Talk:Mami Wata/Archive 1

"Her superlative nature extends to her clothing, which is more fashionable than anything created by a human fashion designer"

I know it's hard to word some things, but this is a little ridiculous. lol Blueaster 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, propose something different then. How do you describe someone who is supposed to be more in-fasion than a runway model? BrianSmithson 11:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Mami Wata Edits

Hello Brain:

We have made some editing changes to the Mami Wata article. However, it is being deleted and reverted without explanation and cause. There are no messages in our mailbox. These changes are important and necessary, especially from those who know the tradition as oppose to quoting secondary anthropological sources who have no direct experience with this ancient religion.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Anagossii--MWHS 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I removed:

Today, after centuries of supression, the Mami Wata Vodoun tradition is making a phenomenal comeback in the Diaspora]]

NOTE TO READERS

Since the subject of this category is "AFRICAN-AMERICAN RELIGIONS," in the works is an essay on Mami Wata as it is known and lived by those in the Diaspora and in West Africa. For the moment, it is important to note that Mami Wata is not a recent phenomena. The Mami Wata priestess-hood is as old as Africa herself. Its priestess-hood is born and inherited by those who are still cosmogentically linked with some of the most ancient deities in Africa. Additionally, the Mami Wata tradition is experiencing a phenomenal come-back in the United States, after centuries of its suppression during Slavery and Reconstruction. It is also important to note that anthropological and western feminists terms such as "cult," "god/dess" and "animistic," etc., are categorically rejected by the African-American Diaspora. Those who are initiated, trained and know Mami Wata's mysteries find these categorizations misleading and offensive. Lastly, as it stands, the first essay below is the western "academic" analysis of Mami Wata, which is not supported by the Mami Wata priestess-hood in the African-American Diaspora. What will soon follow is another essay which we hope will shed new light on these ancient, African ancestral traditions.

. . . As unsourced and a violation of the neutral point of view policy. — BrianSmithson 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

--MWHS 22:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved conversation from the Africa-related regional notice board

---

• Brain, we have added your original post to the thread below since it was somehow omitted, and yet is the posting that originally opened the dialogue with the MWHS. Additionally, though you have re-posted the original synopsis that was deleted from the Mami Wata page, our main grievance is your deletion and censured of the actual article that was written by Mama Zogbé on both Voodoo and Vodun respectively. No actual article has yet been written on Mami Wata by Mama Zogbé. Anagossi, Anagossii, Mamisii-Hounon

My original post on this matter was made a notice board, namely the Africa-related regional notice board. These are normally not places for discussion but rather places to point to talk pages where discussions are normally held (like this one). I was not trying to divorce my comments from the discussion at hand, and if that's the impression I gave, I apologize.

As for your main concern stated above, I have not deleted anything from Voodoo. I removed some material from Vodun because someone (presumably you) tried to change it from a redirect page to a new article. If you visit the article Voodoo, you will see in the introduction that the article covers Vodun as well as other traditions that are sometimes referred to as Voodoo. Until consensus is reached to do so, no one should unilaterally split Vodun off into a separate article.

If you wish to discuss the creation of a separate article for Vodun (that is, separate from Voodoo), I urge you to discuss the matter at Talk:Voodoo. I have no personal involvement in the Voodoo article, so I will not discuss that article any further. — BrianSmithson 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• There have been some questionable edits lately to articles on religions of the African diaspora, specifically, Mami Wata, Voodoo, and Vodun. From what I can tell, Voodoo currently covers Vodun, but a couple of users have tried to change Vodun from a redirect to a new article. Similarly, extensive point-of-view additions have been made to Voodoo and Mami Wata discounting the articles as simply the scholastic viewpoint and not indicative of reality. The edits seem to be originating with a religious group in Georgia, based on the captions to the photos they've uploaded. I don't meant to condemn these people, and I've tried to alert at least one of the editors (there may be only one) about Wikipedia policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability, and citing sources. Voodoo and Mami Wata might very well need to be de-POV'ed so as not to discount the reality of what are to many adherants living faiths. Any help is appreciated. — BrianSmithson 13:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Greetings Brain:

We have read your comments regarding the "questionable . . . extensive point-of-view additions" that have been made to both the "Voodoo" "Vudou" and to the "Mami Wata" pages. You further reference that the source is coming from "a religious group in Georgia." Their contributions were deleted and the respective subject pages blocked from further editing. This action was taken without carefully examining who this "religious group in Georgia" are and whom they represent. The reference religious group in Georgia is the Mami Wata Healers Society of North America Inc.,. It is a non-profit, religious African-American organization, headed by Mami Wata Vodoun priestess, Vivian Hunter-Hindrew, M.Ed., whose initiatory name (given to her in Togo, West Africa) is "Mama Zogbé." Mama Zogbé, is (by birth inheritance. a Mami Wata Vodoun-Amengansie priestessShe was initiated in Togo, West Africa, where she has been traveling and training since 1988. It is Mama Zogbé who introduced the Mami Wata Vodoun tradition into the Diaspora. She is the owner of an extensive website Mami Wata.com; and is the author of the book:Mama Wata: Africa's Ancient God/dess Unveiled (849 pgs 2004-5). A comprehensive, well researched book on the ancient history and cultural origins of Mami Wata. She has lectured extensively throughout the Diaspora on the subject of Mami Wata, especially how the suppression of the religion during slavery affected future generations of African-Americans who are still being born to these African deities.Mama Zogbé travels extensively throughout the U.S., and is the first to conduct full initiations to those born to Mami Wata, Mama Tchamba, and the Yeveh Vodoun in the West; including transplanted native born Africans now residing in America. Mama Zogbe' is the first African-American to initiate Africans to Mami Wata and Tchamba in their own native country (Togo, West Africa). Her objective in contributing to Wikipedia is to challenge western, academic, anthropological myths concerning Mami Wata as merely a “ superstitious cult” of "goddess worship" originating and confined to poor African countries. More importantly, to draw attention to the indisputable fact that those in the Diaspora are still being born to these ancient African deities. Too often the notion that African-Americans are simply Christianized blank slates, devoid of their African bio-spiritual roots, and are therefore not cosmogentically born to African deities such as Mami Wata, is categorically dismissed by western academia as Africentism, or fantasy. Mama Zogbé’s contribution was posted under “African-American Religions.” and therefore, was subject appropriate. The challenges that she raised of established stereotypes should not have been met with hostile censorship. She not only can "prove" who she is, she can "demonstrate" this through her calling (spiritual work) throughout the U.S. Your deleting her contributions does a disservice to us all, and makes a mockery of what Wikipedia claims to represents. It is Mama Zogbé whom you and the academic (non-Diaspora) authors of the "Mami Wata & the Vodou" section should be consulting, instead of discrediting and banning what clearly is an important contribution to African Religions in the aftermath of American slavery. Finally, I could not help but notice your comments on the contributions you are getting on the Africa section:

" . . .Content related to Africa in the en Wikipedia is often incomplete and lacking in quality, quantity. . ."

Perhaps it is the lack of discernment in not being able to recognize quality contributions when it is freely offered, that might be the problem.

Nevertheless, Brain, if you have any questions or comments, you may contact me:Anagossi ,Mamissi Hounon.

(Seems discussion has opened here - we will move it later to Talk:Mami Wata) Anagossi, thank you for your references above, something Brian was asking for. You cannot 'claim' articles as your own, and the point of view should not be swung one-sidedly towards Mama Zogbé. However, Africa has a dearth of verifiable references, and it may be that Mama Zogbé is a good authority. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and thank you for opening dicussion. I think you should add your references to the article first, and then use Talk:Mami Wata page. Wizzy…☎ 07:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you Wizzy for your comments:

Mama Zogbé authored and published her own article to the aforementioned sites replete with references which were linked, in the article, followed by an extended list of extenal references/links. It was the complete deletion, banning and censorship of Mama Zogbé’s essay without allowing open and fair debate and challenges by those who claim expertise in the above areas that is the problem. Blocking all Mama Zogbé’s attempts to edit and therefore challenge the sole essay allowed on such an important area of African-American history and religious culture, on the grounds of “vandalism” is an outrage. This unnecessary, pre-emptive move, contradict and undermines the very objective of Wikipedia.

Further, the MWHS conducted some investigations of its own. It has been brought to our attention that the sole essayists and editor allowed to manage the Mami Wata, Voodoo, and Vodu section is a Catherine Yronwode. Catherine Yronwode runs the for profit, luckymojo.com website, that markets hoodoo products. Further, Yronwode holds no academic degrees in African or Diaspora studies. She is not initiated, nor does she possess any experience in any of the African Diaspora religions, and she has never traveled to Africa. One search on Google will reveal that she, and her husband, Nagasiva Yronwode, an avowed Satanists, run several neo-pagan, and other chat forums. This is the quality of professional staff that is being solicited for Africa and the Diaspora? What is really going-on here at Wikipedia?

Brian asked some questions - valid ones, I think. The only way to get an answer was to block you. Why did you not engage in dialog when he asked ? I will shortly be moving all this discussion to the Talk page. I have checked your references - they have little readable information and are too flash-heavy for inclusion in external references. Your addition to the article did not improve it, and added little new information. You say: Mami Wata is neither a recent growing phenomena, a cult, nor a goddess worshiping tradition, and yet the picture citation you added says :- Mami Wata Vodoun tradition is making a phenomenal comeback in the Diaspora. I think the article as it stands is not derogatory. Do you have any useful information to add ? Wizzy…☎ 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, we are a busy Society and do not have the time to debate in an open forum. Mama Zogbé’s contribution should be allowed to speak for itself, and to remain for open and fair debate and editing. She should be given the same professional honor and respect of being contacted to add any additional references or materials that Wikipedia deemed necessary. Out-right censorship underminds the very foundation of an open and free society, and in this instance was not the solution. Anagossi ,Mamissi Hounon

---

Mamissi Hounon, I just wanted to let you know that I will respond to your concerns. Unfortunately, I am at work at the moment, and the websites to which you have linked are blocked (all religious sites are). I am in a wedding this weekend, so do not think that I am ignoring you. I want to discuss this issue. — BrianSmithson 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, "Lastly, we are a busy Society and do not have the time to debate in an open forum."?? The essense of Wikipedia is collaboration, and the way this takes place is by communication, primarily via the Talk pages of articles. I think the first barrier to be overcome here is the notion that one can be too busy to talk about one's edits, but not too busy to actually make those edits in the first place. - Merzbow 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mamissi Hounon, I have now had the chance to review the websites you linked to. I agree with Wizzy that they are largely inappropriate for Wikipedia. However, if you have information to add to this article from the book you mentioned above, Mama Wata: Africa's Ancient God/dess Unveiled, I don't have a problem with that, provided you provide page references for the material. However, your personal experiences and opinions are not allowable per our neutral point of view and no original research policies.

Another reason that your edits here and to other articles are being removed (not censored) is that you are replacing articles completely. Many people have worked on, for example, Voodoo, so if you replace it completely with an article that does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it is no wonder it gets reverted. Therefore, if you want to add information to Mami Wata, I ask that you add information and not replace what is already there. The article that stands here now is well referenced from verifiable, reliable sources. You cannot simply delete such things without discussing them here first.

In short, I welcome your contributions to Wikipedia. But please don't be offended when others call you out for not respecting Wikipedia guidelines and policies. — BrianSmithson 02:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you have problems with the article as it stands now, please let me know. I have already addressed some of your concerns, such as replacing the terms god and goddess with spirit where appopriate. The article still refers to Mami Wata as she, but this is in keeping with the sources used. — BrianSmithson 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Brain. We have read Wikipedia guidelines and policies and are anxious about working with Wikipedia to correct some very gross misinformation on both the Vodoun religion and on Mami Wata. Ex. The Vodoun religions are not magical/spiritists/animists religions. Mami Wata is not a growing "cult." Its traditions are as old as Africa. However, the blocks on our IP address still remain, and we are unable to edit this and other misinformation. The changes will be gradual, and we welcome feedback from all who are interested in assisting in this important project to contribute. --MWHS 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Anagossii

I have asked the editor who protected those pages to unprotect them. But just a minor note: Something can be very old but still be growing. Even if you accept that Mami Wata worship is old, you can still accept that it is gaining in popularity. — BrianSmithson 13:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Round 2

I find the sources cited for the recent changes quite questionable. The version I have reverted to uses scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. The one that Mwhs is trying to add here uses websites that are not peer reviewed and fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No source I consulted suggests that Mami Wata originated in ancient Egypt, for example, and claims of such ancient origins are often a sign of a crackpot theory. -- BrianSmithson 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings:

The MWHS has made some much needed editing changes to the Mami Wata article. However, they are being deleted without cause. What is the problem?

Anagossii--MWHS 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal insults notwithstanding, instead of deleting the changes, we are requesting that you offer support in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and allow opportunity to cite sources. We are not here to argue. We only desire to comply with Wikipedia's citation policies so that we can contribute to this important article of our ancestral tradition.

