Wikipedia

Talk:Religion in Africa/Archive 2

< Talk:Religion in Africa
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lore Nerd in topic Question on the numbers
Archive 1Archive 2

The lead : What about Orthodox followers of African religion?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi editors,

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

Let's Show restraint

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

Actually, no, that's not what this page is about. It's not "Religions originating in Africa", it's about any way that religion operates or has operated in Africa. Plus, your exclusion would be extremely difficult to draw a line on anyway. Does Coptic Christianity count as originating in Africa, since that particular denomination originated here, or would you exclude it since the broader Christianity originated somewhere else? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, this is not aimed at excluding any group or religious sect operating in the continent. But a prevention of such groups that fall into this category in taking over the topic.
Hence, "should in no way shape or form think to dominate this topic". In actual fact i probably would be one of the first to encourage accurate stats and figures so as to enhance the present condition of the article, but my point is that these should be put into their correct place(s).
As for the origin of Coptic Christianity, this is NOT the real issue here. As would rather arguements of sort be made in their various maiden topics i.e the arguement for the origin of Coptic Christianity may be well accomodated and or thrashed out in an article bearing the same or similar name - as in "The origin of Coptic Christianity"? and definately NOT Religion in Africa.
However, if one was to include Coptic Christianity (and rightfully so)into this article, one would make sure to include and stress it is TOPICAL as to its origin. Otelemuyen (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess that maybe I don't understand. Is there some specific change that you propose be made to the article now? Is there something that you think is over or under-represented? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
As the heading suggest, this is a topic about African philosophies and or philosophies operating in the African continent. Religions that do not directly originate from the African continent should in no way shape or form think to dominate this topic. Those who think they've discipline related content that bears little relevence should rather sanbox a brand new topic e.g "your religion and its relationship with the African continent", "your religion in Africa" e.t.c Otelemuyen (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
And, as I said before, your claim is flat out wrong. That would be like arguing that the article Religion in the United States should not be dominated by a discussion of Christianity, even though that is the largest religion, used to be the majority religion (maybe still is, I'd have to check), and had a tremendous role in shaping the political, social, and economic nature of the US. Your position that this article should be dominated by only religions originating in Africa is merely your idiosyncratic one, and does not match the very title of the page. In fact, I believe the page you are looking for is Traditional African religion. This articles purpose is to discuss the general topic of the religions that have in the past and are currently active in Africa. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is indeed not about African philosophy. That separate topic is discussed on the African philosophy article. Hence, discussion of African philosophy here rather than there is WP:OFFTOPIC. Please also note that this article is not solely about traditional African religion. The traditional African religion article is there for that. This particular article is reserved for discussion of religion in Africa in general. By definition, that primarily, though not exclusively, pertains to Christianity and Islam since those are by far the two most practiced faiths. This can readily be seen in the page's religious distribution table and the included map. Hence, why that section on 'misleading terms' vis-a-vis traditional African religion is inappropriate per the WP:UNDUE weighting policy. Even if the material were better presented, it would still be more appropriate for the traditional African religion page. Middayexpress (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed an article bearing Religion in the United States is an incorrect example here, a more appropriate example would be for an article bearing Religion in Asia to be dominated by christianity or any other major non-Asian religion for that matter.
As in this particular instance can hardly be replicated anywhere else in the world. Religion in Africa is hardly divorced from African tradition as Religion in the Middle East is hardly divorced from Islam.Otelemuyen (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Otelemuyen's major change to lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

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

The contents in the lead is perfectly justified, if you have any objections, rather than reverting, try to state your arguement for the whole world to see.
For instance "Religion in Africa has been a major influence on art, culture, philosophy and law." What is your arguement regards the non-factual or "Novel" nature of this truth. Eventhough you probably are simply in denial or are completely in above your head on this subject altogether; it would still be right for you to present your arguement clearly. Simply stating that because it has not been highlighted elsewhere therefore it cannot be true, is trivial at the least.
Secondly, have you checked out the citations and the relation with the context to which they belong?
Thirdly, again if you check out the inline citation(s) correctly, you will find out that the section misleading terms is NOT original research but the product of a reliable and published source.

