Talk:Maasai religion

Name of page

Hi. I tried to alter the spelling of Masai to Maasai in the title, but was unable to do so. The reason I attempted this change is it seems the generally accepted (English) spelling is Maasai (which I'm guessing comes from Maa, the word for their language, according to the article), rather than Masai. I was attempting to facilitate some kind of standardization/conformity of the spelling on Wikipedia. Under the "See also" section of the "Maasai" article I changed the spelling from "Masai mythology" to "Maasai mythology" in anticipation of being able to correct the spelling of the title here, but broke the link between the two due to the change in spelling. I'm giving this background for this reason: Is there a way to correct the spelling on this article title so it will be spelled correctly & can be reconnected to the other article as a result? If you know how, please do so, as I don't know how to do it. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leia tyndall (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 March 2007.

done Belovedfreak 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if the title of this page represents an unsupportable ethnocentrism. To discuss the Maasai view of world creation under "mythology" does not seem warranted unless we wish to do this for all such stories (i.e. Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, etc.). No one can prove the correctness of any of these stories. So, perhaps they are best labeled as a "view of creation". Thanks. JPBarbuto 19:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the information on Maasai mythology here on Wikipedia rather confusing. Especially on the gender of creation-god Enkai. He's named a god, not a goddess and yet it's stated that the Maasai consider him to be female? Also, he is married to the moongoddess Olapa. And this also contradicts the repeated claims that the Masaai-religion is monotheistic. I therefore think this article needs some cleaning up and verification.

There's an understatement. The existence and premise of this article violate NPOV in the most basic fashion. Equating religion to mythology is taking a single point of view.--Buckboard 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is one problem with the mythology-religion view stated above. You are correct, not all religions should be considered simply 'mythology', but you cannot seperate them, especially in ancient culuture. The mythology given above explains the Maasai's idea of why the sun shines, why the moon looks the way it does, and why some people have cattle when others have grain. Mythology is used by a people to expalin the world around them, as is done in this article with the Maasai. In this instance and many others, you cannot seperate the myth from the religion. It just so happens that this particular myth directly feeds into their daily religion and thus, can't be seperated. In ancient religions, you can not use such a simple rule for division; an editor has to look at each story and decide how much the mythology is tied into the practiced religion. --Vickler (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree but I can't figure out a way to change the title and I spent quite a bit of work on it, so I don't want to it to be deleted. Can whoever made it just switch the title? Mark 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

i think you cannot change the name because it is the topic and people would be able to go in and change the name, for example, "dog" to "cat" so when people search "cat" they get the info on dogs. do you get what i mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.221.90 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

basically blank?

It appears from the talk page and the history section that there was once a decent article here, but now there's just a contentless stub. Why was it deleted? There's no discussion of or reasons given for the removal of the information on this talk page. Hypershock (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The books in the "furthur reading" section are the reliable sources that the tag claims the article needs. Instead of deleting everything, someone just needed to properly fill in the citations. Hypershock (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There was lengthy debate about "religion" vs "spirituality", but after over a month of this move request being open, there is simply not support for this move. (non-admin closure) Rreagan007 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Maasai religion → Maasai spirituality – The recent move to Maasai religion from Maasai spirituality was explained as being done to "correspond with the other Bantu religion pages". This is pretty simple: Maasai are not Bantu, they are Nilotes.123