Thank you, Anagossii--MWHS 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to insult, so I apologize for any language that may have implied such. If you want your edits to be considered, you need to add a reference citation after every change you make. You can do this very easily; just type (Author page#) (replacing "author" with the name of the author and "page#" with the page number from the source) after each change you make. That will allow us to determine which edits come from a reliable source and which do not. As I said, your organization's website is not a reliable source for anything except what your organization believes. However, your other sources can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis if you let us know what change comes from what source. — BrianSmithson 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Brain:

We accept your apology. We will gladly cite our sources. Additionally, the website is not listed as a source for the material cited. It was correctly listed as another informative resource, which many, including the only two scholars cited (Bastian, van Stipriaan)have visited and found helpful. BTW: Bastian's research is very limited, and is considered highly questionable in the ATR (African Traditional Religious) community. Largely because it offers a popular, yet devastatingly monolithic view of Mami Wata. Conversely, van Stipriaan simply regurgitates the same scholarly information as second and third party observers of some of the cultural aspects of Mami Wata as it is practiced in isolated villages and should not be wholly relied upon as an all-encompassing source. More revealing, none of these authors, have any direct experiential knowledge of Mami Wata. The majority of the ancient religions (we object to the use of "cult") in Africa, are matriarchal in origin, and Mami Wata’s mysteries can never be known to the outsider or passive observer. This point is critical, because it is simply impossible to adequately write about, and do justice to an experiential tradition such as Mami Wata, without first-hand knowledge. Nor is it possible to delve into its deeper mysteries and its ancient history, which is as old as Africa herself, without direct knowledge of its esoteric nature. In this respect, it is a treat for you and others to finally gain an opportunity receive a more board-based perspective from those who are born and initiated into Mami Wata’s mysteries. Being highly critical of the Mami Wata website, and displaying antagonism towards its initiates, will only serve to keep you and the wanting public on the same "scholarly" merry-go-round of well-intentioned, but misguided academic speculation and misinformation. Lastly, we are keenly aware that having the Diaspora challenge the conventional pattern of passively allowing others to define their history and their religions is new territory, and might prove uncomfortable (and even distasteful) for many. However, patience is required as respect is accorded those in the Diaspora who are just as (if not more) knowledgeable as those whom are accustomed to taking for granted that they somehow know more.

In the interest of truth. Anagossii --MWHS 13:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. This has been reposted here to maintain the thread. The duplicate thread can be deleted if it is permissiable.

Mami Wata Edits

Greetings Brain:

The MWHS has made some much needed editing changes to the Mami Wata article. However, they are being deleted without cause. What is the problem?--MWHS 22:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The anwer is above, under "Round 2". Your organization's website is not a reliable source per Wikipedia policies. -- BrianSmithson 22:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal insults notwithstanding, instead of deleting the changes, you are suppose to offer support and allow opportunity to cite sources. That is not a problem for MWHS. --MWHS 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Brain:

We accept your apology. We will gladly cite our sources. Additionally, the website is not listed as a source for the material cited. It was correctly listed as another informative resource, which many, including the only two scholars cited (Bastian, van Stipriaan)have visited and found helpful. BTW: Bastian's research is very limited, and is considered highly questionable in the ATR (African Traditional Religious) community. Largely because it offers a popular, yet devastatingly monolithic view of Mami Wata. Conversely, van Stipriaan simply regurgitates the same scholarly information as second and third party observers of some of the cultural aspects of Mami Wata as it is practiced in isolated villages and should not be wholly relied upon as an all-encompassing source. More revealing, none of these authors, have any direct experiential knowledge of Mami Wata. The majority of the ancient religions (we object to the use of "cult") in Africa, are matriarchal in origin, and Mami Wata’s mysteries can never be known to the outsider or passive observer. This point is critical, because it is simply impossible to adequately write about, and do justice to an experiential tradition such as Mami Wata, without first-hand knowledge. Nor is it possible to delve into its deeper mysteries and its ancient history, which is as old as Africa herself, without direct knowledge of its esoteric nature. In this respect, it is a treat for you and others to finally gain an opportunity receive a more board-based perspective from those who are born and initiated into Mami Wata’s mysteries. Being highly critical of the Mami Wata website, and displaying antagonism towards its initiates, will only serve to keep you and the wanting public on the same "scholarly" merry-go-round of well-intentioned, but misguided academic speculation and misinformation. Lastly, we are keenly aware that having the Diaspora challenge the conventional pattern of passively allowing others to define their history and their religions is new territory, and might prove uncomfortable (and even distasteful) for many. However, patience is required as respect is accorded those in the Diaspora who are just as (if not more) knowledgeable as those whom are accustomed to taking for granted that they somehow know more.

In the interest of truth. Anagossii--MWHS 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You must keep in mind Wikipedia's neutral point of view, however. There are many millions of people in the world who doubt or even deny that Mami Wata even exists. You cannot push the point of view that she is real without using language that defines this as but one of many views. For example, you could say, "According to the beliefs of Mami Wata's devotees, . . . ." and the like. Or, "According to Mami Wata priestess Lastname, . . . ." In short, though, I think you may find problems here if you wish to write about the "experintial knowledge" of Mami Wata -- Wikipedia has strict no original research and verifiability policies. But I don't want to discourage you. Please feel free to add your changes, citing sources along the way, and we can evaluate where we stand.

I will tell you that I am worried that your changes will reflect only your society's point of view of this topic. Mami Wata is known up and down the coast of Africa, and we should avoid any suggestion that the way she is regarded is uniform from one place to another. That is why I have endeavored to use language such as "In parts of Nigeria" or "among the Yoruba" -- to avoid painting all Mami Wata worshippers/adherants with the same brush. If necessary, we can add more language like this, and you can use such constructions to present your organization's beliefs.

As for the word cult, I can accept that you dislike it. However, here it has a very specific and applicable meaning: "A system or community of religious worship and ritual." source. I would agree to replacing the word with "worship" or "ritual" or "community of worship" and the like, but I can't see a reason to not link to the article Cult (religious practice). -- BrianSmithson 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Brain:

Thank you for the feedback. We are both in agreement that Mami Wata cannot be broad brushed. We are well aware of Mami Wata’s extensive worship all throughout Africa, and in the New World, which is why we feel our contributions are important. Additionally, the MWHS does not advocate a point-of- view per se. However, we do believe that we hold the advantage of offering a more balanced perspective because our knowledge is both experiential and well researched. This fact is not meant to discourage nor discount the work of others. If maintaining neutrality proves to be an issue, we do not mind assistance in this area. We also appreciate your respecting our aversion to the word “cult.” Although your definition appears respectful, it is an undeniable fact that the world “cult” as it is applied and understood in the West has more negative connotations, especially as it has been historically applied to African and other indigenous religious systems. Back-dropped against centuries of this form of malignment, it is understandable why patience is required as those in the Diaspora are striving to gain the same respect and proper appellation of African religious systems as is accorded Christianity, Hinduism, Islam etc.,. Lastly, we have contributed further to the article. Namely, defining the ancient origins of the name Mami Wata in particular. We have cited our sources using the Harvard referencing format so as not to displace the footnotes already in use. We also have photos both from Africa and from the MWHS society that we will be adding later. We appreciate the dialogue and your patience and cooperation.

Anagossii--MWHS 15:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing the changes made to the article, and I should have some questions for you soon (probably tomorrow). -- BrianSmithson 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed your changes to the article, and here are my comments and questions:

• • First, I dispute that Hunter-Hindrew is a reliable source per the standards set out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. First, she has no academic credentials to study the Mami Wata phenomenon (you have stated previously that she holds a doctorate in education). Per the Wikipedia page, "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions." She is a Mami Wata priestess, and that gives her first-hand knowledge of Mami Wata worship practices. However, this means that her book can only be used as a primary source -- in other words, her book is a primary source of information on what she and her organization (the Mami Wata Healers Society) believe. Furthermore, she makes "[s]urprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known", and "[c]laims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." Per the Wikipedia page, we are to "[b]e particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." Your changes to the article imply that this is exactly the case. I have also attempted to "[f]ind out what other people say about your sources." In the case of Hunter-Hindrew's book, the answer is "not much". Searching Hunter-Hindrew's name on Google Books yields zero results: [1]. This indicates that in more than 100,000 publications, none has referenced her work. Google Scholar (an index of journals, essays, and other short scholarly works) yields the same result: Zero references to Hunter-Hindrew's book.[2]. This book is also self-published (it is published by The Mami Wata Healers Society of North America, which is an organization founded by Hunter-Hindrew). The Wikipedia page on reliable sources further states that "[a]nyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." I am not trying to impugn Ms. Hunter-Hindrew or her book; I am merely pointing out that it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia with regard to what type of sources we can use. Her book is a good source of information about her personal views and about the Mami Wata Healers' Society of North America, but not (per Wikipedia standards) about the development of Mami Wata, ancient origins, etc.
  • Second, some of your changes seem to reflect the views of your organization specifically and are not attributed correctly. For example, "Mami Wata is actually a pantheon of water deities consisting of both male and female." This is contrary to the sources that were used to write the original article.
  • You use terminology that is confusing to people unfamiliar with the views of your organization. For example, "those who are born and initiated to them . . . ." What does it mean to be "born to" a deity?
  • The article currently uses both "spirit" and "deity" to describe Mami Wata. Which do you prefer? I had originally used "goddess", but you disputed this (rightly so), so I changed to "spirit" following the sources I consulted. I have no problem with either "spirit" or "deity", but I wanted to see your opinion on this.
  • You have added "and in the United States" and similar language to the article whenever the diaspora in which Mami Wata is/are worshipped is mentioned. I think this is a valid point to make, but I feel you may have overdone it. For example, in the phrase "so that today the Mami Wata deities are known in at least 20 African nations and in the United States" does not need the US disclaimer; it is in a section about Mami Wata's spread through Africa specifically.
  • I am going to add some requests for source citations to the article in a few places. I hope you will add a Harvard-style reference wherever you see "citation needed".
  • The caption on Image:Akuete.gif is way too long. Wikipedia standard is to have a very brief caption for photographs.
  • You have added some additional sources that do not appear to be used in the article. For example, Jell-Bahslen is only referenced once, and then it is unclear which of her two works (or both) is being referenced. There are currently no obvious references to Drewal aside from the fact that sources usually refer to Mami Wata with the feminine pronouns. There are no references to Massey. My point is not that these sources are bad, just that if they are not actually used to write this article, they do not need to be cited.
  • You have three links to your organization's website in the article. I am going to consolidate these and move them to a new section, "External links". Religious organization websites are not valid secondary sources, as we discussed above, so I think this is a better place for the link.

That's it for now. -- BrianSmithson 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Brain:

The overall tone of your response notwithstanding, for clarity, I will respond to your concerns in an itemized manner:

You state:

ο “First, I dispute that Hunter-Hindrew is a reliable source per the standards set out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. First, she has no academic credentials to study the Mami Wata phenomenon (you have stated previously that she holds a doctorate in education). Per the Wikipedia page, "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing.”

“Hunter-Hindrew’s” initiatory name is Mama Zogbé . She is a full-time, fully-initiated priestess in the Mami Wata tradition by birth inheritance. She was initiated in 1988 in Togo, West Africa. She introduced the Mami Wata tradition into the United States. She is the first to install the ancient Yeveh Vodoun shrines in America. She has been traveling and training in Togo, West Africa for more than sixteen years. She has been sponsoring Togolese priests in America since 1995, where they have traveled across America initiating others to the Mami Wata tradition. Mama Zogbé initiates in Togo, West Africa not only Africans to Mami Wata, but to the ancestral branches of Mama Tchamba, and the Yeveh Vodoun. Her knowledge of the Vodoun religion is extensive and her research in her new book Mami Wata: Africa’s Ancient God/dess Unveiled, we believe is groundbreaking, and reflects her extensive knowledge on the subject. She is the first African-American, since Reconstruction to resurrect the ancestral lineages of those born with Mami in America that were suppressed during slavery. She tours the U.S. initiating others and speaking on this subject. She has more experience and knowledge in this area than any of the two primary sources of whom you have cited. Additionally, the information cited in the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines in that it is supported by secondary, verifiable sources.

You state:

ο The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions." She is a Mami Wata priestess, and that gives her first-hand knowledge of Mami Wata worship practices. However, this means that her book can only be used as a primary source . . . Her book is a good source of information about her personal views and about the Mami Wata Healers' Society of North America in other words, her book is a primary source of information on what she and her organization (the Mami Wata Healers Society) believe. . . Furthermore, she makes "[s]urprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known", and "[c]laims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."

“More reputable?” There is no evidence that any  of the two authors cited in the  primary article are any more “reputable” than the other.  

Wikipedia guidelines states:

. . . . editors [should] devote time and effort to fact-checking and reference-running. In the meantime, readers can still benefit from your contributions . . . . Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources. Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article.

Brain, you are free to disagree in the article supported with your own "reputable, verifiable sources". Wikipedia encourages this. Additionally, the information cited in the article is supported by secondary, verifiable sources. Lastly, have you actually read the book? It is a new two-volume set, publication consisting of 849 pages, complete with a 24 page detailed bibliography, detailed reference notes after each chapter, and a 100 page index. It warrants more than a “quick check on Google” to render judgement or to discredit her work as a compilation of “organizational beliefs.” Your actions are not supported by Wikipedia’s guidelines for verifiability, and we are shocked that you would dismiss it in such a disparaging manner: Wikipedia’s requirements which are far lenient.

According to Wikpedia’s guidelines for inclusion:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

If you dispute what has been written, challenge each point you are disputing, read the book and verify the information based upon the verifiable references you have cited.

You further state:

ο Second, some of your changes seem to reflect the views of your organization specifically and are not attributed correctly. For example, "Mami Wata is actually a pantheon of water deities consisting of both male and female." This is contrary to the sources that were used to write the original article.

We take exception to your unsubstanitated claims that the important changes being made to offer a more balanced perspective on Mami Wata, are based upon organizational beliefs. Focusing on the subject of Mami Wata as it pertains to "gender," accords an opportunity to point out one of many the problems with the original article, namely, how Western researchers become fixated on only one aspect of Mami Wata, and make sweeping generalizations based on secondary and third party sources. We plan to include in the article one of the oldest Mami Wata deities known in Togo as Densu. His attribution is “male”, and he represents a pantheon of male Mami Wata deities that are often overlooked, with the western emphasis placed almost exclusively on “females.”

ο The article currently uses both "spirit" and "deity" to describe Mami Wata. Which do you prefer?

Mami Wata is a deity.

ο The caption on Image:Akuete.gif is way too long. Wikipedia standard is to have a very brief caption for photographs.

This is not a problem. It can be shortened. There is also a ritual video of Papa Akuete working a client in possession at Berkeley University. Once you are better informed on the subject of Mami Wata, (read the book) You and others will appreciate the knowledge being shared.

ο You have added some additional sources that do not appear to be used in the article. For example, Jell-Bahslen is only referenced once, and then it is unclear which of her two works (or both) is being referenced. Using Harvard format style the year of publication cites the article being referenced. There are currently no obvious references to Drewal aside from the fact that sources usually refer to Mami Wata with the feminine pronouns. There are no references to Massey. My point is not that these sources are bad, just that if they are not actually used to write this article, they do not need to be cited.

