only. You should not delete this material again until consensus has been reached on the talk page. Since the material s well-referenced and since it doesn't prevent the article form becoming balanced by additions in future, consensus will almost certainly be that it should never be deleted. Mark Marathon (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Note: the 3O request appears to have been re-listed after being taken, which is why you know have two replies. I would recommend against doing that. I can't see any grounds for assuming that these are unreliable sources. If there is dispute on that particular point, I suggest that it be raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Note, for instance, that there is no requirement that a reliable source be unbiased in order for it to be used in an article. I would, however, question some of the phrasing used in the section. The first sentence looks fine, but the use of the word "simply" in the second is not neutral phrasing in context, and the sentence as a whole is also unsourced. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are ungrammatical, but don't look to be an problem as far as POV or sourcing go. I'm not sure of the relevance of the last two sentences, and the source provided only confirms the existence and subject matter of the film, not whether or not the film itself is a reliable historical source about what happened. Given that it's a work of fiction, not a documentary, it's only useful (at best) as a source for the perception of what happened among some sections of the community. Therefore, there is no grounds for asserting that "the film shows that the representation of history was changed..." and I can see no reason for including mention of it in its present form. It may well be that there are reliable sources that present information contradicting that in the section (possibly even other parts of the same sources already used), but if so, they should be added, rather than the existing referenced material being deleted. NPOV editing means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Aside from the film and possibly the unsourced second sentence, the material in question appears to me to be a significant view published in reliable sources, and relevant to the topic of the article. Therefore, I cannot see why it should not be included. What we need is to do so "fairly, proportionately and... without bias", something that requires additional sources (and re-phrasing, per the above), not deletion. Anaxial (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Anaxial, there is nothing unsourced on the paragraph. The citation is same for last 2/3 sentences, that appeared in first paragraph. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, then. They were quite different claims, so it wasn't obvious. Anaxial (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone spent time reading why I deleted it, or do we glance over NPOV violations without understanding the topic or the history of POV pushing? NPOV stands tall on Wikipedia. I have already detailed every single problem with that section. [1]--Inayity (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But it seems fully senseless, considering that it is written on the sources. Also you are tagging almost every word, if it writes "enjoyed economic ties", you write like "enjoyed( (what is this a AU economic paper?) enjoyed what?) and then "economic ties(unbalanced opinion)", When no one has wrote any opinions from first. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No because you are a KNOWN POV pusher on Wikipedia and those sentences were WRITTEN by you, an editor who has a history of misusing ref. Problem editor and while others might be making remarks without checking sources and understanding your habits. The motives of that entire section were not for historical overview. And I have no idea how putting text that you want, followed by a ref could be called a quality article. Let us look at African traditional religion in the modern world Douglas E. Thomas and how you used it! So someone coming here sees text and ref and thinks that must be good quality ref. I have shown it is not. --Inayity (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So this means you have conflict with me, not the information. You can use a bot for adding refs. Or you can fill the references yourself. Instead of removing them, just because you have issue with me. The references are written the way I used to write them much before, but they are no way unclear, they have page number, author, book title, which is certainly enough, and most of all they are reliable sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeated name

"Molefi Asante", is repeated twice. Shouldn't be written after the quote is over. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to these kinds of edits and you know that. --Inayity (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why a Plural discussion is needed: "internal" persecution.

Inside of ATR, there has been persecution. For example the so-called Pygmy people have suffered religious persecution. During the Atlantic slave trade Akan targeted the Ewe people for religious reasons. (Anne Bailey) Various native African cults also were set up on religious grounds and enslaved other groups considered the other. All of this needs to be in the article. Inayity