Additionally, Maasai spiritual beliefs are better described as "spirituality" than "religion". This source refers to their beliefs as "spiritual": 2. This one distinguishes between Christianity as religion and Maasai indigenous spiritual beliefs 4. "Maasai spirituality" much better fits quality reliable sources on this subject. At the very least, the recent move should be reverted while it is under discussion for consensus. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 23:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: The previous stable title for more than 15 years until 9 September 2023 was Maasai mythology, not Maasai spirituality, so "mythology" is the presumptive revert target. What makes you think "spirituality" is a better description than "religion"? My impression is that sometimes when people draw a distinction between Christianity as religion and some indigenous folk religion / ethnic religion / indigenous religion belief system as not a religion, they are expressing a vaguely POV perspective. I say "vaguely" because it seems unclear what criteria are being used to determine what is a religion and what is not, and whether some assessment of "worthiness" is being expressed. As stated at the beginning of the Religion article, "there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion". My rough impression is that most articles about conceptually similar topics on Wikipedia use "religion" in their titles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• If it gets a discussion moving, then yes, I'll support moving this back to "Maasai mythology" while the options are discussed. However I think your the move weeks ago to "Maasai spirituality" was an improvement, and no one else objected, which is why I have opened this move request to take it back to that title.
• I see no sources provided to support your assertion that people "are are expressing a vaguely POV perspective" when making the distinction between a religion and a spiritual belief system. And should it come to it, I can run back through my literature reviews to find scholarly sources that explain exactly why spirituality and religion are distinct and why the latter applies to Maasai historically-dominant belief system. And so far, the sources on hand indicate that "Maasai spirituality" is the most appropriate title. Additionally, you've linked to Wikipedia pages, but WP is not a reliable source. But what is 100% wrong (and cannot be supported by any reliable source) is your the original suggested reasoning for moving this page to "Maasai religion" in the first place: that Maasai are Bantu. They are a Nilotic people, full-stop.
• --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You're mixing me up with someone else. The recent page moves and edit summaries were by MiddleOfAfrica, not me. The Religion article cites sources to support the statement that I quoted. See also Religion#Definition and Definition of religion, which contain extensive further discussion of the question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You are right, I'm really sorry about mixing you up. Please accept my apology. I've struck my incorrect references to you and rephrased.

However, as I stated in my reply, WP:NOTSOURCE.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend to suggest that Wikipedia should be used as a source for itself. I only referred to it as a way to show where further information related to what I am saying can be found (e.g. in the cited sources of Wikipedia articles) and as a way to suggest there may have been a previous consensus established about how such matters should be handled on Wikipedia. If basic information like the definition of "religion" in places like the Religion article is incorrect (contrary to what high quality off-Wikipedia sources say), I think that is a higher priority to fix than this article, since a lot more people read the Religion article than this one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so to entertain the notion that we should look to other parts of Wikipedia to illuminate this discussion, here's what the first subsection of Religion#Definition says in its first paragraph (ref numbers omitted for flow): "Scholars have found it difficult to develop a consistent definition, with some giving up on the possibility of a definition. Others argue that regardless of its definition, it is not appropriate to apply it to non-Western cultures." That doesn't contribute much to your apparent aim here, which seems to be to utilize an established definition of religion in support of keeping the recent move in place. In fact, that whole subsection makes it pretty clear that the concept of religion is considered, by the experts quoted there, to be an amorphous Western concept not well-suited for applications to non-Western contexts. Even the second subsection, "Classical", shows stark divisions between historical scholars on the subject (perhaps why the more contemporary scholars have identified the lack of consistency in the concept). --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have struck out the "weak" from my "oppose" above. The proposed renaming seems rested on the idea that Wikipedia should categorize some belief systems as "religions" and others as "not religions". "Western" versus "non-Western" seems to verge on the idea that only monotheistic or only Abrahamic belief systems are "religion", and does not seem broadly agreed or NPOV. My impression is that Wikipedia does not generally use that distinction, that there is no clear-and-obvious rule about how to draw that distinction, and that such a distinction could have POV issues. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Western" versus "non-Western" seems to verge on the idea that only monotheistic or only Abrahamic belief systems are "religion" Holy crap, this couldn't be further from the truth of the position I've stated below. First of all, non-Western means precisely that: non-Western; in no way is "Western" a 1:1 synonym with either "Abrahamic" or "monotheistic". But second, and more importantly, at no point does my argument "rest" on this distinction; I was simply pointing out that the very page you were invoking to weakly oppose suggested that distinction, which did nothing to support your then-rationale. My argument, expanded below, is that, in this context, there's a specific distinction in texts about Maasai beliefs that, where "religion" is used, it is to refer to later conversions to Christianity, and that scholars themselves rely on "spirituality" or "spiritual" when discussing Indigenous Maasai beliefs. There are plenty of non-Western religions around the world, but Maasai spirituality isn't one of them. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like I may be missing something; that is certainly possible. I will not put myself forward as an expert on this subject matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See also the prior discussion of the article title at Talk:Maasai religion#Name of page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose:I was the one who submitted the request to change the page from "Maasai mythology" to "Maasai Religion." I did make a error when I cited the reason being to correspond with the "Bantu religion" page. I mistakenly copied and pasted the sentence that I had used for other pages without editing for Nilotic peoples.