There are several references to Massey in the changes made in the article. Take your time to review the articles as an objective editor based upon Wikipedia’s standards. Further,I disagree with removing the external references. Evjue-Bascom Professor, Henry J. Drewal, and Sabine Jell-Bahlsen are very important sources on Mami Wata. Both have far more research experience in West Africa than either of the original two primary sources of which the article was originally written. As many external references that can contribute to the overall knowledge on this subject is Wikipedia’s main objective of which we are in compliance.

Finally, Brain, we do plan to contribute more information in the future. Largely to correct some of the glaring conclusions, misconceptions and speculations about Mami Wata. The goal is to provide a well balanced perspective on this ancient religious system in an objective manner, supported by credible research, and in keeping within the guidelines that are established by Wikipedia. Your assistance as editor in meeting Wikipedia’s objective is appreciated.

That's all for now. Anagossii--MWHS 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "the overall tone" of my comments above. I have endeavored to be nothing but civil in my conversation here. At any rate, I have made my argument about why the book by Hunter-Hindrew is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. You seem to disagree, but I am unconvinced by your counter-argument. That being the case, I think we have no recourse but to initiate dispute resolution proceedings as outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

As for your other comments, I have been reading more about Mami Wata from reputable, reliable sources. Some of your changes in terminology and such were indeed warranted. I am mainly disputing your presentation of information from Hunter-Hindrew's book and your changing of certain sections to reflect the beliefs of your organization or of Ewe Vodun practitioners as being indicative of Mami Wata beliefs in other areas of Africa and the world. But I feel the issue of the Hunter-Hindrew book is the most important issue to address, thus my call to move to dispute resolution. — BrianSmithson 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Brain writes:

ο I have been reading more about Mami Wata from reputable, reliable sources.

Brain, you have repeatedly made this claim, but do not state who these reputable, reliable sources are, and what selective criteria you are using? Further, what is your knowledge and experience in/of Mami Wata in order to even critically examine if whether or not these reputable, reliable sources are as credible as you claim?

ο I think we have no recourse but to initiate dispute resolution proceedings as outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Converesly, I am unconvinced by your initial argument to exclude the book. If a compromise cannot be reached, then choose your recourse in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures, and we will respond in-turn. We stand by our academic resources, and personal and experiential knowledge of our ancestral religion.

Anagossii--MWHS 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) .

It would be pointless for me to name a bunch of sources when what is at issue here is whether one particular work (the one by Hunter-Hindrew) is reliable per Wikipedia standards. I will file a request for comment tonight or tomorrow moring. In the meantime, I ask that you stop editing the article, as it is in a state of dispute. I will ask for page protection to prevent anyone from changing it until our dispute is resovlved. Sorry about that; I don't think page protection is necessary at this time. -- BrianSmithson 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Brain:

Perhaps we are not understanding your position. We do not mind citing the well researched book by Hunter-Hindrew as a secondary source. It is new. However, our immediate impression is that you are requesting that it be removed entirely as a "credible source," of which we are absolutely opposed. In the Diaspora, history has shown us that when it comes to "credible sources" validating any aspect of African culture, history or religion, at the exclusion of the Diaspora academic community and cultural experts, it is always, as a rule, considered suspect. Without diverting from the subject of Mami Wata, I will offer you a prime example, by quoting one of those "credible sources" of whom Bastian,Van Stipriaan, Drewal, Jell-Bahlsen , et.al., had no problem including as a primary or secondary source in their own research, and now some of these sweeping conclusions have been included in Wikipedia’s original Mami Wata article. Particualry regarding the "spread" of Mami Wata from:

'. . . Liberian traders of the Kru ethnic group moved up and down the west coast of Africa from Liberia to Cameroon beginning in the 19th century. They may have spread their own water-spirit beliefs with them and helped to standardise conceptions in West Africa. Their Pidgin English.'

Part of this speculative myth is derived from Dr. Ronald Wintrob, an American, research psychiatrist, sent on a special mission to Liberia by the United States government. During his mission, Wintrob, suddenly noticed an unusual number of African-American men, who had previously expatriated to the country, seeking psychiatric treatment. They reported developing severe symptoms, of what he described as “psychosis,” depression, and of experiencing erotic dreams involving a mulatto or “white skinned” female. After examining these men, Dr. Wintrob, reached the following prognosis:

“ . . . Finally there is the concept of the desired but prohibited object, the white female. . . .that the spirit is called “Mammy” Water. . . The nature of this fusion of fantasies would demand that their meaning remain hidden from essential consciousness, and this might explain the operation of the denial mechanism in identifying Mammy Water as white-skinned rather than Negro. Dreams of sexual intercourse with her would indicate the break-through of incestuous impulses in a disguised form, and thus the gratification of repressed infantile genital wishes.” (Wintrob, Ronald M., M.D. "Mammy Water: Folk Beliefs and Psychotic Elaborations in Liberia," Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal (1970):15 (2)April: 143-157. (taken from Mami Wata: Africa’s Ancient God/dess Unveiled: Chapter Excerpted entitled: Contemporary Images and Illusions of Mami Wata The intrusion of racial and political polemics in the worship of the divine African Mother)

Conversely, many of the current “credible” authors claiming expertise on Mami Wata, all subscribe to the mythological notion that Mami Wata is a recent phenomena, directly influenced by Western standards of wealth and [European} standards of beauty. All have either shied away from or are wholly unaware of the undeniable reality that the PANTHEON of deities known as “Mami Wata,” exist from a far remote religious past. That there actually exist both a bio-spiritual component, which runs through African bloodlines, replete with a long history of an organized sacerdotal order of priestesses and priests dating as far back as 5,000 B.C.E. The same disturbing myth hold true with the “credible” experts introduction of the “snake charmer” theory. Snake Charming is not part of the Mami Wata religious or cultural tradition. The Mami Wata tradition is ancient, and is one of the oldest matriarchal religions of Africa. The Western obsession with one contemporary “Mulatto” aspect of Mami Wata completely negates the fact that for more than 5,000 years, Mami Wata appeared in her original form as an African mermaid, and was depicted with long braided hair. This historical fact is consistent with its past and present clergy of which the majority are African/Diaspora women. There is much in your original article that needs correcting. We are prepared to challenge all of the “credible” sources whom we know are merely regurgitating out-dated, largely speculative material which is harmful to those who actually live and practice the religion. It is in that spirit in which we cite the well-researched book of Hunter-Hindrew, and some of our information might rightly shock western sensibilities and cultural conventions. Anagossii--MWHS 12:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Anagossii. You are correct; I am disputing whether the book by Ms. Hunter-Hindrew may be used here as a secondary source per the argument laid out above. In short, Wikipedia is not the place to present new and controversial evidence. Rather, our job is to summarize the consensus scholarly opinion about a subject. Unfortunately, you seem to be discounting the scholarly literature as "suspect". I have no problem using Ms. Hunter-Hindrew's book as a primary source; that is, we can use it as a source of the beliefs of Ms. Hunter-Hindrew and of the Mami Wata Healers Society specifically. I am challenging whether it is an acceptable authority per Wikipedia standards regarding the nature of Mami Wata, or the history, development, etc. of Mami Wata worship practices. Again, I mean no disrespect to Ms. Hunter-Hindrew. I just believe strongly in upholding Wikipedia policy in this case, which is to disallow self-published works of this type from use as a secondary source on the topic. Hopefully, some more Wikipedia editors will come this way soon to help us sort this out. I have not filed the Request for Comment just yet (there is some uncertainty as to where exactly is should be filed), but I will post a link here when I do so that you can be certain I have represented the dispute fairly. -- BrianSmithson 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel way out of depth discussing the details of each position, but in regard to sources, if you feel that credible sources whom we know are merely regurgitating out-dated, largely speculative material, it is valid to list that as a criticism, but not valid to remove content based on that judgement. Similarly, a new book with research not echoed elsewhere should also be listed as such. I think it is perfectly possible to write about both, possibly incompatible, viewpoints in this article. Wizzy…☎ 14:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not have a problem citing Hunter-Hindrew as either a primary or a secondary source. Based upon Wikipedia's Standards it actually qualifies as both. Because it is a new book, it can be listed as a secondary source. No material has been removed from the originial article. Offer an example of how Wikipedia lists secondary sources, and we will comply and continue adding our contributions. Thank you. Anagossii--MWHS 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. Secondary sources "[report] events in the past as well as [perform] the function of generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or evaluation of the events." A primary source is "a source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied". Hunter-Hindrew's book is, I argue, acceptable as a primary source, but not as a secondary source. In other words, we can use her book as a primary source regarding her personal beliefs about Mami Wata. We cannot accept it as a reliable source of analysis and synthesis of Mami Wata traditions. You are trying to argue that her book is on the same ground as the sources by Van Stipriaan, Bastian, and others. Per the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources, this is demonstrably not the case. — BrianSmithson 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We do understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and still conclude that Hunter-Hindrew's book qualifies under both definitions. Not only is Hunter-Hindrew a full-time practitioner in the Mami Wata Vodoun tradition, her book also critically examins all of the major academic literature, and "[reports] events in the past as well as [perform] the function of generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, and/or evaluation of these events." It is an important contribution to the scant body of credible academic literature written on Mami Wata, and it contains a vital body of African religious history heretofore lost to the Afro-Diaspora. This is why it is important to first read the book before it is categorically discounted.

Request for Comment

There is a dispute over whether the book Mami Wata: Africa's Ancient God/dess Unveiled by Mamaissii Vivian Hunter-Hindrew (organization website), ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971624526/103-1822441-8536620?v=glance&n=283155 Amazon.com]), is an acceptable secondary source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

User:BrianSmithson holds that the book is unacceptable because the author has no academic creditials to write about the subject (she has a Masters in education according to her organization's website), she is affiliated with no academic institution, the book makes surprising and apparently important claims that are not widely known (particularly regarding the etymology, early development, and history of Mami Wata traditions), the book contradicts the prevailing view in the relevant academic community, the academic literature on the subject does not use her book as a source, and the work is self-published (published by the Mami Wata Healers Society, an organization founded by Hunter-Hindrew). (diff)

User:Mwhs holds that Mami Wata: Africa's Ancient God/dess Unveiled is a credible source. As a full-time, fully initiated high-priestess of Mami Wata, Mama Tchamba and Yeveh Vodoun. Mamaissii Vivian Hunter-Hindrew, whose initiatory name is known as Mama Zogbé, inherited her calling from her great-great grandmother and great-great grandfather. She was initiated in Togo, West Africa, by priestesses of Mami Wata, Mama Tchamba, and Yeveh Vodoun. She has been training and traveling to Africa for more than 16 years. She has conducted initiations to Mami Wata, and Mama Tchamba in Togo, West Africa, where she is recognized and respected as a skilled high-priestess. Mama Zogbé is acclaimed for re-introducing the Mami Wata and the Yeveh Vodoun tradition into the United States since slavery. She is the first to conduct full initiations into the mysteries of Mami Wata, Mama Tchamba, and Yeveh Vodoun in America, and have invited and worked with high-priests from Togo to conduct initiations in America. Mama Zogbé’s organization (formerly OATH) is responsible for petitioning and wining approval by the LOC Library of Congress to change the classification of books written on African Religions from its previous labeling of cult, anthropology, to “African Religions”. Mama Zogbé maintains full shrines to Mami Wata Yeveh Vodoun in the United States. Mama Zogbé's book is well researched, groundbreaking, and authoritative. (diff), and is therefore very qualified as a secondary source in the field of Mami Wata Yeveh Vodoun. Mwhs further contends that the standard academic literature on the subject (all written by non-members of the African diaspora), the majority who do not hold any academic degrees in African Religious studies or culture, nor have undergone any formal initiations, is woefully inaqequate and is suspect and regurgitates outdated, largely speculative material that is harmful to those who actually live and practice the religion.diff) Mama Zogbé is currently working in a collabortive project as a contributing author in a moumental study on Mami Wata, edited by Evjue-Bascom Professor, Henry J. Drewal, where excerpts from her book will be profiled, as part of a 5 year display at the UCLA Fowler Museum. Mama Zogbé's calling is ancestral in that she not only initiates but, conducts lectures on Mami Wata, and Yeveh Vodoun, especially as it pertains to those in the Diaspora whose lineages were disrupted as a result of slavery. Therefore, the book by Hunter-Hindrew is a necessary secondary source from which the wanting community, initiates, and those who claim academic expertise can critically challenge, and draw important historical and cultural information.

Comments

Here is my evaluation as an RFC responder.

1. This book is published by the "Mami Wata Healers Society of North America, Inc.", an organization founded by Mamaissii Vivian Hunter-Hindrew. This makes it self-published. Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says in relevant part that "self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." This doesn't leave wiggle room. The book could be (if all other conditions were met) a valid source for an article on the society or Mrs. Hunter-Hindrew, but not for this article.
2. Professor Drewal is a professor who researches and teaches in "African and African Diaspora art history". (The "Evjue-Bascom" name is the name of his professorship, probably the name(s) of the funders of the endowment.) The full CV available one link away from the link provided above shows that he does have a number of publications on Mami Wata, generally published in scholarly journals. His publications in such journals are reliable sources. The CV also shows that he is working on a book about Mami Wata to which there will be about 40 contributors that is anticipated to be released by the Indiana University Press. When published, that book will likely be a reliable source. Taking as argued that excerpts from this disputed source are scheduled for inclusion therein, that does not make those excerpts, or the entire work, currently a reliable source. When published, if it is a reliable source, the included excerpts may well become reliable by Wikipedia standards. This will depend on how they are included and used, so can not be definitively evaluated at this time. GRBerry 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is "wiggle room."

Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Reliable Sources reads in-part:

Using online and self-published sources:

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

Anagossii--MWHS 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget: "their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications". Where else has Hunter-Hindrew published her work? — BrianSmithson 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Brain, I believe your argument is personal, over-reactive, and in the end a futile issue. Removing Hunter-Hindrew's reference as a secondary source from the only two places where it appears, will not change the etymological information on the ancient origins of the name “Mami Wata.” It also does not change her book being listed as a reference or resource. As a practitioner, she can (and will) also be directly quoted in the article as a reliable source. MWHS has gone beyond what has been requested by other contributors, to comply with your demands in imposing Wikipedia’s stringent requirements. Nevertheless, to placate your objection to using Hunter-Hindrew’s book as a primary or secondary resource, the two places where “Hunter-Hindrew” exists will be removed. However, it will not change in anyway the contribution already made. It is backed by solid, credible scholars which are already cited. Finally, always keenly aware that these changes might prove “surprising” and unsettling to many Western sensibilities and preconceived notions of Mami Wata, the changes that MWHS are making to the article is to offer the wanting public a more balance and comprehensive perspective on the ancient, African, matriarchal religion of Mami Wata. The two "credible scholars" whom you previously based the entire article, as well as others are encouraged to challenge the information being offered, citing their own credible sources. Our position is encouraged and is in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

As Wikipdeia forewarns each contributor at the out-set: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly . . . do not submit it. In the interest of balance and truth Anagossii--MWHS 11:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. My motives are only to insure that this article does not become unbalanced or a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I see that you have removed the references to Hunter-Hindrew's book but have left the controversial information. Several of your changes to the article are contrary to what I've been reading, so I was hoping you could provide some direct quotations from them. For example, what is the direct quotation that shows that Isis is in fact the same deity as Mami Wata? And what is the direct quote that says that the name Mami Wata is in fact derived from Egyptian Mami Uati and not from Pidgin English? Finally, which of your sources says that mamisii, meaning priestess of Mami Wata, is derived from the Egyptian mammisi, meaning motherhood temple? -- BrianSmithson 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Brain:

Wikipedia guidelines states:

. . . . editors [should] devote time and effort to fact-checking and reference-running. In the meantime, readers can still benefit from your contributions . . . . Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources. Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article. . . This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.

Brain, we are not interested in becoming entangled in an unproductive war of words with you. We have complied with your initial demands to remove the Hunter-Hindrew book. We have listed our credible sources in support of our contributions in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Eleven of the thirteen references currently listed in the article, MWHS has contributed with more to follow. Further, we will continue to add what we believe are important contributions, with your keeping in mind that you are free to disagree in the article supported by your own "reputable, verifiable sources". From hence on, we will only respond to future requests to make any changes in accordance to an inherent violation of Wikipedia's three pillars of: Citing Sources, Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Anagossii--MWHS 16:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I am asking for direct quotations. I believe that you are making associations between similar sounding words that are not supported by your sources. You are essentially making Hunter-Hindrew's argument but pretending that the argument is also supported in other sources. However, if your sources really do make the connections between Isis and Mami Wata, between Mami Wata and Mami Uati and between the West Africa mamisii and the Egyptian mammisi, I will have no problem with their inclusion. -- BrianSmithson 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have consulted a copy of Massey's A Book of the Beginnings. The one I reviewed is published by Kessinger Publishing. Unless I am missing it, he does not mention Mami Wata (or any variant of her name) in either volume. He does not mention Mami Uati either. He does mention the goddess Uati, whose name he claims is the origin of the English word wet, but nowhere does he equate her or her name with Mami Wata. It would seem that this notion comes from Hunter-Hindrew's book, which we have decided does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for use in this manner. (My dictionary says that water and wet derive from the Indo-European *wed-, not Egyptian, which is an Afro-Asiatic language.) — BrianSmithson 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A copy of Massey's book? The purpose of a contributor citing their sources is for the editors and the wanting public to verify the information cited by seeking out that same exact reference i.e., publisher, year of publication, volume etc., cited in the article. These are basic research skills normally taught at the secondary level, and is especially expected of someone who served as an English teacher. We have tried to be patient and work with you, since you have only recently (since 2005) accepted the duties as Administrator at Wikipedia, in such an important category as Afro-American Religions with absolutely no experience in African Religions. The point being made, is that it is not wise to continue this unproductive pattern of insulting, and being condescending to a contributing African-American Religious organization who clearly demonstrates their expertise on the aforementioned subject. Placing a Neutrality Alert on the Mami Wata article in retaliation, is no substitute for lack of professional and experiential knowledge in the field. In others words Brain, we believe that you are behaving as the angry mastodon, to the point where we believe your objectivity has been compromised and your conduct is reflecting bias, resulting in abuse of your position. It is in that spirit that we are requesting that you either present your facts supported by "credible sources" concerning the article in question to justify imposing the neutrality alert, or that it be removed. We are also requesting that your actions be monitored by a neural administrator. Until you present yourself in a more amiable and professional manner as an administrator/representative of Wikipedia,although we will continue to contribute to the Mami Wata article, we will no longer defend our position in this forum. Anagossii--MWHS 12:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian consulted the book, and did not find the reference mentioned in the article. What is your point? Wizzy…☎ 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brain consulted one published by Kessinger Publishing and he doesn't state the year. The book cited in the article is

Massey, Gerald. "A Book of the Beginnings" (New York: A & B Publishers, 1994).

Books are updated, new editions, revised, and page numbers differ etc.,. I thought this was basic research skills and knowledge expected of all editors and (especially) administrators. That is our point. Anagossii --MWHS 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First, please refrain from making personal attacks on me. This is the second time I have had to ask you to stop this behavior. If you persist in attacking me personally, I will have no choice but to file an official complaint against you, which will be the first step toward official reprimand and possible loss of editing priviledges. Please read WP:CIVIL and adhere to its requirements.

Massey wrote his book over 100 years ago (he died in 1907), so the edition doesn't seem that relevant. But the one I consulted is from Kessinger Publishing and was published in 2002.

In addition to the original sources for the article, I have, to date, consulted the following sources regarding Mami Wata:

• Allsopp, Richard, ed. (1996). Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage. University of the West Indies Press.
• Bastian, Misty (2002). "Irregular Visitors: Narrative about Ogbaanje (Spirit Children) in Southern Nigerian Popular Writing. Readings in African Popular Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Browning, Barbara (1998). Infectious Rhythm: Metaphors of Contagion and the Spread of African Culture. New York City: Routledge.
• Gifford, Paul (2004). Ghana's New Christianity: Pentecostalism in a Globalizing African Economy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Hackett, Rosalind I. J. (no date). "Mermaids and End-time Jezebels: New Tales from Old Calabar". Accessed 12 July 2006.
• Hancock, Ian F. (1975). "Some Aspects of English in Liberia". Perspectives on Black English. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
• Hunt, Nancy Rose (1999). A Colonial Lexicon of Birth, Ritual, Medicalization, and Mobility in the Congo. Duke University Press.
• Jameson, Fredric, and Miyoshi, Masao (1998). The Culture of Globalization. Duke University Press.
• Jules-Rosette, Bennetta (1990). "Images of Women in African Tourist Art: A Case Study in Continuity and Change". Columbia University Press.
• Kramer, Fritz, Malcolm R. Green trans. (1993). The Red Fez: Art and Spirit Possession in Africa. London: Verso.
• Littlewood, Roland (1993). Pathology and Identity: The Work of Mother Earth in Trinidad. Cambridge University Press.
• Rosenthal, Judy (1998). Possession, Ecstasy, and Law in Ewe Voodoo. The University of Virginia Press.
• Sanford, Mei-Mei (2001). "Living Water: Òsun, Mami Wata, and Olókùn in the Lives of Four Contemporary Nigerian Christian Women". Òsun across the Waters: A Yoruba Goddess in Africa and the Americas. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Shaw, Rosalind (1992). "Dreaming as Accomplishment: Power, the Individual and Temne Divination". Dreaming, Religion and Society in Africa. Leiden, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

The closest any of these comes to supporting your edits to the article attesting to Mami Wata being an ancient deity or having been worshipped in ancient Egypt or that there is any linguistic connection between Mami Wata and and the Ancient Egyptian language is "some Ghanaian classicists claim she originated in Minoan Crete" by Jameson and Miyoshi (who go on to support the idea that the Mami Wata's mermaid body is based on a European ship's prow) (Jameson and Miyoshi 138) and this from Hackett: "I am less interested in whether Mami Wata is a local or foreign spirit, or a (post)modern interpretation of an ancient belief (she strikes me as all of the above), but rather the links between old and new water spirits in Calabar and beyond." (Hackett 1). That is why I am asking for direct quotes from your sources that I mentioned above. I have already shown that the article is misrepresenting Massey's book to support Hunter-Hindrew's claims. I suspect that the article does this very same thing in several other places. That is why I have placed a neutrality dispute tag on the article, and that is why the tag will remain until you can satisify us that your sources say what the article claims they do. — BrianSmithson 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian, this tragically desperate act of copying and pasting a bibliographical list and extracting a quotation from an internet source of which you do not cite and have not read does not qualify. Placing a Neutrality Alert on the Mami Wata article in retaliation, is no substitute for lack of professional and experiential knowledge in the field. Again, we are not interested in becoming entangled in an unproductive war of words with you. We have complied with your initial demands to remove the Hunter-Hindrew book. We have listed our credible sources in support of our contributions in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Finally, we eagerly await you to disagree in the article supported by all of the above sources of which you claim to have read, but somehow were omitted from the original article prior to our contributions. We will also continue to add our contributions and will only respond to future requests to make any changes in accordance to an inherent violation of Wikipedia's three pillars. Our research will speak for itself. You clearly are not qualified to administer this section. The Afro-Diaspora African Religion section deserves better than this. Absolutely shocking Anagossii--MWHS 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Desperate act"? "Copying and pasting"? I have consulted these sources over the past few days. They were not used in writing the original article. I admit that the original article was flawed, but I do not believe that the article in its current state is any better. But now you are accusing me of lying and you are refusing to work with me to resolve this dispute. I very much plan to write another version of this article, supported by credible sources, but rather than simply replacing your version, I am trying to work with you. I am, however, being shut out. Your research most certainly does not speak for itself, hence my requests for direct quotations from your sources. Removing Hunter-Hindrew's book but still using it as a reference is not what this request for comment is all about. — BrianSmithson 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And now I see that we're back to citing Hunter-Hindrew/Mama Zogbé as a source. Hadn't we agreed that she does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source? — BrianSmithson 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hunter-Hindrew's book as a secondary source in the actual article had already been removed per your demand. However, it does not change her book being listed as a reference/resource, nor does it prevent her from being directly quotedas a reliable source. As a Mami Wata Vodoun priestess, and expert practitioner, and the first to introduce the Mami Wata tradition into the Diaspora, her contribution is vital. Again, as actual initiates to Mami Wata possessing both experiential and academic knowledge, we will continue to contribute to this important article on our African, ancestral religions. We eagerly await you to disagree in the article supported by all of the above sources of which you claim to have read, but somehow were omitted from the original article prior to our contributions. Anagossii --MWHS 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I said above that "Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says in relevant part that "self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources." This doesn't leave wiggle room." Someone noted that "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material." I should have addressed this. I see absolutely no evidence that Mrs. Hunter-Hindrew is either a professional researcher or a professional journalist. Accordingly, that exception does not apply. A doctoral degree indicates a level of education, not a profession. On the evidence above, she is by profession either a religious leader or an advocate - accordingly, this exception does not apply. If the individual that feels it does, they need to show evidence of publication of large quantities of papers by her in scholarly journals (compare the number in Professor Drewal's resume) or that she is a well-known professional journalist (which media outlets have employed her, how wide is the coverage, etc...). GRBerry 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"According to some renowned scholars"

This etymology section reeks of bogus etymology. You can't say a word stems from an Ancient Egyptian word just because it "sounds like" it. [3] I'm tagging it {{disputed}}. Note that whoever wrote the section seems to have inserted a reference every time they say there was a deity called Somethingorother in ancient Somewhere but I don't see how these establish the connection between these names and the modern Mami Wata. So despite the ample references I'm going to add in {{OR}} too. Again, see this. - ∅ (∅), 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'd love to add {{disputed}} at the top of the entire article; it looks like it was written in entirety by some priest(ess)(es) of the deity who like(s) to make wild claims...