Otelemuyen (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. The majority of those websites do not meet our standards. The previous version was better. Also, as expressed above, we already have the article African traditional religions; you may not attempt to turn this into a duplicate of that article, nor may you decide that the title means something other than what it, you know, actually says. Standard editing practice at Wikipedia is that if you attempt to add something, and others revert it (disagree), and especially when multiple people disagree, it's up to you to make your case, first, on the talk page for the change. Simply going back to your version (especially when it violates policy) is edit warring, and is a big no-no. I'm happy to continue discussion here, and maybe part of what you suggested could be included elsewhere in teh article (if it's properly sourced) but do not reinsert it until you have consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The majority of those websites may indeeed not meet our standards, however, the citations provided in the content of my edits do. Simply personalising this specific case by stating that (according to you)"The previous version was better" cannot be said to be plausable.
Face it, the references from my edits indeed pass verifiability and are indeed from reliabile sources, but thats not what this is about is it? I put it to you that you have just jumped face first with all the shutters up. Check closely and carefully and you will find that the majority of the edits refer the readers to either complete works or indeed extracts from published material; but i dont think you bothered to check.
Furthermore, there are procedures to follow if you are indeed disputing the edits in question.

Otelemuyen (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there sure are. WP:BRD. You made a bold edit. I reverted. Now we discuss. In the midst of that discussion, a second editor disagreed. No part of that process is you edit warring to try to get the information back in. And there is no process on Wikipedia when you can add information that you know to be based on unreliable sources. If you don't think the discussion here is getting anywhere, then try WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, an RfC, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
What information do you know to be based on unreliable sources are you refering to. I'm afraid i might have been misunderstood.
"The majority of those websites may indeeed not meet our standards, however, the citations provided in the content of my edits do".
In essence, my contribution with regards the article possess adequate verifiability and are indeed from reliable sources. Kindly read what is being written and refrain from miscontruing what is intended.
As for the issue of WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and or RFC and the likes, it is you disputing a legitimate contribution. If you think that the content is contentious then follow the correct procedure. Even with the request for mediation that you recently declined. Otelemuyen (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

The post above pretty much sums up what's wrong with the material. Besides the fact that much of it is badly sourced and puts undue weight on traditional African religions, I would add that it's also written in an unencyclopedic register. Whatever the case, revert-warring is indeed no way to resolve the issue. Only actual consensus can ensure an acceptable, stable version. Middayexpress (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Would have to disagree with your hypothesis, have made an effort for a fourth party's involvement in respect of my request for mediation but you rejected this outrightly.
As for the sites
  • Encyclopedia Brittanica is not the reference, you will find that in the appropriate section of the article.
  • Africanbelief.com/ states the material as [http://www.amazon.co.uk/African-traditional-religion-Asare-Opoku/dp/B0000EE0IT] West African traditional religion by Kofi Asare Opoku
  • Religioustolerance.org: Assuming the reader scrolls to the bottom of the page, they would find a host of material sourced by the article i.e E. B. Idowu, "Olodumare: God in Youruba Belief, The Yoruba Religious System," Africa Update Archives, Vol VI, Issue 3, 1999-Summer, Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity," UNESCO, 2005 to name but a few.
  • Dr J.O. Awolalu, Studies in Comparative Religion Vol. 10, No. 2. (Spring, 1976). is infact an electonic book that the reader can get access to immediately.