Do it. But kindly remove "Abrahamic religions" from the lead. Instead you can add "by the proponents of other theories", like many other pages have. There are communists who might have been persecuted this religious group. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From Inayity's assertion above, it would appear that adherents of traditional African religions are also religiously persecuted by other followers of traditional faiths. So the second sentence should probably read something like: "Adherents of these religions have been forcefully converted to Abrahamic faiths as well as to other traditional religions, and demonized and marginalized by some individuals from these religious communities." Middayexpress (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Got no sources for conversion to other traditional religion. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no clear cut evidence that conversion happens in ATR, while persecution does. It is something Islam and Christianity share this notion of conversion. Even Judaism does not do it. So with ATR it is tricky. For example when Shaka conquered many people obviously became Zulu and becoming Zulu meant the Zulu religion. But these religions are not institutionalized like Islam and it is very hard to say they are actually "converting people" (while obviously they are to some degree.--Inayity (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, all followers of ATR, might be self-registered ones, If you stop them from following their belief, that is persecution. There was no 'conversion' thing few centuries before. I think. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is "religion" per Islam, Christianity (and I am leaving out Judaism) is unique compared to say so-called Pagan European religions and ATR. I dont know about Hinduism etc or Native American religion. But people in Africa did not have a "I am this and that religion". If i was Serer my "religion" and culture was Serer, there was no strict dichotomy. So religious persecution is a box which frames the debate, but it would also include cultural or ethnic persecution since these things co-existed.Pygmy discrimination which includes religion --Inayity (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be only those, that are supported by the sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unambiguous Bias

FWIW I will add my name to those with extreme reservations about this article. As written it is less an article than a reasonably sourced op-ed piece. There is no way this would pass editorial review in any reputable encyclopedia. The subject is reasonable and almost certainly notable. But this article needs to be extensively rewritten to remove the taint of bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've taken the liberty of posting some help wanted notices on the boards of three wiki projects (Christianity, Islam and History) requesting assistance in cleaning this article up. Hopefully someone will lend a hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a contributor to Islam and Africa related issues, as stated above. And when you tag and article you Multi-tag it, not have three different tags on the top. I have raised several objections and made a list of things an article of this nature must discuss. --Inayity (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews if you look at even this article you will see anytime you frame a debate with a POV title the article ends up as a NPOV bias. That is the nature of it. B/c in an article about Jewish persecution I do not think they will give space to the persecution people who are Jewish do to others. So I for one think the problem starts with the entire article. --Inayity (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Improper Self Review

I just noticed that the author of this POV train-wreck self reviewed the article and awarded it a B rating for three different projects. There is no way this article comes anywhere near a B rating in its present form. I am leaving it unrated until members of the respective projects take a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Every conflict is not persecution

Now what is the article for? A running list of every negative incident you can dig up and put in an article? then it has no balance and has no value. That book that you reference is such a book, a running list of negatives supporting Africom. On the issue of persecution, which is central to this article, because someone ask a shrine to be moved does that make it persecution? You need to first prove that because I do not read this article and see much direction, only yet another anti-Islamic bigoted piece. Per WP:BALANCE I also noticed the Islamic section is very large, and the Christian section very small, that is seriously odd considering Christianity and ATR have far more friction and displacement. So before making the Islamic section any bigger please develop a balance article or else rename it Islam's persecution of ATR. --Inayity (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Persecution_of_traditional_African_religion#Historical_analysis It was told that every of the information is important for adding. Long term content cannot be removed just because someone had misunderstanding with the source, Acidsnow just thought that information is not supported by book, but in fact it is clearly supported by the book. About copyright violation, I don't think so. If you are eager, I am calling Diannaa for checking any copyright violations with this particular content [2]. Yes this article has to list and contain all evident persecutions of TAR. I am not very adamant about the shrine thing. I had doubt if you were removing other line of this article as this book has been used multiple times. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That sentence was very similar to the original, even the grammar and use of comma was the same. Either way the article needs to be figured out b4 it turns into a David Duke type of history. The one where you take every incident which supports ones cause and list it. People come into conflict, but not every conflict can be said to be persecution. That is what I wanted to discuss here. Information must be limited to incidences of actual persecution not just religious conflict.--Inayity (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is almost identical to the original, and is a copyright violation. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I will be re-using that para on more relevant article, I will just throw away "located at the palace of a king", "brave and altruistic", after that we wouldn't be having the issue. I hadn't read that particular content before, I was more looking onto the defiled festival(just rephrased, few hours ago). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

By the Muslims

This article is so biased when it came to persecution by the Muslims. There are plenty of RS about Muslim persecution of those who follow TARs. Both Muslims and Christians persecuted the followers of TAR. The Muslim section is written to give the impression that there were no persecution or conversion was by choice. For some, yes, but for the majority especially the early history and 19th century history of Islam in the area, absolutely no. As a adherent of TAR, I am disgusted by the way this article is written especially the Muslim section. Absolutely terrible. I am tagging it. That section needs expansion as well. 154.58.99.91 (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Initiations in African traditional religion

How they initiate in African traditional religion 77.246.53.156 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)