Hey! Another thing: The article itself refers to a "Maman Dlo" --so much for the Ancient Egyptian origin of the name. That's a French-lexified calque of an English-lexified name for you right there. - ∅ (∅), 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. An organization of Mami Wata priests and priestesses in the United States did rewrite much of the article using their founder, one Mama Zogbé/Hunter-Hindrew as their primary source. In the discussion above, they agreed not to use Zogbé's writings as a source (since the writings do not pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources), but they left her arguments intact, using the sources she cites in her book instead. As you suggest, these claims are quite disputable. For example, the book by Massey makes no mention of the deity Mami Wata. He instead provides some dated and dubious discussion on an Egyptian word that sound like water, but are most likely not related according to any modern etymology one wishes to consult (I'm sure Massey was cutting edge for his time, but his writing is over 100 years old and is no longer supported as far as I can tell). The article is currently full of these kinds of leaps of faith and shoddy scholarship. It's a big mess, and I'm currently trying to write a scholastically sound counter article with which to replace the whole thing. — BrianSmithson 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the article very informative and interesting. Your reaction sounds to me as if it is born from racism and prejudice. This religious group is just as entitled to educate the public on their religions as are other religious groups. All religion make wild claims as to their beliefs which are impossible to verify. At least this group cites sources based on their own understanding and research. You have no right to denigrate them for it. I have read all of your comments, and have found nothing you have said to dispute their claims. Perhaps you should find another area in which to monitor. You are too prejudice and have no experience in this religion to attack this or any other African-American religious group. --69.38.103.186 14:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC) -Stacy Peterson

Did you take the time to read Wikipedia's policy pages? Particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability? This article fails to adhere to any of those. It's nothing to do with predjudice, Stacy. You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — BrianSmithson 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is poorly conceived and hard to follow. It dives in tiny details from the first paragraphs. It doesn't have a clear summary, it doesn't distinguish between well-known facts and particular opinions. Mythology, pantheon, religious practices and worship are mixed up throughout the article. A lot of terms are contradictory, sometimes in the same sentence. Phrases are too long. "Spiritual" mumbo-jumbo is often used instead of concise and clear language. There are many format errors. The table of names used in different countries is well organized, although I don't understand the notion of "becoming identified with the spirit". --Qyd 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it. There's a lot of reliable information on this topic, but it's hard to organize into a coherent whole. The mess that's here now will be replaced sooner or later, though. By the way, what's confusing about "becoming identified with the spirit"? It's supposed to mean that the native deity is being absorbed into the Mami Wata worship practices. Should this be clarified?— BrianSmithson 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. You have no experience or personal knowledge in this religion, you are not of the ethnic group or culture of these people, and are therefore not qualified to discredit what you do not know. This religious group are adherents of this faith, and have shared their knowledge with the world. From what I have read of your comments your ego seems brusied and you are operating from racism and cultural bias against this group. You have no right to replace the entire article, which is nothing more than racist censorship of a group and their religion. You can add your comments if you feel you have something more to contribute. In the end, until you can tell us what your qualifactions are in African religion, you are merely practicing the same old racists, imperialists pattern of ethinc and religious censorship as did your forefathers. I do not agree with you at all. Who is monitoring your abhorent behavior? A complaint needs to be filed against you.--71.16.28.99 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)-Stacy Peterson

You are missing the point Stacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida. The religious group has no right to use Wikipedia to publish original research about the religion. That contradicts one of the three most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Any article here must be sourced to reliable sources. A lot of the recent editing by MWHS did not use reliable sources. The article must also describe the subject neutrally, not in an affirming or attacking voice. The adherents of any religion often have difficulty avoiding the affirming voice, so they certainly have no special priviledge to edit the article. GRBerry 15:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stacy, if you wish to file a complaint against me for what you consider my "abhorent behavior", you may wish to check out Requests for Comment. The next logical step would be Requests for Arbitration. But I stand behind my comments 100%. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox for religious groups to espouse their beliefs. In fact, the Mami Wata phenomenon is so broad-based that what is here now tells us, basically, what one small group in Georgia believes at the expense of millions of advocates in the rest of the world. This is a huge phenomenon, not one that centers around Vivian Hunter-Hindrew and her followers. It's also a phenomenon that has been studied by serious scholars (perhaps also "operating from racism and cultural bias against this group"?), and that viewpoint is current squelched here. — BrianSmithson 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I too have been watching this thread with utter amazement and disgust. Kudos to you Stacey for speaking out against this travesty. I am still waiting for this "Brain" to share with us his personal and professional knoweldge in this religion. Until he does that, nothing he says will make any sense. 10:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC) -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.28.99 (talk • contribs)

I too am deeply disgusted by the manner in which this person Brian has handled himself.

Brian, when you say "There's a lot of reliable information on this topic" exactly what is your definition of "reliable information" and what makes your version/sources 'reliable' as opposed to those of the MWHS, who it appears are a society recognized by legitimate Mami Wata practitioners in Africa and who initiate/perform ritual both in African and the Diaspora? Is reliable what tallys with your view? Or with the views of those 'reliable sources' you mention but are yet to quote/reference?

How did you come to the conclusion that the "Mami Wata phenomenon is so broad-based". Based on your personal knowledge of what? Please help us readers to understand.

From what I gather, this is an experiential/matrilineally blood inherited tradition so your position that "It's also a phenomenon that has been studied by serious scholars" is risible at best. Who are these "serious scholars" and how do they merit the adjective 'serious' as opposed to the members of the MWHS whom you have belittled throughout this debate? And do these "serious scholars" merit this term based on their own experiential/matrilineally inherited understanding of Mami Wata? Please tell us what the criterion are.

And when you say "this is a huge phenomenon", how on earth did you come to that conclusion? Based on your matrilineally/blood inherited understanding of Mami Wata? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.26.244.170 (talk • contribs) .

Commentary in the past couple days by anonymous editors appears to violate our policies on civility and assuming good faith on the part of other contributors. All parties are encouraged to be civil and assume that other discussers here are contributing in good faith to the goals of having an encyclopedia article that is not original research, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia has standards (primarily policies to which adherance is required and guidelines that are expected behavior). Articles which must of necessity violate those standards or persistently do so despite sustained efforts by good faith contributors such as Brian can be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy. We prefer not to delete articles that could be improved, but this much immediate hostility to the mere suggestion that the article will be improved is deeply concerning. It creates the impression that a community with goals other than those of Wikipedia is seeking to maintain the article in a form that is either biased in violation of the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or in a form containing original research and unpublished claims in violation of the policy Wikipedia:No original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (fourth nomination) for a recent discussion to which evidence of such a biased community was a minor contributing factor to the deletion of the article.

Wikipedia:No original research is a core policy. In support of it, Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the primary guideline explaining what constitutes a reliable source for encyclopedic purpose. Leaders of a religion have no special privileges at Wikipedia. If the Pope showed up and edited an article on Roman Catholicism here, those edits would not be acceptable unless they cited sources. In his role, he could certainly publish documents defining various aspects of Roman Catholicism, and then anybody could add content citing those documents. Also see the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources that explains why it is important to use sources independent of the adherents of the religion. GRBerry 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GBerry, despite your valiant efforts to maintain standards and order on Wikipedia, I think you have missed the point in its entirety.

It is a fact that the reference material you require on African (Continental and Diasporan), Asian, Native American and so-called 'indigenous' traditions for the most part is sourced from the realm of Western academia in which the 'serious' oftentimes NON-African/Asian/Native-American scholar writes from an anthropological standpoint - one in which supposition, guesswork, and sometimes bias are part of the eventual outcome. I would imagine that Wikipedia personnel would disapprove of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' being used as reference material for an article on Jews and Judaism. In the same vein, these 'reliable' sources espoused by Brian may be deemed derogatory, racist and biased by the adherents of the religions they claim to describe.

These works may satisfy Wikipedia ‘neutrality’ standards, regardless of whether or not they are erroneous. And because so much of the indigenous spirituality we are discussing here is oral, secret and experiential, how are the African/Asian/Native-American practitioners of these religions expected to present their Truths, those are that known only to them and not to outsiders and do not fit into the ‘neutrality’ bracket?

The anger and hostility some of your readers are exhibiting is due to the fact (I think) that people are growing increasingly tired of the ignorance/bias of people who may think that cursory involvement in a ‘native’ region coupled with research into “reliable sources” (all from Western academia), somehow result in a precise article about a religion that is again, experiential and blood-inherited matrilineally and whose laws are known only to its members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.244.170 (talk)

Presumably the adherents of a religion will know which published sources are most accurate. If they can explain why those sources are accurate, they will be listened to. The discussion in prior sections occurred when at least one adherent of the religion was repeatedly adding content that was not sourced to reliable sources, and to the extent sources were credited at all, those sources proved not to be reliable by Wikipedia standards. As this is Wikipedia, Wikipedia's standards govern. The MWHS, can publish whatever it wants on its own website. (Similarly for any other group or individual.)

Such material published on the MWHS's website could then be used in sentences beginning "The MWHS believes/claims/says/states ..." (pick one of the slashed words) as an opinion, per WP:RS (the shortcut to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources). The book by Hunter-Hindrew is a primary source, but it is self published, and "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections.". At this time, we may not use that book at all. What we need are secondary sources.

Claims that the general scholarly literature on a topic is extremely deficient are often unhelpful. WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence tells all "editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim" in some situations, including "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." As Wikipedia editors, we are supposed to be especially skeptical of such claims. Making this claim with regard to a certain version of an article is additional evidence that said version needs to be rigorously examined. Time would be better spent identifying and explaining which pieces of the scholarly literature do indeed meet Wikipedia standards and also happen to have less of whatever bias is of concern.

I am particularly disturbed by the tone above given that nobody other than Brian, myself included, has seen the new version that Brian is working on. Disagreement with the mere idea of him working on it is not reasonably based on the new version, and instead must be based on an inappropriate view of him as an editor. GRBerry 22:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

69.26.244.170: okay, that's all very nice and post-modern and multicultural. The problem is, Wikipedia isn't a place for "practitioners of religions to present their Truths," it's an encyclopedia. The place for practitioners of religions to present their Truths is on their own damn website. We can only include anything that comes from reliable, yes, reliable-in-the-Western-Academia-sense sources. We don't give a crap about the truth, only verifiability. If Wikipedia policies don't please you then tough shit, man, you've obviously come to the wrong website. Besides, playing the race card just so one could write all the crazy stuff one likes about one's crazy newfound supposedly ancient African religion trivializes legitimate complaints of racism by other people. And besides, Godwin's law. You lose. Have a nice day. - ∅ (∅), 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand the spirit behind that last comment, it too is more strongly worded than it needs to be. Remember WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL, and that when things are getting uncivil it is helpful for each editor to moderate their own tone. GRBerry 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

69.26.244.170 writes: "okay, that's all very nice and post-modern and multicultural. The problem is, Wikipedia . . . it's an encyclopedia. . . We can only include anything that comes from reliable, yes, reliable-in-the-Western-Academia-sense sources."

Well, I have personally taken the time to do what you so-called Wikipedia editors have failed to do in your determination to discredt what is obviously a very informative non-Western view of an African religion. I carefully re-read the entire essay and researched all of the references cited. They are all creditable and written by scholars and academics in their field. All of their books are published by established “verifiable” publishers. Almost all can be purchased directly from Amazon.com. There is even one of the referenced authors profiled on Wikipedia! So what is your problem? Just because you do not agree with the information in the article, you have no right to replace the entire essay when the references cited are verifiable. It is clear that your motivations are less than honorable, and your qualifications are lacking in this particular field of African Religious studies, BTW: what are your credentials and expereince in this tradition? You too must be held to the same standards that you are demanding of others. Please answer the question. Stacy Peterson --74.229.102.208 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

REFERENCES CITED IN MAMI WATA ARTICLE AND THEIR VERIFIABLE PUBLISHERS

• [http://www.amazon.com/Sirius-Mystery-Robert-K-G-Temple/dp/0892811633/sr=8-9/qid=1165857232/ref=sr_1_9/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Temple, Robert."The Sirius Mystery" (United Kingdom: Arrow Pub., 1999)].

• [http://www.amazon.com/Poseidon-Between-Semite-Hamite-Aryan/dp/0766184722/sr=1-1/qid=1165857426/ref=sr_1_1/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Brown, Robert, JNR. “Poseidon.”London: Longmans Green, and Co., 1872].

• Jell-Bahlsen, Phd.

• [http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Africas-Secret-Gert-Chesi/dp/3853990134/sr=1-1/qid=1165857615/ref=sr_1_1/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Gert Chesi. Voodoo: Africa's Secret Power. p. 255)]

• [http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Ogotemmeli-Introduction-Religious-Galaxy/dp/0195198212/sr=1-2/qid=1165857738/ref=sr_1_2/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Griaule, Marcel. (1997). “Conversations With Ogotemmeli: An Introduction to Dogon Religious Ideas. reprint Dieu d'Eau.” (Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc., 1948)].

• Dr. Clyde Winters

• [http://www.amazon.com/Sirius-Mystery-Scientific-Evidence-Contact/dp/089281750X/sr=1-1/qid=1165858049/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=booksTemple, Robert. "The Sirius Mystery" (United Kingdom: Arrow Pub., 1999)].

• [http://www.amazon.com/Book-Beginnings-2-set/dp/0933121946/sr=1-2/qid=1165858144/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Massey, Gerald. "Ancient Egypt: The light of the world" (Montana: Kessinger Publishing Co.), Vols. I & II.]

• Alapini,Julien. “Le Petit Dahom‚en: Garammaire-Vocabulaire. Lexique En Langue du Dahomey.” (Avignon: Les Presses Universelles, 1955).

• [http://www.amazon.com/Possession-Ecstasy-Law-Ewe-Voodoo/dp/0813918057/sr=1-1/qid=1165858413/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Rosenthal, J. ‘Possession Ecstasy & Law in Ewe Voodoo" (Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1998). ]

• [http://www.amazon.com/BRITISH-MUSEUM-DICTIONARY-ANCIENT-EGYPT/dp/B000HH8LJS/sr=8-2/qid=1165861336/ref=sr_1_2/102-1814451-7862548?ie=UTF8&s=books Nicholson, Paul, Shaw, Ian. “British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt.” ( London: The Bristish Museum Company Ltd., 1995. p.264,269)]

• Lindsay, Jack. "Origins of Astrology" (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc, 1971).

• A.K. "The Ewe of South-Eastern Ghana and Togo: On the eve of colonialism," (Ghana: Tema Press. 1986).

• Ajayi, J.F. and Espie, I. ‘Thousand Years of West African History" (Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1967).

• [http://www.amazon.com/Anacalypsis-Part-Attempt-Languages-Religions/dp/0766126439/sr=1-1/qid=1165859008/ref=sr_1_1/103-9304297-7207821?ie=UTF8&s=books Higgins, Godfrey. "Anacalypsis,: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis or Inquiry into the origin of Languages, Nations and Religions," Vol. I,II, (Montana: Kessinger Publishing Co.)]

Hi, Sandy. The problem isn't that those sources aren't reputable (some are, some aren't); the problem is that the article is misrepresenting the information in them. For example, A Book of the Beginnings makes no mention of Mami Wata, and the claims in that work are being interpreted here in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. I've exhausted JSTOR's material on this subject, and I do still intend to post a rewrite, but, well, I'm distractible and a volunteer and have a busy real life. It'll come. — BrianSmithson 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Brain writes: The problem isn't that those sources aren't reputable (some are, some aren't)

Which sources aren’t reputable Brian, and why?

For example, A Book of the Beginnings makes no mention of Mami Wata, and the claims in that work are being interpreted here in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy

It helps to read the essay Brian. The author makes no such claims. The author is quoting Massey on an entirely different historical point and I quote:

Isis was originally portrayed with braided hair accompanied by two serpents draped around her neck. To the Ancient Egyptians, she was known as RENN, meaning “born from the place of the fishes”, and her son Horus, was known as “RENNU,” meaning an “unnamed fish/serpent child.” (Massey 1994, p. 238).