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

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

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

Otelemuyen (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I rejected it because we have a process, just like you said. Even if I had accepted it, the mediation committee would have rejected it, because Mediation is never accepted unless other dispute resolution processes have been followed first. Two editors have told you that your revisions are wrong, for multiple reasons. Forget about the RS part for a bit (I only went into such detail do start giving some specific examples). Let's start with the the first three, very basic problems.
First, this article is titled "Religion in Africa". That means that this article must be a broad description of how religion exists currently in Africa, with some mention of historical events (though, usually, that would go into a "History of religion in..." article). It should be "balanced" (NPOV) by focusing on those religions which are most prevalent and have the most impact on Africa as a whole. I don't mean to sound mean, but this is based on the simple meaning of the phrase "religion in X". At the same time, we have another article, called "African traditional religions". That article should be entirely about those religions that originated in Africa. I don't edit that article, but presumably it should also be balanced by prevalance, although in that case historical factors my come into play (but you'd have to ask editors of that article). Again, the analogy to any other country or continent is pretty clear: one would not go to Religion in the United States expecting it to focus on native american relgions, which are practiced by such a low number that they fall under the 1.2% of "other" religions; instead, I would expect to find that information at Native American religion. The same thing must be the case here. Now, even if you disagree with this assessment, the more important procedural issue is that one person cannot come into a somewhat stable article and suddenly declare that the focus of the article is completely different, and then edit war to keep your new version.
Second, WP:LEAD says, "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Your version does not do that. Your version summarizes some hypothetical article which does not currently exist. Leads must be written after body text, so that they match that text. Right now, someone reading the article will simply be confused--the article starts about talking about one thing, then goes and talks about something different.
Third, "Misleading" is OR and UNDUE. You have arbitrarily chosen a number of terms that, I assume, you think are used for African religions, and provided no sources for that. I could just as easily add something like "Boring" or "Fascinating" to that list, because there is no logic to why you've included those terms and not others.Unless you first provide some evidence that these terms are widely misused to described AR, that stuff has no business being here.
I really, really hope you will self-revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Based on the flow of arguments, I agree that if contemporary religion has more prominence in Africa today than traditional religion, this article must emphasize the contemporary religion. If there are small influences that traditional religion has, it will be apparent from the sources (i.e. Christianity in Africa has X, because in the past people did Y) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article, including the lede, actually does discuss traditional African religions. Per Wikipedia's weighting policy, it just does so in proportion to the number of the continent's residents that adhere to traditional faiths. The traditional African religion article more fully discusses indigenous African faiths, and the African philosophy page is reserved for that separate topic. Middayexpress (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, this would suggest that we are in agreement.Otelemuyen (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Please explain where in the body of the article the influence of religion on art, culture, and philosophy are discussed. Because I don't see it. And a WP:LEAD must be, primarily, a summary of the text below. Also, I question the use of the word "countryside"--do those sources actually state that syncretism occurs only in the "countryside" (which is pretty vague), and not in urban areas? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
In as much as the lead is meant to first introduce the reader to the article and later summarize its most important aspects, you seem to be expressing a misintepretation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, the lead should briefly:
  • define the topic
  • establish context
  • explain notability
  • summarize
Kindly explain your material contribution as is a prerequisite of further discussion.
Otelemuyen (talk)17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." I believe that the first sentence is so far removed from what is included in the article that it is a bit misleading. This is why I've always believed that a lead should be written "last", so that it adequately reflects no more than is covered in the article (with a few, minor exceptions). However, I'm not too terribly worried about the first sentence; the use of "countryside" bothers me more, because it seems to contain the specter of a hierarchy ("pure" urban vs. "impure" country) that I don't think we should include unless it's verified by sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe the phrase originally alluded to "tribal areas"; it was drawn from the following quote [1]: "In Africa, and elsewhere, many tribal peoples have adopted modern religions, at least on the surface, while maintaining traditional beliefs and practices". However, if I'm not mistaken, Otelemuyen felt the term "countryside" would be more appropriate. Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Religious distribution table has to be corrected

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Request for comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

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

  • Comment - The passage in question as it was phrased, and again rephrased in the proposal above, implied that there is a single African people that adheres to the same vague set of beliefs. There obviously isn't. Only some of Africa's diverse populations combine traditional beliefs with Abrahamic faiths (customs which often aren't the same, by the way). As explained in the discussion above, others fairly strictly adhere to Abrahamic principles, retaining arguably only faint traces of syncretism; certainly no more than elsewhere in the world. With regard to the continent's Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples, numerous core Abrahamic practices aren't entirely foreign to them in the first place (c.f. [http://www.amazon.com/Black-God-Afroasiatic-Christian-Religions/dp/0815605226/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326129521&sr=8-1]). The bottom line is, such generalizations only serve to overemphasize practices that in many cases don't apply at all. That's the crux of the issue. It's not mentioning syncretism at all that's problem, but rather a) implying that it applies across the board when it doesn't; b) adding this over-generalization to the lede; c) refusing to identify which actual groups practice instances of syncretism (the Yoruba, Nandi... who exactly?), but instead vaguely asserting that "Africans" do; and d) not identifying what exact syncretic customs said groups have retained (idol worship, animism, sacrifices... what exactly?), and explaining why they qualify as examples of syncretism. A more nuanced, population-specific approach is therefore required. This is something which has been resisted for some reason. Middayexpress (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Question: how do you explain the fact that at least some of the sources that the IP gave do just generalize about Africa? No, let me take that back--I know why, but how do you propose Wikipedia deal with this fact? Per WP:V, we can't make our own analysis--we are bound to say what reliable sources say. Is there a possible compromise--something that says, "Some sources report a widespread syncretism,(+refs) while others argue it is limited to certain areas.(+ refs)"? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me just add everything Middayexpress said 100% represents my issues and observations. I have suggested it all be beaten out in a separate section. Really that is the best way. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Words used in the sources like "often" and "many" convey the idea that the mixing of traditional practice are not done in every instance but are done "often" and by "many" people. The paragraph makes it very clear that the majority of African people are practicing Abrahamic religion but often alongside traditional belief.76.71.201.33 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Those references are speaking in general terms, obviously not in reference to every population in Africa. In many cases, they don't apply at all. The simple and npov solution to the issue is therefore to state w/ ref(s) that "many tribal communities in Africa practice syncretic faiths", then actually identify some of those communities and their exact syncretic practices. Case in point:

