Talk:Indigenous peoples of Africa
|WikiProject Ethnic groups||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
I would contest a proposed deletion of this article. The topic itself is clearly a notable and valid encyclopaedic entry, part of a series of indigenous peoples by region or continent. It was originally broken out from the main indigenous peoples article, and if you look there (or any cursory search) you'll find ample WP:V and WP:RS to identify it as such.
As for the style, happy to grant that it may read a little essay-like, but that does not mean its contents derive from Original Research or are unsubstantiated opinion. When I originally wrote the text more than 3 years ago (not much has been changed or added since then), it was based on a distillation of sources from the UN's WGIP, IPACC and the African Union's ACHPR among others, a couple of which are mentioned in the text itself, instead of as explicit citations. None of it is my original opinion, and I think it fairly reflects the info obtainable at these sources and does not concentrate on some POV slant. If there are any specific passages someone may think to be OR or POV, pls identify them & it can be further discussed.
The contributions of mine here were made early-on in my wiki editing career, when I was not then adept at providing references & cites as you go (though I recall much of wikipedia lacking inline cites back then). Certainly agree it needs better and more direct citations, and a prose overhaul. However, thanks to Maunus' recent efforts there are now a few more refs appended to the article, which could be worked into inline cites at some stage. I hope that at least that is sufficient demonstration of the article's notability and adherence to OR, V, RS and POV policies to forestall any deletion proposal, even if the prose quality and layout itself leaves a bit to be desired. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, cjllw. It sounds reasonable. And by the way, I am in no hurry to rush this off to an Afd. These things take time and I would much prefer to see this article properly expanded. It would be great to have more specific references added with in-line citations. However, now that you have remarked on the article coming from a split, that raises a primary problem. When looking at the Indigenous peoples#Africa, I find a generalized discussion about the definition of "indigenous people" followed by general remarks about the "discrimination against indigenous people" from IPACC and ACHPR. When I click on the split to the main article Indigenous peoples of Africa, I find nothing but an unnecessary repetition of the exact same remarks. Nothing more. No expansion and no information about actual indigenous peoples about Africa. It would almost be better simply to split to a List of indigenous peoples#Africa, so anyone looking for more elucidation can delve deeper. Contrast this with Indigenous peoples#The Americas which offers some generalized facts, and then splits off to the much more in-depth discussion of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which delves into history, culture, demographics, and includes further splits to specific regions and countries. It seems to me that this is the proper approach that this article should attain. As it stands now, this article could be renamed as Discrimination of Indigenous Peoples of Africa or Marginalization of Indigenous peoples of Africa, but as a description or discussion of the actual Indigenous peoples of Africa, it fails. — CactusWriter | needles 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi CactusWriter and thanks for your understanding and comments. Don't dispute there are deficiencies in the article. Ideally yes it should do much more than reflect the original article it was split from, but alas it appears to be one of those topics which while entirely valid and demanding of an encyclopaedic article, has extremely few active editors interested or knowledgeable enough to be do something about it. A case unfortunately in need of countering systemic bias, & you can readily understand that the Americas articles attract much higher interest & participation while African ones mostly do not.
- While not my highest priority I will see what I can do over time to knock it into better shape. With many competing commitments ATM it will probably only be in dribs and drabs, and I can't see myself being able to set aside large blocs of time to devote to it right now. But at some point, will try. It won't be quick, but it's on the mid-to-long term list.
- Speaking of lists, don't think that 'list of indigenous peoples of africa'-style article would help much. Firstly, the individual peoples' articles rarely have info specific to their indigeneity claims in them, and secondly as List of indigenous peoples has shown it is v difficult to maintain any consistency of interpretation abt what shld/shld not be included. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
ideas for improvement
I think this article is great! I think if a photo was added and a little more structure it would make it much easier (and exciting) to read! Allykittencat (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)allykittencat