The only other mention of Massey is when the author is citing the origin of the word “Wata,” and I quote:

. . Furthermore, Massey (1994, p. 248) informs us that the word “Wata, Watoa, Wat-Waat” which means “woman,”. . . .

Both of these books I have in my very possession, and both of the references are direct quotes from the above cited authors. It is you Brian who is misrepresenting the facts of the essay because obviously you have not read it or have never carefully researched the references cited.

. . .  the claims in that work are being interpreted here in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. 

Brian how is the material “original research” when the author is directly quoting numerous primary and secondary sources for their historical facts? Could it be that what you are actually witnessing is an African-American religious group interpreting from personal and academic experience their own religious history that differs so markedly from the typical Euro-Western, anthropological point of view that it appears as “original?” I believe that is exactly the case, and we should be applauding instead of condeming them for their efforts.

In summary, Brian, your argument is weak, unsubstantiated and even slanderous against the author. You have as of yet proven nothing. In other words, you have no legitimate grounds to replace the entire article. You should be careful Brian, there is more than myself carefully monitoring this discussion, and your atrocious behavior here will someday indite and discredit you.

Last but not least, we have all been waiting for you to tell us your direct knowledge of and experience in this religion and so far you have been highly critical of the author and others yet you have never responded. We are still waiting.-Stacy Peterson-74.229.102.208 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Sandy. Sticks and stones and all that. But be careful, some people on Wikipedia don't like it when people make personal attacks. The Massey stuff I've discussed already; I'm not going to rehash the argument. In fact, I'm not going to argue with you at all. You'll just have to wait until I post the rewrite. Sorry. Feel free to have the last word if you feel like it. -- BrianSmithson 06:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Brain, it is evident that you have no legitimate grounds for your arguments which have all been disproved. In moving on, my final question to you is: what is your personal experience in this religion? What are your professional and academic credentials that qualifies you to even write on such a complex subject? Why have you repeatedly cowered and avoided answering this most fundamental question which establishes your credibility as knowledgeable or an expert in this field Brain? We are anxiously awaiting a response. Stacey Peterson--74.229.102.208 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, even if according to these books wata did mean "Hokey Pokey" in Ancient Wallawalladingdang, it's OR to claim that it does so in the name of Mami Wata when you can't source that claim in the books. - ∅ (∅), 03:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Two comments/questions

Hello!

I notice the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zaire both in the same table. Zaire's the former name of the DRC, did the names used differ from the time the country was called Zaire to its present name, DRC?

Might there be any connection with Nyaminyami: Legend of the River God? When I lived in Harare I remember seeing small coiled serpent medallions carved out of stone and being told they represented Nyaminyami. They were quite popular, but I think most people wore them as fashion statements rather than for any religious symbolism. Please would you check to see if there is any relevance, I am no expert and wouldn't know but would like to know.

Thanks

I don't have any reference to Nyaminyami in my notes (I'm still working on a rewrite of this article), but that doesn't mean the two spirits/deities aren't related. This article mentions both Mami Wata and Nyaminyami but doesn't otherwise link them. — BrianSmithson 09:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote to Remove Prejudicial Flags on Mami Wata Page

After personally taking the time to carefully review both the Mami Wata article, its corresponding references and the accompanying discussions posted here, it is clear that the numerous claims lodged against its author are erroneous, and has not been proved to be in violation of Wikipedias’s publishing guidelines.

It is also my opinion that Wikipedia editor, Brain Smithson:

• has acted not to aid or to assist the authors in their honest attempt to add to the enormous knowledge base at Wikipedia, but to discourage and block their attempts to contribute their scholarship.
• has acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and with personal bias with the sole intent to discredit, malign and slander the authors and their religious organization.
• has deliberately red-flagged the Mami Wata article, with the deliberate intent to aggressively condemn and discredit its scholarly content in the strongest possible terms.
• has repeatedly failed to state his personal and professional experience in this particular African spiritual tradition which would justify his actions.

Based on the evidence, one can only conclude that Brain is lacking both personal and professional experience in the Mami Wata tradition, and is therefore not qualified to red-flag the Mami Wata article, or to pass professional or experiential judgement against a religious organization who has clearly proven their academic and personal experience in this particular spiritual system.

Therefore I am requesting a vote that Brain answer the question pertaining to his personal and professional (i.e., academic, scholarly etc.,) experience in the Mami Wata tradition. If he cannot, then he must respectfully concede that he is not qualified to red-flag the Mami Wata article and must remove them. — Stacey Peterson --74.229.102.208 14:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting is a useless idea. See Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote#Use of polls when discussing Wikipedia articles. However, Brian is an established Wikipedia editor, and thus has all the standing required to red-flag the article, because Wikipedia has no requirement that editors be experts on topics. I, who have done essentially no research on this topic, would have the standing to add those flags if I believed them true. I believe the topic to be notable, so it is worth having an article. I don't believe this is the article we should eventually have, but I understand that there is no deadline, and don't have the time or interest to do the needed research myself.

In fact, there is one other flag that the article needs. That is {{Wikify}}, because the style and formatting is poor. But what is the point of reformatting text that needs a major rewrite? I haven't added this flag for that reason alone.

Stacey, I make two recommendations. First, that you actually create an account under the username StaceyPeterson (if you haven't yet), and that you log in to use it. Thus far that user doesn't have a contribution record. If this mess ever escalates to formal dispute resolution, you will be in a better position if you have a track record of positive contributions to the encyclopedia. My sense is that this will eventually end up in dispute resolution.

Second, that you spend some time reading up on how Wikipedia works as an encyclopedia and as a community of editors. Then go and contribute to unrelated topics. For reading up, all the links in the {{Welcome}} template are useful, and if you had a user page I'd drop the template there. Since you are obviously passionate about this topic, I think you'll have an easier time gaining an understanding of Wikipedia practice by working on articles that you are not passionate about. Some of the useful advice essays for passionate editors include Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers. If you are significantly involved with the MWHS or other Mami Wata associated group, you may also need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. One reason for going and contributing elsewhere is that many people learn more by doing than by reading. A second reason is that if this ends up in dispute resolution you will be better off if your track record does not look like that of a single purpose account arguing for a single point of view. GRBerry 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry I have edited/changed the name "vote" to "survey", as seems to be the Wiki standard, with readers able to state their "support" or "non-support" in demanding that Brain state his personal and professional experience in this particular African religion and to remove the flags if he cannot sufficiently justify them. --Stacey Peterson 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

After personally taking the time to carefully review both the Mami Wata article, its corresponding references and the accompanying discussions posted here, it is clear that the numerous claims lodged against its author are erroneous, and has not been proved to be in violation of Wikipedias’s publishing guidelines.

It is also my opinion that Wikipedia editor, Brain Smithson:

• has acted not to aid or to assist the authors in their honest attempt to add to the enormous knowledge base at Wikipedia, but to discourage and block their attempts to contribute their scholarship.
• has acted irresponsibly, unprofessionally and with personal bias with the sole intent to discredit, malign and slander the authors and their religious organization.
• has deliberately red-flagged the Mami Wata article, with the deliberate intent to aggressively condemn and discredit its scholarly content in the strongest possible terms.
• has repeatedly failed to state his personal and professional experience in this particular African spiritual tradition which would justify his actions.

Based on the evidence, one can only conclude that Brain is lacking both personal and professional experience in the Mami Wata tradition, and is therefore not qualified to red-flag the Mami Wata article, or to pass professional or experiential judgement against a religious organization who has clearly proven their academic and personal experience in this particular spiritual system.

Therefore I am requesting that readers offer either their "support" or "opposition" in demanding that Brain answer the question pertaining to his personal and professional (i.e., academic, scholarly etc.,) experience in the Mami Wata tradition. If he cannot, then he must respectfully concede that he is not qualified to red-flag the Mami Wata article and must remove them. — Stacey Peterson --74.229.102.208 14:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The expertise required by Wikiepdia to add such flags is the ability to type. Brian has demonstrated that more than enough. If you feel that discussions here are not moving things fast enough for your liking, see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Some of the comments above by the proposer, both here and earlier on the page appear to me to violate the official policy against personal attacks. GRBerry 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Stacey, please stop this non-sense. This is not the place to request action against a user. You are mixing disputes about content and disputes about user conduct, and this talk page starts to look as chaotic as the aricle itself. I'm strongly against this type of vote, but would give a Strong Oppose. --Qyd 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support strongly This editor Brain, has threaten to replace the entire article with his own verison. It is important that he at least state his qualifications in this religious field. What is so complicated about that? I too am curious as to his experience. E_Kuster 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)— E Kuster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support This subject is not mere mythology, but someone's actual ancestral religion. It is not good to disrespect its organization and disregard its religious members, and completely replace what is clearly a well researched and interesting article to many. Drastic actions such as this calls for at a minimum, that Brian (and other dissenters) to reveal his/their own academic qualifications in the religion or his/their personal knowledge of its practices. It’s only fair, and is not asking very much...--Mike Levine 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)— Micheal Levine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: E Kuster (talk · contribs) and Micheal Levine (talk · contribs) have one edit each, the above votes. WP:SOCK? --Qyd 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support STRONGLY: I too enjoyed the article. I think this group has done everything including spin cartwheels to please these impossible editors. Yet they still want to remove the article, what an outrage against a minority religious order! Brain what exactly are your qualifications on this subject? Good going Stacey! This is the only time people with great interest but little knowledge can voice their concerns!--S Rodriguez 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)— Sandra Rodriguez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support It is not unreasonable to demand of Brian to share with us his expertise in this African religion, and why his 'future replacement version' is more valid than what is currently published by this religion's actual adherents and practitioners. --Stacey Peterson 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I move that "Brian" be spelled that way from henceforward. I further move that we giggle at the silly sock puppets. - ∅ (∅), 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments from an outsider

Hi. I'm here because GRBerry told me there was a dispute that could perhaps benefit from some outside opinions. I guess I should say up front that I have no expertise in the area of African religions. I'm a math teacher. I did live in Africa for a year, but all the religion I saw was a Kĩkũyũ Catholic Mass, which was fascinating. I have been editing Wikipedia for almost 4 years, and been an administrator for almost one year. I'm pretty familiar with our policies and procedures, and I have some experience mediating disputes. I've just read this page, and I'm trying to get a handle on just what the dispute is. I'll summarize the situation as it seems to me, and I hope people will correct me regarding any errors in my summary.

I'm seeing two distinct (or nearly distinct) issues here - one relating to editor credentials, and one relating to acceptable sources and their use.

Editor credentials: There seems to be a survey set up over whether Brian Smithson should reveal his credentials. I've never before seen a survey of this kind at Wikipedia, probably because we don't require that our editors have any particular credentials. The reason we're comfortable with all these articles being written and edited by non-experts is that we require that all material come from reliable sources, which were written and reviewed by experts.

We do ask that our editors know how to cite sources in some way, and that they restrict themselves to relating what the sources say, without adding any personal analysis or interpretation. The exact limits of this have been debated (e.g., is it original research to convert miles to kilometers? No, it turns out, it's not.), but there is strong consensus at Wikipedia that the No Original Research policy is non-negotiable, largely because we edit pseudonymously here, and can't ask people to take our word for anything. We can only tell them what published experts have said, and give them the references so they can check for themselves.

It seems to me that Brian wants to base the article entirely on academic sources from reputable publishers. This is what a close reading of our policies would dictate, and I'm eager to see what kind of rewrite he comes up with. In order to assemble information from sources and edit it into a well-written Wikipedia article, one need not be an expert in the field in question. In order to determine whether a particular fact comes from a particular source, one need not be an expert in the field.

Acceptable sources: Regarding this second point... that seems more complicated. Some editors are claiming that we should allow self-published material by practitioners of a religion as a source for information about that religion. The argument seems to be that they're in the best position to know, so we should listen to them. In particular, this arises in connection with religions which are little-documented by Western academia. Perhaps the documentation by Western academics is itself biased. Such cases merit careful consideration.

In general, we don't allow "original research", which is to say, material that is previously unpublished, or that has been self-published without undergoing any kind of peer review. There are cases where primary source material or self-published material is acceptable for sourcing, provided it's handled appropriately, and we can certainly talk about whether this is one of those cases.

I'd be happy to help moderate some discussion about article sources, if people think that would be helpful. It does appear that this talk page is on the brink of descending into incivility. I have to mention that, without civility, Wikipedia is useless for getting anything accomplished. Would the editors working here be willing to accept mediation, from myself of from some other mediator, on the topic of sources? I'm confident this dispute is not intractable, as long as we're all willing to listen to each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, GTBacchus. There really isn't anything to mediate, though, until I finish my rewrite, I think. The one thing that the MWHS members did make me realize was that the original article (which I wrote) was not comprehensive. I've since done what I consider to be good research, but now I've got a huge file of notes that need to be whipped into compelling prose. Unfortunately, that will take time. What the MWHS folks seem to be complaining about at the moment (besides for me to reveal my credentials) is that the NPOV tag be removed from the article. This I strongly oppose. -- BrianSmithson 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got this page watchlisted now anyway. Like I said, I'm eager to see how your rewrite comes out - good luck with that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing I can try to do is focus more on the rewrite instead of working on a half-dozen articles at once, like I'm currently doing. I'll try to do so. -- BrianSmithson 06:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To the extent I am a party to the dispute, I welcome mediation, by you or anyone else. After all, I felt we were at a log jam here and asked you what to do to move this forward. [4] My contributions to the article are only a little bit of copyediting and building the web, and I doubt that will change in the future. I have neither real knowledge of nor great interest in the topic. I came in response to an RfC, and haven't removed the page from my watchlist because I felt the problems never reached resolution. GRBerry 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The administrator has the right to re-publish the article, and the MWHS society has the right to re-publish our material and edit his "research," which we shall. We know our religion and stand-by our sources, and will employe them again in the so-called "re-write". Please, there really is no need to continue to argue or belabor this issue. However, we thank all for their support. Anagossii,--MWHS 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

-GTBacchus writes: Acceptable sources: Regarding this second point... that seems more complicated. Some editors are claiming that we should allow self-published material by practitioners of a religion as a source for information about that religion

Very simply: The sources cited in the article are quoted from acceptable/reliable sources from established publishers. They are not self-published. It has not been proved as original research, esp. if the author is quoting primary and secodnary sources. It seems that only I have taken the time to research both the material and its sources,which are listed above. Again, I ask: where is the violation? Which of the sources cited in the article are unacceptable and why? I will only respond when these questions are sufficiently answered listing the exact sources cited in the article, and explaining why they are 'unreliable' Stacey Peterson 14:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)74.229.102.208 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Stacy, hi. I'm not trying to claim there's a "violation". I'm trying to understand the nature of the dispute. If I got it wrong, please correct me. I'm not saying any particular source is unacceptable, nor which facts come from which source. Please don't imagine I'm saying anything I'm not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bacchus, in order to properly mediate this issue, it is important to first understand what facts are in dispute. Perhaps we can start by inquiring of you:

• 1. Where is this article in violation?