However, I do believe the page should remain "religion." If Wikipedia acknowledges Abrahamic and Eastern faiths as religions and not mythology or spirituality, I believe indigenous faiths should also be treated with the same regard. I can definitely provide sources that support both "religion" and "spirituality" categorizations for such faiths as the Maasai. However, there is a move in the field of cultural anthropology to refer to traditional African belief systems as religions rather than spiritualities because "spirituality" has often been used as a term for "otherness" in academia. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

For the field of anthropology, the opposite is true, but I believe this is because you're conflating "spiritual/spirituality" with "myth/mythology". Hence why your first move was a good one that went unopposed, but I oppose this second one. For the Maasai-specific contexts, see the sources I linked in my mover request. Hodgson and Samjee are/were both anthropologists (Lado spans both cultural anthropology and social geography). --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not conflating "spirituality" and "mythology." I edited "spirituality" to "religion" to correct my own language bias in that moment. And in this field, the use of "spirituality" when referring to African faiths but "religion" while referring to Abrahamic faith is only further evidence.

In "Engendered Encounters: Men of the Church and the "Church of Women" in Maasailand, Tanzania, 1950-1993", Hodgson refers to traditional Maasai beliefs as "Maasai cultural forms." She only used the term "spirituality" to refer to American Spiritualist missionaries, who introduced American Christian practices, such as the Holy Ghost, to the Maasai. These "Spiritans" were some of the first to have their beliefs deemed "spirituality" in the U.S. rather than religion because conservative Christians didn't agree with their practices. If anything, that reinforces my stance about the discriminatory use of the term "spirituality" when referring to indigenous religions.

In "Oral Traditions and Material Culture: An East Africa Experience," I could not locate where Somjee refers to Maasai religion as spirituality. He uses "oral tradition" or "oral literature," which are both correct. He also refers to African religions as a whole as "traditional African belief systems."

It is also worth noting that the works by both Hodgsons and Somjee are over 20 years old. As I stated, there is a current shift toward using "traditional African religions" in place of the former "spirituality." The recent consensus has been to use "spirituality" when referring to a set of spiritual practices that aren't considered religious, like Hoodoo, where practitioners often follow an Abrahamic religion. In contrast, Louisiana Voodoo is considered a religion and not a spirituality.

Theologically, religion and spirituality do have a difference. In Spirituality and World Religions: A Comparative Introduction, Saint-Laurent defined religion as "the pursuit of transformation guided by a sacred belief system." According to him, religion involves a framework of transcendent beliefs, rituals, sacred spaces, etc. He further defined spirituality as "one's integrative view of life. It involves a quest for the meaning and ultimate value of life as opposed to an instrumentalist or materialistic attitude to life." Spirituality doesn't include a specific set of beliefs. It's about the spiritual search for the unknown, according to Saint-Laurent. Based on those definitions, the Maasai belief system should be categorized as a religion.