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

Middayexpress (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
What Middayexpress is saying is synthesis. He gives is own personal opinion about the mixing of religious practice in Africa. He doesn't have sources that says this is a rare occurrence in Africa in general. But the reliable sources as well as this article are talking about Africa in general and are very clear in placing the mixing of religious belief in relation with the practice of Abrahamic religion and the proportion of it. The general idea is. A majority of Africa are practicing Abrahamic religion but often alongside traditional religious belief. All the multiple quotes written in bold above in this talk page clearly display that position. Words like "many", "often" are used. Clearly something that add reliably sourced knowledge to the practice of Abrahamic religions in Africa. 76.71.201.33 (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, what I am stating is that the religious situation in Africa is more complex than the reductive "Africans practice syncretism" or variations thereof. This is commonsense and easily demonstrable (see above). And even if one were to add such an over-generalization, nothing is preventing others from likewise specifying that this Abrahamic adherent community or that Abrahamic adherent community in Africa actually doesn't practice syncretism to render the claim moot. That's why a nuanced approach is required per WP:NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Middayexpress here, that the religious situation is more complex than that sentence would convey. The word "syncretism" covers a lot of ground. Let's consider some non-African examples: one would be Halloween, which is not a pagan festival which has been given a Christian coloring, of sorts -- would any Christian who observes Halloween be considered practicing a "syncretic Christianity"? Then there is the fact that a lot of proper nouns with pagan associations -- the names of the days of the week in many European languages, the name of the high Christian festival in English, Easter -- all come from indigenous pagan sources. Does saying "I'll see you Wednesday" make a Christian in North America a practitioner of syncreticism? Then there is the issue that to explain abstract ideas -- such as redemption, faith, & belief -- one needs to use familiar examples; an African explaining such ideas will use African examples, which inevitably leads to the error of the example being confused with the idea. (This happens frequently outside of Africa, & beyond explaining religious ideas.) On the other hand, there are examples of indigenous beliefs being blended into Christianity & Islam to produce something which can be considered heretical -- but I don't think anyone here is denying this happens, so I won't mention any examples. However, I don't know whether this is simply a symptom of transitioning from one belief system to another, or is proof of the emergence of a new religion; stating one or the other is a dangerous oversimplification. If it can be shown that it is important to mention syncreticism in Africa, then I would be happiest with a bare mention of the fact, followed with a list of the better known & documented examples of this phenomena. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Llyrwrch, it sounds like you're recommending that we remove the entire syncretism section in the article, along with the several other mentions it currently has. This is a much more strict position than either Middayexpress or Halaqah are recommending. Do you mean to take such a strong position? Note that I'm not questioning your point (though I am concerned about the fact that you're arguing from principle rather than from sources)--I just want to make sure your point is being interpreted similarly to how you "meant it". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
My input was primarily a response to 76.*'s insistence that religious syncreticism exists in Africa & must be included; I hadn't looked at that section of the article until now. I could not help but get the impression that 76.*'s was motivated -- whether or not it is her/his belief -- to argue that African forms of Christianity & Islam are inauthentic or heretical as compared to non-African forms. (Both religions have had a presence in Africa from their earliest days: in the case of Islam, one of the oldest Muslim communities, founded in the lifetime of Mohammed, was in Ethiopia at Negash.) Yet now that I have read that section, I'm not very happy with it, because it appears to have suffered from this disagreement over syncreticism, & is at the verge of becoming a polemical argument that syncreticism doesn't exist -- although it does, to some degree. An example is the Judeo-paganism of the Qemant, a faith which appears to be in decline, if not extinct. However, is this issue truly important enough to mention in this article? Are there sections on religious syncreticism in the articles on Religion in Asia (the Kakure Kirishitan would fall into that), or Religion in North America (here Santeria or Native American Church would be mentioned)?
  • Comment-Let me also add that we cannot ignore fundamentalist(neutral usage) characteristics in Abrahamic practices in Africa. those that know, also know how many wars and Jihads have been fought in Africa in the name of "purity", You just have to read Uthman Dan Fodio or even ibn Yasin. They would take you off the throne in Ancient Mali if you mixed-- Africans can be said to not take the issue lightly. too much counter evidence to refute this generalization. In Christian Ethiopia people were squashed for even being tolerant of Islam, let alone what they would call Paganism. I will quote David Robinson and Randall Lee Pouwels (who all agree on this point): Africans might appropriated Islam in a more inclusive way, or in the more radical (fundamentalist) way of the Almoravid. Robinson (a world expert not some causal commentator goes on to state Chapter 4 Africanization of Islam "1400 of islam being appropriated created African Islam ...This process is the same one that happened throughout the world that became Muslim or indeed through the world that became Christian or Buddhist" (not unique)African Islam in itself is also varied Swahili vs. Hausa. It is a fully orthodox Islam, not Islam and paganism mixed. I also want to repeat something said not identifying what exact syncretic customs said groups have retained (idol worship, animism, sacrifices... what exactly?), and explaining why they qualify as examples of syncretism. A more nuanced, population-specific approach is therefore required. The reason the ref do not do this is the ref are causual generalization with zero specific info on religion in Africa. You read Karen Armstrong, Randall Lee Pouwels, or any serious person on the subject deals with the complexity. i.e Wodabee people... blend ...xyz with Islam. while Amhara people do not. And again "culture" is often confused with religion.(African belief.com) I go to the Muti doctor does that impact my Islam?- No. I wear an Kente cloth at mass- does that affect my Christianity?- no. A new section would beat all of this out. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