• 2. Based upon what you have read on this Talk Page, what are the accuser(s) (Brian) claiming, and what has he successfully proven?

Once we are all in agreement what the core issues are, only then can we begin to intelligently dialogue and maybe reach some viable solution on this issue.--Stacey Peterson 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping direct the discussion, Stacy. Looking at the article, I notice that the section "Ancient origins of name "Mami Wata"" has those templates on it, and there's a talk page section above beginning, "This etymology section reeks of bogus etymology." Looking more carefully at that part of the article, I think I see what people are objecting to.

The red flag that jumps out at me is the phrase, "According to some renowned scholars". That makes me ask, "which renowed scholars?" So, I keep reading. I see a wealth of citations for facts about ancient deities, but I see no citation where a scholar is claiming the link from those deities to the topic of this article. So, I guess that's my first question. How can I, as a reader, verify that scholars are claiming an Egyptian or Mesopotamian origin for the name "Mami Wata"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the voting. What we have here is more smoke and mirrors. The facts have already been laid out and there apparently isn't one competent administrator or editor available to mediate this travesty. I agree with the MWHS and resepct them for fighting this insult to their religion. I will leave this circus, and just look forward to their future contributions to the so called "re-write" by Brian who clearly doesn’t have a clue. --Stacey Peterson 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you explain what I'm missing? All I did was ask for a source for one fact. Why is that not a reasonable question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "the facts have already been laid out". I believe you. Please point them out to me, so I can catch up with you. Apparently there's something simple I'm missing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:RS#Using online and self-published sources policy has a section entitled "Self published sources in articles about themselves", which states that:

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author [emphasis added], so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: relevant to the self-publisher's notability; not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

I believe this is the applicable policy here, and careful adherence to it will provide a path to navigate this dispute. I believe the policy provides a basis entitling Mami Wata practitioners to weigh in on an article on the Mami Wata relgion, as long as they adhere to the limitations the policy imposes. In particular society contributions to the article should make clear who the individuals and their society are, they should scrupulously avoid use of language like "renown scholars" or other language that could be perceived as misprepresentative or self-aggrandizing; they should describe only the beliefs of the Mami Wata faith as taught by this religious society, and they should make clear which parts of the article represent their contribution. If for example this religious society believes that Mami Wata is connected to various other ancient deities, this element of faith could certainly be presented as one of the society's religious beliefs, but it should not be presented as the view of "scholars". It might be advisable to put the view of Mami Wata taught and practiced by this society and the views of academic commentators in different sections. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient origins of name "Mami Wata"

Occam's Razor.

That is all.

- ∅ (∅), 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on that point? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To quote myself: "Look, even if according to these books wata did mean "Hokey Pokey" in Ancient Wallawalladingdang, it's OR to claim that it does so in the name of Mami Wata when you can't source that claim in the books." We have corresponding pairs like Mami Wata ~ Maman Dlo, so obviously the first part means mother and the second part means water. It goes straight against Occam's Razor to claim that Wata comes from Uati or any of several different and conflicting ancient deities. - ∅ (∅), 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious beliefs do not always follow paths that outsiders perceive as logical. Deities tend to work in mysterious ways. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. This article claims for a fact that the name stems from one or several words in one or several ancient languages. That's etymology, not religion. If it's their religious belief that the name comes from Ancient Ohdedoodahday, then the article should say so, and not posit it as a fact. - ∅ (∅), 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the MWHS, if it is established they are what they claim to be, is entitled to say essentially anything they want about the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of the Mami Wata faith and culture as practiced by the MWHS, as long as their views are presented as such. They are authorities and experts on this subject. But they are not necessarily authorities and experts on other subjects. On the other hand, what anthropologists and linguists say is not necessarily "fact" either. It is simply what anthropologists and linguists say, and their views should also be presented as such. Their authority and expertise also has its limits. Wikipedia takes a Neutral Point of View between the two. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should also make it obvious what the majority of experts thinks. Cf. Flat Earth, Time Cube. - ∅ (∅), 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I also agree with MWHS on a key element of this dispute, which is that the recognized religious leaders of a religion are the experts on matters of what constitutes the religion's faith, and are empowered to decide and explain religious law and tradition in the something like the same way that judges, not academics, have primary power to decide and explain secular law. As long as anything they say about religious beliefs and cultural traditions is clearly identified as their view, WP:RS is complied with. In the event of a conflict between their views on these matters and the views of western academics, both opinions should be identified and attributed. This is done in articles on major religions all the time. See e.g. Resurrection of Jesus where both religious and academic views are provided about the historicity of the event. In that article the religious view is given first, followed by a "critical analysis" section with academic/critical views. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that "the MWHS... is entitled to say essentially anything they want about the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of the Mami Wata faith and culture as practiced by the MWHS." The major issue I have with this is that the article under dispute appears to be describing the Mami Wata faith in general, not the Mami Wata faith as practiced by MWHS. As an example (and I hate using it here), consider the difference between Scientology and the Church_of_Scientology. While the Church of Scientology constitute the religious leaders of the Church of Scientology, and thus are entitled to say whatever they want about that, that does not entitle them to make statements about Scientology in general. Similarly, MWHS is justified in saying anything that they like about "Mami Wata as practiced by the MWHS," they are not justified in making statements about Mami Wata in general. As a result, any beliefs that they have should be placed either on their own website, or on a separate MWHS Wikipedia page. Forsakendaemon 10:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Applying Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy

Hello. The articles on major western religions such as various branches of Judaism or Christianity begin with a presentation of the religion's own point of view based on internal religious sources such as the Bible or Talmud and the commentaries of religious scholars, such as rabbis and ministers. Under Wikipedia'sWP:NPOV policy, Wikipedia reports the beliefs and practices of religions as articulated by their founders and adherents, following this with commentary from academic and other external scholars etc. Applying this principle, Wikipedia editors who are members of the Mama Wata faith would appear to be entitled to use authentic traditional Mami Wata accounts as sources to represent the tenets and practices of the Mama Wata faith, in exactly the same way that Wikipedia articles on Christianity and Judaism use the Bible and Talmud as sources. Third-world religions would appear to be just as entitled to have their religion's own, internal, authentic POV explained directly as major western religions. If the Mami Wata religion believes that "voudon is real", Wikipedia should report this tenet of the Mami Wata faith, sympathetically, in exactly the same way that it reports the traditional Christian view of Jesus's ressurrection or the belief of Orthodox Judaism that the Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This view should not be interspersed with phrases like "creation myth" etc. implying disbelief or which do not reflect the actual treditional POV. Wikipedia has a fairness of tone policy which requires that viewpoints be presented with a "sensitive tone". After the traditional view is presented, academic accounts can be presented, providing critical and comparative perspectives. Wikipedia should be absolutely neutral between these accounts. It should, however, carefully attribute each account in a way that clearly signals to the reader where these accounts are coming from, using terms analogous to "According to the Hebrew Bible..." or "According to Professor X of the University of Y...". It is often useful to put the different points of view in different sections whose title clearly signals whose perspective is being used. The Pidyon HaBen article which describes a traditional ritual from multiple points of view (including both a traditional and a highly critical one) might provide some help. In articles about established Western religions with extensive religious literatures and commentaries, a book published by the publishing arm of a religious organization is assumed to legitimately reflect the point of view of that organization, and religious scholarship is treated as a kind of scholarship. Traditional organized western denominations generally have a kind of peer review that permits determining the authenticity or regard a particular individual or commentary has within a religion. I express no opinion on the question whether people claiming to be traditional Mama Wata practictioners are so or whether their sources are actually traditional Mama Wata sources. It is not clear to me Wikipedia should decide this matter. I don't see a reason not to accept an organization of North American priests and priestesses as representing an authentic North American tradition; the only issue is whether their beliefs and practices are the same as that practiced by West Africans. If they believe this, perhaps this should be reported, and if others disagree, perhaps this should be reported as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a similar discussion at Talk:Korban#Korbanot article introduction dispute between academic commentators and religious traditionalists, I suggested that the language the United States Supreme Court used to describe Santaria beliefs and practices in the legal case Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah might provide a useful example of the application of "sympathetic tone", which is required by Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, in describing traditional religious beliefs and practices. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Shirahadasha. I'm going to try to adopt this sort of approach for the rewrite. In the meantime, I still strongly believe that the {{NPOV}} template needs to remain on this article, and I ask User:Mwhs to stop removing it. — BrianSmithson 00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We strongly disagree with the ad hominem attack of slapping the {{NPOV}} flag on the article merely employed (in your case) as a means to discredit our religious beliefs. You may completely disregard what Shirahadasha has stated concerning WP:NPOV to re-write your version of the article, and we will simply again, we will exercise our religious and Cultural_rights to re-post the entire article of our religious beliefs as we known and practice them. We are confident in both our expereince and knowlege of our ancestral tradition to challenge and edit whatever western academic sources you regurgitate if we do not agree with their conclusions. Finally,until you can justify the flag with something other than your "strong feelings," we are obligated in the spirit of fairness to remove it which we have done. --MWHS 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'll read Shirahadasha's recomendation again, it is that the view of the adherents of the religion be clearly labeled as such, then followed by the view of scholars, again labeled as such. This is decidedly not the state that the article is in. If you want to use his opinion as a path to getting the clean-up flags off the article, start by following his opinion. Rewrite so that the view of the society and other followers of Mami Wata is described and labeled as the view of followers. If you don't believe that you can write the view of scholars fairly, either (better choice) make your best stab at presenting the view of western scholars as the view of western scholars or (inferior choice) leave that piece to others and accept that the flag will remain until it is done.

When all here acknowledge that there are multiple points of view, drafts that try to present any one of those points of view as the truth means that the article deserves the {{NPOV}} flag to caution our readers that the article is not being written from a neutral point of view, as required by policy. GRBerry 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The original article should have also had a {{NPOV}}tag applied, because of its (incredible)sweeping generalizations, based upon a few academically reported regions in Nigeria, largely extracted by Bastian from third-hand and anecdotal accounts. Nevertheless, we do not have a problem presenting our views as practitioners. We have never been against this approach. It is the only logical solution, because any re-write will only result in our republishing our religious and academic point of view. The article can be sectioned and preference as the beliefs and practices of Mami Wata adherents in the Diaspora, followed by a critical analysis based on social and academic opinion by anyone who wants to contribute. Because we already know the western point of view, we are not particularly interested in this area. Someone else may want to handle this section. We will begin the process of preferencing our contribution as the point view of the MWHS and other regions in West Africa from which our experiential knowledge and training originates i.e., Togoand Benin.--MWHS 03:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm at three reverts (as is User:Mwhs), so the {{NPOV}} tag will remain off for the next few hours or until another editor replaces it. This POV dispute is far from settled, so removal of the {{NPOV}} tag is completely improper. I would also like to ask Mwhs once again to refrain from making personal attacks and to assume good faith. Never has it been my intent to "discredit" anyone's religious beliefs. I merely want to ensure that this article adheres to Wikipedia's policies, which in its current state, it most certainly does not. — BrianSmithson 10:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by Shirahadasha, we have begun the process of presenting our contribution preference as our own religious, esoteric and historical point of view, based on our own internal religious sources, selected scholars and as articulated by our own Mami Wata religious clergy in both West Africa and in America. We are open to constructive comments and feedback in order to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.--MWHS 16:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to present your own "religious, esoteric and historical point of view", might it not be more appropriate to place this information onto the MWHS page? According to Self-Published Sources, various sources could be used there that can not be used here, as they do not satisfy the conditions of verifiability to justify anything other than the opinions and beliefs of the author. Also, if MWHS was documented as a society that practices Mami Wata, then that information would be easily accessible from the Mami Wata page. Forsakendaemon 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This bio of an African-American African religious persona was vandalized/deleted yesterday without cause. We ask that you respect Wikipedia's policy of not deleting articles that are not in violation. If any editor has a problem with any aspect of this bio, please state your concerns here so that they can be discussed and the problem resolved. --MWHS 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bio deleted

We are posting here for the record the bio of Mami Wata Vodoun Chief Priestess, Mama Zogbe whom we have quoted extensively througout the Mami Wata article. We have attempted twice to publish her bio on Wiki as a legitmate religious clergy in the African Ancestral Religions in the US. Yet this "offending" bio was immediately deleted without discussion or even an opportunity to correct any editing problems. We follow this with a wikilink to fallen evangelical preacher, Ted_Haggard's site, where even Mike_Jones_(personal_trainer) (Haggard's male prostitute) is given full Wiki honors of an extensive bio, and even external links to his personal website which displays XXXfrontal nudity. We will let you decide the real impetus behind this move on the part of some Wiki-editors.

