Talk:Roog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't know if Gravrand is competent to speak on Serer religion, but he apparently in not qualified to speak on etymology. He says Roog is a corruption of Koox, and that it is the word for 'sky', but then despite that attempts to link it to Sandawe Wa Roongo and Egyptian Ra, though an imagined root R-O-G! Utter garbage. — kwami (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue is this [1]. My response can be found here [2]. Ultra traditionalist Serer are very proud of their religious and cultural heritage. They do not look to Egypt to validate themselves unlike others. Anyway the problem is settled at least as far as I am concerned. So there is no problem. I hope.Tamsier (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not really how it works. If Gavrand's linguistic theories are bunk, and they are, just removing the most obvious offenses doesn't mean that what remains isn't bunk, too. Eladynnus (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Says who? You? Sorry that will not do. I will take the word of a scholar like Gravrand who is an expert in the subject, written several scholarly works and reviewed by several other scholars, than taking the word of Eladynnus who have authored one article on Wiki (a bulk of text based on one source). Tamsier (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the citation still a book that claims that Roog is related to the Egyptian deity Ra? That's so absurd that it casts a shadow over his other linguistic claims. Also, what does "corruption" mean in this context? Eladynnus (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Both the Koox article and this one say that Koox and Roog are synonymous. The citations also all seem to be the same and both articles have the same bloated see also section. The article could simply be reduced to an addition reading "(also known as Koox in the Cangin languages)" in Roog's introductory paragraph. Eladynnus (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Under normal circumstances I would listen to what you have to say with great interest, but considering your edit or lack of in Serer religion which led me to report you to Dispute resolution noticeboard, I will assume good faith with hesitation. The fact that the corresponding articles say they are synonymous does not necessarily mean they are the same. The worship of Roog and the worship of Koox, couldn't be much different. They are worship by different groups within the Serer community. Further, among the Sine-Sine, Roog is considered the supreme being, whilst among the Cangin, Koox is considered the supreme being. Therefore, I oppose your merge-to proposal. Tamsier (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, that is exactly what "synonymous" means. Eladynnus (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It can also mean :
1. "closely associated with or suggestive of something" (Oxford Dictionary option 2).
2. Although I may slighly give you this especially in most people minds... => "If you say that one thing is synonymous with another, you mean that the two things are so closely connected in most people's minds that one suggests the other." Cambridge Dictionary option 2).
3. "A word that does not have the same meaning, but the meaning is very close to the other word. Good and right are synonyms, even though they do not mean exactly the same thing." ("synonym" in Wiktionary : Simple English - option 2).
It is in this context I use the word. However, rather than argue about semantics, why not narrow it down by changing the word to something you can simply understand? Or should I do that for you?Tamsier (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how Roog and Koox are different. In fact, you apparently don't believe there is a difference at all; in addition to the Roog and Koox articles themselves, you wrote in the Serer people article: "The Serer people believe in a universal Supreme Deity called Roog (var : Rog). The Cangin language speakers refer to the supreme being as Koox", and in the article you are writing in your sandbox you say "the supreme transedental deity Roog (or Koox among the Cangin)". What is the issue here? Eladynnus (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also curious if you can explain the difference between Roog and Kopé Tiatie Cac. Eladynnus (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've brought this matter to RfC here). Hopefully we will bring in some fresh faces. Eladynnus (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I am so sorry you lack the capacity to read. Wiki articles are created so that they can be read. The fact that you have asked this question demonstrates to me that you do not understand the subject, yet it did not stop you deleting sourced content and placing tags on Serer religious articles. In fact, I doubt whether you really want to understand them. I have told you several times I do not own these articles. Be bold and edit them if you take issue with certain things. But vandanlising Serer religious or related articles after you have insulted Serer culture and I (someone you have never met or ever spoken to, and a culture you know nothing about), will not be tolerated. I have also seen your posts on other talk pages where you kept spreading lies about me without even doing me the curtesy and notify me that my name has been brought up in those talk pages and I am the subject of discussion. I apologise for the strong language but that is exactly what it is (lies), since your first post on the Serer religion talk page. I will provide diffs if necessary. This has to stop. I have given you enough advise regarding using your Wiki time for the good of the project and told you to be bold and edit the articles. Most of your edits I have allowed to stand and not bother reverting you, unless you have removed sourced content which is key to the article e.g. the meaning of God in Serer religion which you call imitating (see below) as if that concept is unique to one religion. Woud you do that to God in Christianity, God in Islam or God in whatever religion? I bet not, otherwise you will be reverted as quickyly as possible. And since you don't understand the subject, Kopé Tiatie Cac is regarded as the God of death, whether they are a sub-group of the Serers who worship him and regard him as supreme being or other Serers e.g. the Seex or Sine-Sine group (worshippers of Roog) or the Saafi group (worshippers of Koox). Kopé is associated with death and plague. The article made it very clear. So stop this nonsense and edit in good faith.Tamsier (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you link me to any of these lies that I've told? I try to be totally honest. I'd also like to see what vandalism I've done. You say that you don't own these articles and that I am free to edit them, but now you say that you "allow" my edits, and you do have a record of reverting those edits you don't like. It's difficult to start a dialogue with you because, although you apparently watch most or all Serer-related articles and are very active on Wikipedia, you seem to be avoiding certain discussions. I suspect that this is because you are hoping that I'll lose interest, giving you a chance to undo most or all of my edits, and that you are only responding now because I posted this.
As for the articles themselves: you say that they are all different, but also that they all have the same role in the traditional Serer religion and are worshiped by speakers of different languages, not followers of different religions. The paucity of details in all these pages could mean that you are including different parts of the same myth on each page to make them seem like different beings, the same as if you only said that Zeus was king of the sky among the Greeks and "Zoos" was king of the sky and the god of thunder among the Macedonians. Also, in this part of the Serer creation myth you list all these gods together and more or less say that they are the same being. Eladynnus (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Planned removals[edit]