Most research books on the topic of traditional African religions also use the term "religion":

Women, Religion, and Peace-Building: Gusii and Maasai Women of Faith in Kenya by Jaqueline Ogega, PhD

Rituals of Resistance: African Atlantic Religion in Kongo and the Lowcountry South in the Era of Slavery by Jason R. Young, PhD

The Handbook of Yoruba Religious Concepts by Baba Ifa Karade MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of original research... It matters little your evaluation of philosophers and theologians, what matters is what scholars say about specifically Maasai beliefs. And yes, Hodgson repeatedly distinguishes between Maasai spiritual beliefs and Christian religion. I encourage you to also look at her https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Church_of_Women/FiW5w7aKDMUC?hl=en full book on the subject]. She uses religion in reference to Western Christianity. Somjee uses "spiritual" too (p. 101). Both of which I stated in my move request. As for the books you've linked to, care to provide any specific pages to check? I'll have to go pull the first two from a library to evaluate, but it does look like only Ogega's covers Maasai beliefs so I see little use for the others. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Somjee and Hodgson's works are literally original research. And even these scholars do not specifically refer to the Maasai religion as "spirituality." On page 101, Somjee refers to an African proverb by the Rendile people when he says "the spiritual encompasses the material." He does not refer to the Maasai nor the Rendille religions as being "spirituality." Moreover, the use of "spiritual" in a sentence doesn't negate the entire belief system of the Maasai being a religion.

And Hodgson distinguishes the difference between Christianity and traditional Maasai beliefs, but she does not refer to Maasai beliefs as "spirituality." Most religions have a spiritual nature to them. That's not what's being challenged. If your stance is that the traditional Maasai belief system is a "spirituality" rather than a "religion," then you need to provide sources that specifically cite it as a "spirituality" and specifically assert why it's not a religion. Neither of the sources you provided make such an assertion.

The definitions of spirituality and religion from Spirituality and World Religions: A Comparative Introduction by George E. Saint-Laurent appear to be the presently accepted definitions in the fields of anthropology, philosophy and theology. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:OR; I wasn't referring to scholars' research as "original". It's your original research that is in your synthesis of your own interpretations of texts as support for your point of view on whether or not "religion" applies to Maasai spirituality. As for your further assertions about the applicability of an introductory text to the entire fields of anthropology, philosophy, and theology, you should probably also provide reliable sources for this claim as well. So far you've only referenced one text that mentions Maasai and as I said before, I'll head to my library tomorrow to hopefully review its text since it isn't available online (and you haven't provided any quotations from it). As I've already said, the entire Hodgson article is distinguishing between Christianity as religion and Maasai spirituality, and her book with the similar title (linked above) does more of the same throughout. Here's another article about Maasai spirituality. Here's a book, in French, talking about Maasai spirituality and info about the book written in English if you need it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As for WP:OR, I'm aware that "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Due to the fact that my references are reliable, scholarly, published sources, whose writers are notable researchers/professors in the field, WP:OR in no way pertains to anything I've stated.

However, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources" seems to have relevance to your position and your sources.

You said, "As I've already said, the entire Hodgson article is distinguishing between Christianity as religion and Maasai spirituality." I read the text. Hodgson does not cite Maasai beliefs as "spirituality." She simply compares the two belief systems and explores the ways in which Maasai women are the driving force behind Maasai beliefs.

It's also worth noting that Xavier Peron is a visual artist, life coach, and self-proclaimed political anthropologist, who doesn't appear to have a degree in the field nor any articles published by any actual anthropological journals. He does however claim on his website to offer classes as a life coach, where he teaches Westerners about the Maasai culture and beliefs. It's highly questionable to suggest that he's a reliable source.