'Even though the two religions are monotheistic, most African Christians and Muslims convert to them and still retain some aspects of their traditional religions.' In Transitions and consolidation of democracy in Africa By Samuel Ebow Quainoo
http://books.google.ca/books?id=-IDfqT6589kC&pg=PA40&d#v=onepage&q&f=false
Some more: It is difficult to give accurate figures about religious beliefs because people often mix their religions. Many who are Christians or Muslim may continue to follow some of the religious practices of their ancestors. In Peoples of Africa: Burkina Faso-Comoros By Marshall Cavendish Corporation
http://books.google.ca/books?id=-IDfqT6589kC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false <span style="font-size: smaller;"
Some more: This recognition had two major consequences. First, it fueled the rises of religious syncretism, with Africans drawing substantially from their own indigenous cultures in attempts to customize the newly adopted evangelizing religions of Islam and Christianity. [...] Those two developments would have major significance for the continuing role of religion and the newly-emergent African in the post-colonial state. Regarding religious syncretism, one might conclude that one reason for the quick and widespread adoption of syncretic behavior[...] from Ethics in intercultural and international communication By Fred L. Casmir
http://books.google.ca/books?id=fMf32jR9CRwC&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false
I will reproduce this one here too with title this time:
When Africans are converted to other religions, they often mix their traditional religion with the one to which they are converted. from Introduction to African religion By John S. Mbiti
http://books.google.ca/books?id=4wL0y9fUEB8C&pg=PA15#v=snippet&q=%22often%20mix%22&f=false
While I am at it I will reproduce this one here for easy consultation. Here's an article (from AFP) mentioning it:
US study sheds light on Africa's unique religious mix
The vast majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa are deeply committed to the world's two largest religions, making the region one of the most religious places in the world, according to the study by the Pew Research Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Traditional African beliefs have been incorporated into Africans' Christian or Muslim belief sets, according to the study, for which Pew researchers surveyed 25,000 people in 19 sub-Saharan African countries between December 2008 and April 2009.
"It doesn't seem to be an either-or for many people. They can describe themselves primarily as Muslim or Christian and continue to practice many of the traditions that are characteristic of African traditional religion," Luis Lugo, executive director of the Pew Forum, told AFP. I also didn't remove anything from the wikipedia article in my last revision after telling you it wasn't my intention. In short, it is true information that adds the the knowledge of Abrahamic religions practices in Africa.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hpKESvthJtQeyjk57vyzOnY5l9cg
Some other sources:
Many African people today have a mixed religious heritage and try to reconcile traditional religion with Islam or Christianity. from African folklore: an encyclopedia By Philip M. Peek, Kwesi Yankah
http://books.google.ca/books?id=pOcWLGktIYoC&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q&f=false
Some other sources:
Even in the adopted religions of Islam and Christianity, which on the surface appear to have converted millions of Africans from their traditional religions, many aspect of traditional religions are still manifest. from The Oxford handbook of religion and ecology By Roger S. Gottlieb
http://books.google.ca/books?id=_LldeLvqQNsC&pg=PA266#v=onepage&q&f=false <span style="font-size: smaller;" 174.89.249.171 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