The quote from the saltigue does not seem to add anything to the article which hasn't already been said in the previous paragraph. Also, the place of worship section is pointless, since all it says is that a thing (a temple for Roog) doesn't exist. Unless there is some reason to keep these, I will remove them. Eladynnus (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The place of worship is a fundamental principle which determines where Roog is worshipped. Christians worship in a church, Muslims in a mosque, Serers believe Roog is everywhere and nowhere and anywhere can be a worshipping place, etc. This is a fundamental principle of Serer religion. As for the Saltigue, the Saltigue's quote elucidates the point. It is very common to see that style in Wiki. Tamsier (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If Roog is omnipresent then that could be mentioned in another part of the article without needing to compare Roog to the Abrahamic god. As for the quote from the saltigue, it is actually rather confusing and seems to say that people pray directly to Roog, which would contradict the rest of the article. For a good example of the use of quotes, see Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Here, the saltigue's quote is merely redundant. Another problematic passage on the page is "He is the source of life and everything returns back to him. He is "the point of departure and conclusion, the origin and the end". This is overly poetic and doesn't seem to mean anything, although I suppose it could be an imitation of the Christian alpha and omega. Eladynnus (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed the alpha and omega stuff. Eladynnus (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As if the quotes above is unique to one religion. A 2000 year old religion? Such arrogance. Tamsier (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. The problem with that passage is that it is unencyclopedic. In your recent edit summary you tell me not to "remove sourced content", but no matter how many sources there are there is no changing the nature of that passage. Eladynnus (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
(Incidentally, please remember to sign with five tildes, not the usual four, when making a 3O request. Thanks!) I see no need for a specific section on places of worship, since there aren't any, and it is rather short as it stands. On the other hand, the paragraph itself looks okay; it can just be part of the 'Worship' section. I don't really see a problem with the alpha and omega claims, although they might be better phrased as 'worshippers believe that...', 'Roog is described as being...' or some such, for NPOV reasons. It might need clarification and expansion, and can be tagged to that effect, but it's referenced, and if those are the terms they use, I see no reason to exclude the text altogether. I don't see a problem with the saltigue quote, either, although there is certainly no reason not to replace it with paraphrased text, which might make the article flow better. The article's not great, but it's better to expand and improve on the material, than simply delete it, where possible.Anaxial (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Roog[edit]

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 Roog'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 No 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 No 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 Serer creation myth: (French) Gravrand, Henry, "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 No 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 Serer-Noon: Gravrand, Henry, "Le Symbolisme sereer : Mythe du Saas et symboles", « Revue de Psycho-Pathologie » vol. 9 No 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 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Following its pronunciation"[edit]

The two spellings of its name following its pronounciation seem like improvised phonetic spellings, much like spelling "Obama" "Ohbamuh". Unless those spellings are used in any citable texts, they should stay off the page. Eladynnus (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that. Anaxial (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)