Talk:Mami Wata
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Alternative medicine | (Rated B-Class) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
| /Archive 1 |
 |
A fact from Mami Wata appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 August 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know |
 |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