EDIT : Good that an administrator has protected this article considering the amount of edit wars going on. [2]. Tamsier (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the person making those claims is up in the top section of this page, Krizpo. I would have moved the discussion down to the bottom in a new thread, but I don't think he would have found the discussion had I done that. He seems incapable of understanding why what he added was removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Religions in Africa

Latest comment: 12 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

Dharmic and East Asian religions are growing in Africa. Why did you delete all my contributions?(Krizpo (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)).

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

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

Youtube does not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines (which may be viewed here, or in the various ignored messages on your talk page). It does not matter whether your contributions are "right," what matters is that they are verifiable, see WP:Verifiability. Even then, your edits were not right. You claimed that Ashoka sent missionaries to Africa, citing indianhistory.com (which does not mention Africa) and historyfiles.co.uk (which does not mention Africa either). Indianhistory.com cites Wikipedia, which means that it is not a reliable source. Indianhistory.com and historyfiles.co.uk have no peer-review or editorial control, which means both sites fail our reliable sourcing guidelines. You also went off on a completely unrelated note claiming that Buddhism influenced Christianity, citing an article that said that Buddhism may have influenced Gnosticism, but not Christianity as a whole. You also cited a source on mountainrunnerdoc.com, which is not a peer-reviewed historical website, and not a reliable source.
That's only the tip of the iceberg. In short: your edits were not right.
Also, why have you ignored the messages left on your talk page? (It's linked right here, in case you cannot find it). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal knowledge is not verifiable and not used here. The BBC source only establishes that there is a Hindu prescence in Ghana, it does not say "fast growing." The other sources only indicate that Confucian institutes have been opened, they do not establish success.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
And again, it does not matter if your edits are "right." As I have already demonstrated, there were plainly wrong elements in them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

That you linked to meetup.com and newworldencyclopedia.org as sources shows you do not know what a reliable source is. Have you even considered listening to suggestions from other users? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

People who travel to Africa will eventually know that all those religions I have written about is there in Africa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs)

That really doesn't matter. Do you have any scholarly studies supporting your claims? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been in Africa, specifically South Africa, Uganda & Ghana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Personal experience is not a reliable source, nor is it verifiable. I strongly recommend you read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong. All World Religions should be represented here, even though the sources on the internet is not "good enough" for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krizpo (talk • contribs) 07:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not about me. I've presented the reliable sourcing guidelines to you over and over again. YOU are the one who refuses to cooperate, you are the one who refuses to present scholarly sources. This encyclopedia presents verifiable information, not personal experience or poorly sourced information. If you can't abide by that, that's not my problem, but yours. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Krizpo, you are incorrect. Wikipedia requires that information be verified by reliable sources. The sources you've given do not meet that requirement. Your own personal experiences do not meet that requirement. I'm sorry that this seems harsh or maybe even doesn't make sense, but it is how Wikipedia works. If you can provide reliable sources, we can determine if there is a way to include the info (there are other policies that may be relevant here as well). But without reliable sources, there's nothing to even discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for my behaviour. I will try to edit more responsibly next time.(Krizpo (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)).

May I please be able to make some contributions to "Religion in Africa"?(Krizpo (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)).

The article is locked. Only admins can change it right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't this site mention other religions brought by the Japanese, Indians and Chinese?(Africanstoner (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)).

Wikipedia really only mentions what's discussed by reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers, books by university presses, and scholarly journals. Government reports could be used, if there is no interpretation (for example, declaring that all immigrants of a particular nationality belong to a particular religion unless the government report says that). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is fucked up. If you have been to Nigeria you can see alot of Hindu Temples. In South Africa there is plenty of Buddhist and Chinese Religion Temples.(Africanstoner (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)).

