Talk:Serer creation myth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orphaned references in Serer creation myth

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Serer creation myth's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Serer symbols":

• From Saafi people: Gravrand, Henry, "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 N^o 2 Dakar (1971) (Published and reviewed under the title "Le symbolisme serer" [in] Psychopath. Afric. 1973, IX, 2, 237-265 [in] Pyschopathologie africaine) - (Link retrieved : 21 July 2012)
• From Koox: Gravrand, Henry, "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 N^o 2 Dakar (1971) (Published and reviewed under the title "Le symbolisme serer" [in] Psychopath. Afric. 1973, IX, 2, 237-265 [in] Pyschopathologie africaine) - (Link retrieved : 25 July 2012)
• From Roog: Gravrand, Henry, "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 N^o 2 Dakar (1971) (Published and reviewed under the title "Le symbolisme serer" [in] Psychopath. Afric. 1973, IX, 2, 237-265 [in] Pyschopathologie africaine) - (Link retrieved : 25 July 2012)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes

I've made a number of changes. There were a couple of translations problems that worried me, ie arche is French for ark, and the fact that it was in fact wikilinked to our article on the word 'arche' is worrying as that doesn't make much sense. The word 'predecessors' used by Becker was translated as ancestors, which may be a mistake but also seems to match the editor's pov. Ancestors may be predecessors, ie it is possible for cultural change to take place in a population (obviously), but in this case it meant people living in the area before the Serer entered the area. The Iron Age clearly doesn't come before the discovery of agriculture. My guess is that the editor didn't understand this at all and thought it meant many thousands of years ago. Gravrand may be ok when he is relating what he was told by the Serer, but his claims of neolithic poetry are simply fringe and don't belong in the article. See also Talk:Serer people#Gravrand about historical bias and "lack of scientific rigor in the treatment of the data". Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy

Concerned about this as the editor who is the creator and main contributor has a devout belief in the religion and has misused a number of sources on other articles. Gravrand's a bit dubious also, I've discovered a number of places where he seems just wrong, although he is used by a number of authors. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the silliest reason for tagging I've ever heard. We do not discriminate here on grounds of people's ethnic, racial or religious beliefs. If you have a problem working with others who are different to you then perhaps you should leave the project. I have been going through some of the articles and talk pages relating to this ethnic group and others, and I all I see is you making nasty comments and attacking other editors. I have also noticed that you have been removing reliably sourced content and inserting unreliable sources or adding minority views to substantiate your own POV, usually after you've taken a dislike to an editor, your way of attacking their work even when there is nothing wrong with it. This is worrying. In any case, I have gone through this whole article and the sources cited. I see no problem other than you making trouble. As such, I am removing the tag. If you take issue with the article, tell us which part of the article you take issue with, backed by proper rationale rather than your silly statement above. Also, nobody cares about what you think about this Gravrand character. Gravrand whether you like it or not, is a reliable source who is peer reviewed by other scholars as you rightly noted above. Whether you think this Gravrand is telling the truth or not is irrelevant. We don't care about what you think. You also fail to understand that in here we go by reliable and verifiable sources, not truth (whatever that means to you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.115.35 (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problems working with others. And my record shows I don't discriminate on such grounds, but it is a fact that there are people with strong religious and political views who let those views influence their editing in a way that isn't acceptable. If I've added unreliable sources I'd like to know, I'm pretty good at spotting what is reliable and what isn't. As I haven't acted on this article since I placed the tag, it's removal is appropriate. As for Gravrand being reliable, it depends on what he's being used for. He clearly is not reliable on some issues according to at least one source used by the main editor here. And minority views should be added where appropriate, interesting that you object to that. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my comment about people with strong religious views. I'm thinking of those who are so sure that they know the truth that their edits present religious views as the truth, which of course is against our WP:NPOV policy. I'm also finding it a bit hard to accept that in an article with 96 footnotes you've managed to read all the sources, confirm that they back the statements for which they are cited, etc. Some of the sources aren't exactly easy to get hold of. Help me here. Let's take "Mort et Naissance le monde Sereer" - perhaps you could quote what it says about Janniiw? Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen that your name is all over the internet going back several years, and have been accused of stalking, racism, POV pushing and so on. I am not going to get in the middle of that but I strongly believe when there are lots of people going on about the behaviour of one individual, going back several years, there must be a degree of truth to it. Again, I don't care how you live your life outside Wikipedia, but in here, we respect other editors regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. If that is so difficult for you to grasp, then we don't want you here. I have no problem adding minority views but when you remove majority view sources and replace them with minority views in order to substantiate your own POV and bias because you've taken a dislike to an editor then there is a problem. As regards to "Mort et Naissance le monde Sereer", has it ever crossed your mind that the reason why I have not commented until now is because it has taken me this long to go through the sources? Reading the talk pages, it is evident that you like playing psychological games and engaging in childish behavior in your desire to try and catch people. There is nothing to "catch". You are not a detective. Wikipedia is not about trying to catch people to satisfy your own ego. You are not gonna get any brownie points. The sooner you get that into you head and abandon this nonsensical and childish behaviour the better for you and everyone. I would rather you ask me nicely about Faye's reference to Jaaniw than trying to play silly games. Find below Louis Dien Faye's reference to Jaaniiw in Mort et Naissance. I do not do this for you but for others who may be interested in the subject. It also shows people the kind person you truly are. You are a detriment to the Wikipedia project. I have nothing else to say to you. Feel free to waste your time with your foolish replies.

There are few references to Jaaniiw in the this book. I am quoting from page 25-6 (the 4th paragraph on page 25, before "LES RITES DE SÉPARATION", and the last paragraph on page 25 which finishes of at page 26):

"Parce que la personne va à jaaniiw où elle continuera à vivre, son père lui offer ce premier repas afin qu’il puisse se nourrir dans l’autre monde. Le geste est cependant symbolique."

[...]

"Parvenue devant la tombe, on procède au rite de separation. Les gens dansent pour une dernière fois le maañ. Ils s’approchent du cadaver, s’agenouillent, frappent le sol de leurs mains afin de maintenir le tré-passé à jaaniiw (l’au-delà) pour qu’il ne vienne pas chercher et mener à la mort les members de la famille, car il y a des morts fidèles, très attachés qui essaient d’entraîner d’autres personnes dans leur sillage." BETTER? SMH! 188.30.197.243 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Where there's smoke there must be fire, eh? As that's the way you think, there's no point in my continuing this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What jackal?

What word for "jackal" is used in the creation myths? Tili? There are two species of canid in Senegal and surrounding areas often called "jackals", and they are Canis adustus and Canis anthus, both very different animals. I think it might be the latter (which in English has been renamed as a type of wolf), simply because it is more common and visible. Mariomassone (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)