The "offending" bio in question can be viewed here. We will allow other editors to decide the real impetus behind this move. --MWHS 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize, I hope, that decisions about what to include in Wikipedia have nothing to do with "worthiness" in any moral sense. A biography here isn't an "honor", nor is not having a bio here any kind of dishonor. We're just trying to stick to our policy that we only summarize what has been previously published elsewhere. If a male prostitute has been written about in reputable publications, then we may summarize what's been said. If a Vodoun Chief Priestess hasn't been documented by independent sources, then we have nothing on which to base a biography, so how can we guarantee its accuracy? It's pretty easy for me to "decide the real impetus". It's called Wikipedia:Verifiability. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Post Illegally Removed

We have re-stored the above post as we had originally posted it with the bio of Mami Wata Vodoun Chief Priestess, Mama Zogbe, whom we have quoted extensively througout the article. It was removed from this Talk Page, without explanation. If it is removed again, we will restore the post once again, to enable other editors and contributors an opportunity to contribute based on the the feedback we have provided. --MWHS 13:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This material was originally deleted, completely in accordance with the deletion policy, as a result of the Articles for deletion (AFD) discussion held in September 2006. As such, it is subject to speedy deletion on sight, anywhere that it appears in Wikipedia, under the fourth general criteria for speedy deletion. As you have been told elsewhere, if you wish to contest this deletion, you need to make a case at deletion review - and given the nature of the comments in the AFD discussion, you will need to evidence sources that are independent, published, and reliable to show that she meets one or more of the criteria for inclusion of biographies.

Be aware that continued recreation of material properly deleted can lead to an editor being blocked for disruption. You haven't gotten there yet, at least in my opinion, but I advise against recreating this content without making a substantial attempt to improve it. As a regular at deletion review, my test for substantial improvement is addressing the reason(s) for deletion, which are visible by reading the AFD (linked above) and WP:BIO.

Additionally, it is not acceptable to link from the article into the talk page. Article links should go to articles. I have therefore removed the links to the talk page from the article. GRBerry 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): Another editor/admin deleted the copy of the bio on the talk page while I was working on this note. The note still stands, but I also see that their edit summary is stronger about the possibility of being blocked than I am. GRBerry 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I would agree that you might want to consider Wikipedia's deletion review process which as noted above permits reviewing and reversing a deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy. I would also agree that if you would like to invoke this process, it might be useful to identify additional sources and arguments to address some of the issues that were raised in the original deletion discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shirahadasha for your unbiased suggestion. The external link to the bio will suffice for us. Truly, our primary concern is to assure that viewers reading the Mami Wata article would have access to some biographical information about Mama Zogbe, and her qualifying credentials to be quoted as an experienced clergy in the Mami Wata Vodoun tradition. However, this conflict does bring up an important issue of how clergy of African Traditional/Diaspora Religions are to be profiled, and what are the qualifying criteria. As a rule, most are not very public figures, particularly in lending themselves to western media scrutiny. This is one of the reasons why most of the reports written in academic books and journals on the tradition are typically from secondary, and tertiary sources. Lastly, shifting our efforts where we feel they are most important, back to the primary issue at hand. Again as suggested by you, we have begun the process of presenting our contribution preference as our own religious, esoteric and historical point of view, based on our own internal religious sources, selected scholars and as articulated by our own Mami Wata religious clergy in both West Africa and in America. We are open to constructive comments and feedback in order to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.--MWHS 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary or even tertiary sources, in fact. With primary sources there's a danger of original research. See WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and possibly WP:IS too. - ∅ (∅), 22:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, primary sources such as books published by the MWHS about Mami Wata can only be used as sources for the MWHS' particular brand of the Mami Wata faith, not the entire phenomenon. - ∅ (∅), 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maladamajaute a.k.a. Nala Damajanti a.k.a. Emilé (Poupon) Breitweiser

Since some IP number out there has repeatedly removed, without comment, the well referenced section on the origin of the widely discussed snake charmer image of Mami Wata, I'm thinking it might be best to create a separate article for Maladamajaute under one of her various aliases. She headlined at the Folies Bergere, toured the world as a circus act for 20 odd years, and inspired a popular image of a goddess. I think that's notable enough, ain't it? There's ample information about her life in secondary sources. I could probably drop 10 references on it right now. Any objections? Tarchon (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Where is the socalled rewrite on this article Brain? It's been TWO YEARS. Ever since this Brain and his cronies started disrespecting and fighting with the Mami Wata initiates things have not been going well in his life. When will you and others learn that you cannot insult Mami Wata's children and expect things to go well for you. This is not your tradition and the notion that you can impose your arrogrant euro supremancy against native people by writing their history from your [scholars] point of view in their faces and demand that they settle for it, will not work anymore. Your behavior was dispicable and has turned off many from taking Wikipedia seriously.--99.62.96.181 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Still hoping to see a rewrite of this mess... Does anyone mind if I severely trim the article while User:BrianSmithson works on his rewrite? - ∅ (∅), 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I've gotten severely sidetracked, though I still have all of my notes organized into what I think would be a sensible article structure. It'll come eventually. . . . — Brian (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed it somewhat... unfortunately it's not really possible for me to check through the rather impressive list of "references" and see which ones are actually relevant to the article. I'm sure most of them were only there for show to begin with. The article is still a horrendous mess but I think the worst rubbish is gone now. - ∅ (∅), 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Can some of the sources listed in the reference section be moved to a "Further reading" section? Just wondering, because it seems odd to me that with all the scholarly books listed in the "References" section, it is the rather ad-rich, non-referenced web site ArcyArt (which in addition sports text that is not attributed to a particular author) that is singled out as the major source in the ref tags of the "Footnotes" section. Pia 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No clue what sources were actually used (and which sources actually say what the article claims they do). The Mami Wata Healers' Society of North America rewrote most of the article and left what you see today. — Brian (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian, I haven't looked at the history of the article. I'll do that asap then. The "References" section has some eclectic choices but it appears, at a first glance, to be a pretty solid (and wide) base to build an article on, with a variety of scholarly texts by well-known authors from around the world. With a lit. list like that, ref tags linking to manifests produced by religious societies in the US, or to non-attributed text from commercial art sites, would not seem necessary in the end. But sourcing pre-existing text can take a lot of time and effort, of course. Best, Pia 05:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm probably guilty for the reference to the commercial website, by the way. I wrote the original version of the article a couple of years ago, before I fully understood the importance of using and citing reliable sources. I've got a huge text file of notes from many of those scholarly sources listed as references, so please let me know if there's a specific fact for which you cannot find an acceptable reference. — Brian (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hey, guys, look at the two small pictures to the left under to subtitle: PRIESTHOOD AND WORSHIP, the article claims that those two pictures are pictures of shrines to Mami Wata. This is not true. Instead the two pictures presented are either shrines honoring the Indian Hindu gods, none of whom have anything to do with the west african goddess, Mami Wata and what appears to be a shrine honoring some east asian deities, again none of whom have anything to do with Mami Wata. Can you please find some pictures on REAL shrines dedicated to the goddess. please and thank you.-----Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.47.28 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no problem. Mami Wata shrines often incorporate iconography from other religions and adapt it to the worship of Mami Wata. — Amcaja (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I just read through this article and the archived discussion and as an African who has Mami Wata, am amazed that the people from MWHS who made comments here were ridiculed and debased by this Brian and other editors. I can only imagine how different their article was to this one. Gore Vidal was right when he said that "everything on Wikipedia is wrong". Whenever I have read articles about African religion here, it has always degenerated into a war where the Eurocentric version 'wins'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N.Kimoko (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New book

I have just purchased the Fowler Museum of UCLA's new book 'Mami Wata, Arts for Water Spirits in Africa and Its Diasporas' (ISBN 978-0-9748729-9-5) and would like you to know that the MWHS and Mama Zogbe, her website and story are featured on pages 134 to 136. Please also note that the esteemed authors of this book write that the MWHS website "provides the Internet's most thorough information on Mami Wata". So, why was the MWHS submission and their re-working of this Brian's article erased? And why were these MWHS members vilified here? - N. Kimoko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.225.22 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the book is new, so it wasn't around for the original editors. They couldn't use it when the article was being written and debated. 210.161.167.199 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

MWHS Removal of Bibliographical Resources

We have removed all of our bibliographic resources from this article, since the original article of which we contributed has been seriously altered or reverted. It is deceptive and improper to continue to utilize our resources to support a point of view which does not reflect the reality of Mami Wata, nor our experiences, academically and professionally. Further, the photos that we have contributed can remain, and some of the names of Mami Wata that you have listed in your “chart”, although they been removed from their original location to reflect the Mami Wata tradition in the US, they may remain also. Finally, you may continue to revise this article to reflect whatever perception you feel suitable to the western palate of this ancient African/Diaspora ancestral religion. We will not interfere. --MWHS (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New Book: Sacred Waters

This new book should prove to be a useful source for new information:

Drewal, Henry John, ed. (2008), Sacred waters : arts for Mami Wata and other divinities in Africa and the diaspora, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ISBN 9780253351562

Maybe I'll get around to reading the book and plundering it for good content, but if I don't I hope someone else will. -Kenirwin/(talk) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Relevant Mami Wata External Links

We would like to know why the mamiwata.com and Dr. Drewal links are being removed from this article’s “external links”? We are the major contributor to this article including its photos. Our links have been cited in Dr. Drewal’s work as the definitive website for both academic and cultural information on Mami Wata; as well as a comprehensive resource. We welcome and encourage all relevant links on the subject of Mami Wata, but not at the exclusion of our contributions. Please tell us why they are being removed. If this continues, we will request arbitration to decide if our complaint is warranted. We look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Pease note that we will continue intensive monitoring of this article, and if our links are removed we will replace them until it is determined through arbitration that they are of no relevant value to the subject or to this article that we have contributed.

--MWHS (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The YouTube video from a newscast is copyrighted and not likely posted with the broadcaster's permission. Our policy specifically forbids posting links to material posted in violation of its copyright. The other two links - to a website and to a video posted by the creators of that website constitute "self published" information. The website's source is a single "shrine" and is no more appropriate than a Christian church posting links to its own website within the external links section of an article about Christianity. Please take a moment to review our policy on external links, and you will better understand. Please also note that your editing of this article constitutes a conflict of interest and you should refrain from promoting your own organization within our articles.[5] If you persist in self-promotion, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Lawton for your response. Although the YouTube news piece on Mami Wata has not been removed from YouTube based on copyright protection, we understand its removal due to Wiki policy. However, the original YouTube is ours. We will replace his with ours. The other website external link that you removed is not owned by us. Although we did not press the issue, we too agree that it is actually a business site based in Europe masking as academic information on the Mami Wata tradition. These we encounter frequently but leave it to Wilik editors to determine and remove. We thank you for your response and we will replace Dr. Drewal’s YouTube with the original owned by us.--MWHS (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears you have no objection to the link removal, so I'll take them down. They were added to several articles in link-spam fashion. If you wish to add external links, please consider linking to some of Dr. Drewal’s peer-reviewed publications. This approach to external links helps ensure our readers have access to detailed, reliable information on the subject, and aren't mislead by well-meaning (or otherwise) people. Rklawton (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mami Wata: Africa’s Ancient God/dess Unveiled

I've removed this book from the references section. It's self-published and self-promotional. We have no means to determine its reliability or usefulness. Basically, it's more spam from Mama Zogbé (who claims a Masters in Education). Rklawton (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Rawlton you are removing the link to the main website which is not spam. If you want to take this matter to arbitration we can certianly do this. Just let us know.--MWHS (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rawlton, MWHS is tired of the racism and bigotry. We will simply remove ALL of our contribution and allow you all to do as you wish. We simply have no time to continue this nonsense. --MWHS (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of All MWHS Contribution to Article

We have removed all MWHS SPAM (our contribution) to this article. As long as it is not reverted where our contribtion is included, we will not interfere.--MWHS (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only is Wikipedia racists, it apparently also harbors pedophilias as noted in an April 27,2010 article, published yesterday by the New York Times, which headlines "Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI." The article goes on to quote that according to co-founder, Larry Sanger:

"The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate. Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons, the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote, is rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts."

We have spoken to Sanger when he was still with Wikipedia concerning the racism and commandeering of the African Traditional Religion, and Culture section/articles by others who possess absolutely no direct knowledge or experience in these specialized areas.

Many in the Diaspora and within the academic community have also expressed their dismay at the belligerent and hostile environment and the treatment of African-Americans and other ethnic groups when attempting to offer their contributions.

This article on "Mami Wata" is a clear example of this dis-info, and it is important that those who seek accurate knowledge on these and other Africa-Diaspora traditions be aware of this. Do not accept this material as factual or even historical. The sources cited are from third party informants, which the main source "Van Stipriaan" is merely a disinterested Dutch photographer. Please conduct a search to find more competent, accurate information on this ancestral tradition. In the meantime, this article has been reverted and contains info and references that we have contributed that we will now remove.--MWHS (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the current wiki "editor" of this article Rklawton is a photographer with absolutely no experience or knowledge in African culture,religion or spirituality. Acting on behalf of special interest associates who are not related in any way to Wikipedia, he has accused MWHS of vandalism because of the removal of our contribution to the development of this article, and disputing this article's accuracy and its balanced presentation. He has now threaten to block MWHS from removing any more of our material from this article. . . . Documented for record.--MWHS (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you irrevocably agreed to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. This means that Wikipedia can use your contributions as it sees fit and without regard for your desire to remove it. Removing any useful parts of your donated work constitutes vandalism, and you will be blocked from editing if you continue. Rklawton (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

What is the etymology of the name? Usually, on pages such as this, this is one of the first paragraphs. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mami Wata. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050417071004/http://server1.fandm.edu:80/departments/Anthropology/mami.html to http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/Anthropology/mami.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mami Wata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229021958/http://www.freunde-afrikanischer-kultur.de/vortraege-und-artikel-bei-vdfak/61-trajektorien-einer-ikone-hans-himmelheber-und-die-erforschung-des-mami-wata-kults.html to http://www.freunde-afrikanischer-kultur.de/vortraege-und-artikel-bei-vdfak/61-trajektorien-einer-ikone-hans-himmelheber-und-die-erforschung-des-mami-wata-kults.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Togo

What about in Togo? What are they called? Stjohn1970 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)