People saying "if you have been to" is not verifiable or reliable. It would be far more fucked up to base the encyclopedia on that, because there'd be nothing to stop trolls from going in and saying "yeah, if you've been to Ethiopia, it's nothing but a bunch of Walmarts, well-to-do farms, and amusement parks. Don't know why people send all that charity."
Have you even considered that you could try looking for those sources? Google books has plenty of stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.southafrica.com/blog/the-nan-hua-buddhist-temple-in-south-africa, http://www.pannasekara.com/Home.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania_Buddhist_Temple_and_Meditation_Center, http://blag.biz/node/47 http://www.thequirkytraveller.com/2011/04/calm-your-soul-at-a-buddhist-temple-south-africa/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uganda_Buddhist_Centre http://ugandabuddhistcenter.org/index.html http://www.peaceforafrica.org/the-temple/ http://wisdomquarterly.blogspot.no/2009/01/south-africa-buddhism-gaining-ground.html http://nairobibuddhisttemple.org/ http://www.usashaolintemple.org/templebranches-southafrica/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hindu_temples_in_South_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAPS_Shri_Swaminarayan_Mandir_Nairobi http://www.ahmedabad.com/incity/1999/sep/6swami.htm http://www.shaivam.org/siddhanta/toi_zambia.htm

http://www.the-star.co.ke/lifestyle/just-bollywood/14089-jain-convention-takes-places-in-nairobi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jain_temples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurdwaras_in_Africa

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KH07Ad03.html http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100905072629973 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-08/13/content_11152173.htm http://www.focac.org/eng/zfgx/t724757.htm http://voicesofafrica.africanews.com/site/Development_of_Confucius_Institutes_in_Africa/list_messages/27398 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/21/eng20060621_275830.html

http://www.ghanavisions.com/articles/16648-shintoism.html(Africanstoner (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)).

Blogs, wikis, self-published sites, and forums are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RS. For the nature of this article, we really need scholarly articles. For example, I do see that in List of Jain temples, there are 4 listed in Kenya. But the question we need to answer is, how important is Jainism in Africa? If, for example, the temples were built during some sort of international expansion, but there are few or no actual Jains in Kenya (outside of the temple employees themselves), then it's probably not worthy of inclusion in this article (or just in some sort of laundry list sentence like "Other non-indigenous religions include Jainism, etc., etc.". We need context here to determine how to much relevance to give to this other religions. WP:NPOV says we can't give undue weight to things in articles, so if any given religion occupies only a tiny fraction of a percentage in only limited parts of the continent, we need to make sure this article mentions it equally briefly. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Krizpo, are you kidding me? DId you read anything that anyone told you? I've already removed the most obvious problems, but I'm very seriously considering rolling back everything you added, because so much of it is unreliable, unsourced, or basic on unreliable sources, that I don't really feel that I can trust anything else you added. Tell me why I should trust your ability to read those other sources, when you've proven you can't read (or are chosing not to read) what people have written to you here? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I knew this would happen, but no one listened. *kicks dust off of sandals* And of course the people who said we should teach him to be a good user aren't helping with this at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Since Krizpo doesn't seem to be willing to talk, I've removed the whole section. And looking at the history, I see that Ian.thomson checked a number of the sources, and found out that Krizpo was misrepresenting them. I no longer trust Krizpo's ability to read sources well enough to determine what they mean, or to understand what is a reliable source and what is not. Krizpo's continued failure to get the problems we've discussed have exhausted my good faith. Krizpo, if you want to consider re-adding some of this stuff, discuss it here first, step by step. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhi, Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto should all be represented here. The Dharmic religions have been present in Africa since before the origins of Christianity. During the time in which the Gospel of Thomas were composed, Ashoka had sent Vedic, Hindu, Jain and Buddhist missionaries to Egypt. The Chinese and Japanese have sent Taoist missionaries, built Confucius institutes and established Shinto communities troughout Africa. Why is this not worth mentioning? Sikhs have been migrating to Africa since the 1890s during the British Empire. Why isn't this worth mentioning? I even added pictures of the various houses of worships in many african countries.

"Other world religions such as Jainism, Shinto, and Buddhism have small followings in various parts of Africa, though their reach is often primarily among immigrants from countries where these religions are more commonly practiced.[citation needed]" That's some poor information, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:38, 26 August 2012‎ (talk • contribs) Krizpo

Explanation for mass revert

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted this edit because (once again) Krizpo: -gave undue weight to South Asian religions -used sources that laughably fail WP:RS (either because of their fringe nature or lack of quality), despite repeated explanations about WP:RS. He has been told time and again not to use Wikipedia as a source. -used legitimate sources to make claims the sources do not make. For example, he used sources saying that Buddhist missionaries visited Egypt to broadly claim that Indian religions, plural, were in fact present in not just Egypt but Africa for over two millenia. He also used (a broken link to) a Foreign Policy article explaining that Sikhism, Jainism, and Hinduism are growing in India to claim that those religions are growing rapidly (which is either irrelevant if taken in the context of the FP article or misleading in the context of this article).