As I stated, if your stance is that Maasai beliefs are specifically "spirituality" and not "religion," then you need to provide sources that define and distinguish "religion" and "spirituality" as they relate to the Maasai people, per WP:BURDEN. Neither Hodgson nor Somjee make such claims in the works you referenced. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised you read Hodgson's entire book in less than 24 hours. Your interpretation of her much shorter article however is misguided. Others will have to evaluate these sources to make a determination. As for your impugning the scholarship of Peron, I'll also leave that to others to make a determination. I'll just point out that, should those three sources be found to support my perspective on Maasai spirituality, you still have conveniently ignored yet another I provide (by Felix Mantz), and continued failing to provide references supporting your estimation of an intro textbook's impact on the three scholarly fields you've claimed it is so influential in. I've given several references meeting my burden as you claim it exists (it is in fact not my burden, you're the one who initiated the move), you've given none supporting yours. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As for my interpretation, I cannot interpret "a conclusion not stated by the sources," per WP:NOR.

As I stated, if your stance is that Maasai beliefs are specifically "spirituality" and not "religion," then you need to provide sources that define and distinguish "religion" and "spirituality" as they relate to the Maasai people, per WP:BURDEN. If you believe one of your sources explicitly states the forementioned, then please provide quotes and page numbers.

As you so graciously reminded me when I posted books that use the term "religion" when referring to traditional African beliefs, inferring that the simple use of the word "spirituality" in a work concludes that the belief system a not a "religion" is also WP:SYNTH. The source must explicitly state that the Maasai belief system is "not a religion" but a "spirituality." And again, the WP:BURDEN of providing sources is yours because you're the one making the claim. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

A few things. First, you are incorrect about what I "need" to do, which is where your lack of understanding of WP:OR lies. I do not "need" to show that specific definitions apply, that would be an interpretation and thus original research. What isn't original research however is showing that established reliable sources use "Maasai spirituality," which I have done, repeatedly. Second, you keep substituting "African" for "Maasai" to argue that your interpretation is correct. Africa is a massive continent of more than a billion people and thousands of cultures. That's why sources talking about "African" religion or spirituality is such a problem. This is a discussion about Maasai beliefs. Third, no, a source does not need to say the Maasai belief system "is 'not a religion'" to be useful, it only needs to demonstrate the establishment of "Maasai spirituality" by consistently using that terminology. The argument is bolstered by, as in the case of both Hodgson's article and book on the subject, a distinction between "religion" when talking about Christianity or other Western religious beliefs, and "spiritual(ity)" when speaking of Indigenous Maasai beliefs. And finally, your move is the one challenged here, your claim of "Maasai religion" as an acceptable title is the one challenged. You have the burden of supporting that challenged language. Vague statements about an intro textbook's impact and substituting "Africa" for "Maasai" (especially after claiming Maasai are Bantu in your original summary) shows a considerable lack of care and attention to this subject. Provide specific sources for your specific claims, please.

To follow-up on something I said yesterday, I still haven't been able to get a copy of the one source you've provided that actually appears to speak to this subject. You're demanding I provide specific page quotes and page numbers, so I'll just point out that you've done neither.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hodgson's article and book on the subject, a distinction between "religion" when talking about Christianity or other Western religious beliefs, and "spiritual(ity)" when speaking of Indigenous Maasai beliefs." I stated that Hodgson refers to the "Spirtans" as spiritual, which are Christians. If you believe otherwise, please provide the evidence. Making a claim about a source's intent or content is not evidence. You have not provided page numbers, quotes nor actual examples where Hodgson specifically identifies Maasai beliefs as "spirituality."

"your claim of "Maasai religion" as an acceptable title is the one challenged." No, your claim that the page should be changed to "spirituality" is what's being discussed. The burden is actually on you to support that challenge language, as you're the one who would like to change it to "spirituality." Both of my moves were to address possible offense of the use of "mythology" when referring to "African beliefs systems" and to be in accordance with the other faith-based pages.

Your new request, which is independent of mine, introduced a new claim by you that the Maasai belief system is a "spirituality" and not a "religion." I simply opposed. Wikipedia requires that you provide evidence for that claim. MiddleOfAfrica (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)