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've requested he be re-blocked. If there's no response from Boing!, we can ask FPaS the same thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Reblocked, indef this time - I'd say we need some evidence of willingness to listen before considering unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Previewing Talk:Religion in Africa Save Summary:


Example: Fixed typo, added content By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use and agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL license. Explanation for mass revert I reverted this edit because (once again) Krizpo: -gave undue weight to South Asian religions -used sources that laughably fail WP:RS (either because of their fringe nature or lack of quality), despite repeated explanations about WP:RS. He has been told time and again not to use Wikipedia as a source. -used legitimate sources to make claims the sources do not make. For example, he used sources saying that Buddhist missionaries visited Egypt to broadly claim that Indian religions, plural, were in fact present in not just Egypt but Africa for over two millenia. He also used (a broken link to) a Foreign Policy article explaining that Sikhism, Jainism, and Hinduism are growing in India to claim that those religions are growing rapidly (which is either irrelevant if taken in the context of the FP article or misleading in the context of this article).

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've requested he be re-blocked. If there's no response from Boing!, we can ask FPaS the same thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Reblocked, indef this time - I'd say we need some evidence of willingness to listen before considering unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Image Delelition

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am here to propose the removal of the lead image in the article because it appears biased towards Islam and traditional African religion. It claims traditional religion majority for Angola, Swaziland, Cameroon and Islamic majority for Tanzania but reliable sources say otherwise. For example for Angola see [this www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148660.htm] for Swaziland [this http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,ANNUALREPORT,SWZ,456d621e2,48d5cbbe8,0.html%7Ctitle=Refworld - 2008 Report on International Religious Freedom - Swaziland|author=United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees], Cameroon [this www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148669.htm]. The issue of Tanzania is important because most reliable data states that it is 35 traditional, 35% Muslim, 30 Christian and most recent sources such pew claim a Muslim majority for Tanzania. But it is coloured green which is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs)

So wait, the problem here is that while Tanzania is said to have a Muslim majority by most recent sources, the map depicts it as having a Muslim majority? I fail to see how that is a problem. The now-removed map is sourced, by the way. Will you kindly fix the map, if it is broken with respect to a small number of countries, instead of removing it wholesale? LjL (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
LjL Sorry for late reply. I made a mistake. I meant to say that Tanzania is considered a Christian country by recent sources such as pew not Muslim majority. That's why I removed the image.Septate (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Religion in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Religion in Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find it highly interesting that although Christianity is not the primary religion in Africa, this article talks more about it than other religons. I am trying to find information about religions that are NOT Christianity-based, but it is difficult when authors choose to talk more about things with bias, than to pontificate about religions that could usurp Christianity. Don't you find this strange too?

@RayFox57: If you click through to any of the links that are marked with "Main Article:" you can find lots more material there. For instance, Traditional African religions, Bahá'í Faith in Africa, Islam in Africa and so on. We often can't cover the entirety of a topic in one article, otherwise the article would be so long it would be difficult to read. --Krelnik (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Christianity : Greek Orthodox? Really!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone have sources for the expansive claims about the "Greek Orthodox" part under Christianity? I see that someone tagged it with citation needed, and rightly so. Unless I'm mistaken, I always thought that most African Christians are Catholics. if that is so, where did this "Greek Orthodox" claim (see below) came from?

Christianity is now one of the most widely practiced religions in Africa along with Islam and is the largest religion in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most adherents outside Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea are Greek Orthodox or Protestant.

Are there any reliable sources for such a claim or should we remove this OR? I Know that there are many Christian denominations, but even I, with my limited knowledge of Christianity knows that Catholicism is big in Africa.Tamsier (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Question on the numbers

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The math for the line about Somalia in the chart near the bottom of the page appears to be incorrect. If the country is 99.8% Islam and all the rest of the population is Christian, shouldn't it be 0.2% Christian and not 0.02%? Further the population of 10000 mentioned is more than 0.02% of the total population regardless. I did not want to make an edit since I am new and may be missing something or I may have miscalculated. Confirmation would be appreciated as I do not intend to make the necessary changes otherwise. --Lore Nerd (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_Africa/Archive_2&oldid=1213178974"