Talk:Wolofization

Unwarranted notability and OR tags

I see that @Sulfurboy: has added a notability and OR tags to the article [1]! The subject has been discussed in many scholar works [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5], ete, etc, etc. I can go on forever. The article pass WP:GNG. Time permitting, I will add more refs and expand the article. Thanks for creatng @Sharouser:. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Senegambianamestudy, Then that stuff needs to be incorporated into the article. Notability is determined by the sources provided in a subject's article, not on the presumption of what else is out there. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. However, I didn't create the article. I didn't even know about the existence of this article until I received a notification from Wiki informing me that it has been linked to a page I've been following. Nevertheless, you also should have carried out WP:BEFORE. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Senegambianamestudy, WP:BEFORE is for AfD, not for maintenance templates. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. What I'm saying is, a simple before would have established notability and no need to use our notabiility tag. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Senegambianamestudy, Again, notability is established by provided references, not what is available as a whole outside of the article. Notability is not shown with the sources provided in the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have expanded the article and added sources [6]. Please take a look at it and if you are happy remove the tags. If you are not happy with anything please discuss it here. I have removed the "Pro" section because there is nothing there. I think a "History" section would be useful, and time permitting, I'll add that. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: Senegambianstudies is indefinitely blocked after calling editors white supremacists and making it explicitly clear that he thinks we are infiltrated by same. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Thanks for letting me know. That makes me wonder if there is some sort of agenda setting in this article and/or if some of the commentary is inflammatory or controversial. I honestly don't know anything about the subject, so I wouldn't be able to gauge it. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding some sort of Serer supremacy over the Jolof and Wolof people, besides an NPOV approach to Dogon religion, ie promoting Griaule (calling him the "goto source" and not mentioning serious doubts over this research. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, So, unless you have another idea in mind, I've gone ahead and added the disputed tag to the page and removed the one source tag. I'm not sure if AfD is appropriate here or not, but at least the tags will make clear to any reader that this article might not tell the full story and encourage any possible SME to neutralize the article where needed. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The subject is definitely notable, but the content may be questionable. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I don't have a dog in this fight, but didn't you told the SPLC the same thing in 2018 although worded differently? Quote : "The far right has been active on Wikipedia since it first went online in 2001, but in the past two years, its presence has grown with the emergence of the alt-right and the surge in rightwing populism in Europe and North America, says administrator Doug Weller" - "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets" (March 12, 2018)2A02:C7F:AC31:400:307D:53C6:BA64:BFE5 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this article and you can't hijack articles with tags because you just don't like it. The tags have been here for a year and you've made no attempt to sort out the objection you seem to have. I'm therefore removing the tags.2.101.88.202 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Other meaning of Wolofization

I am not arguing that this article as is doesn't represent a real usage of the meaning of Wolofization, and it makes sense as the form follows the convention of other words with similar meaning (such as Islamization as referred to in the article) but I have never heard/seen it used in this way. I've only heard/seen it used to mean the assimilation of a non-Wolof word into the Wolof language and the changing of that word to reflect Wolof orthography and pronunciation. For example the Wolofization of the French word 'thé' for tea into 'attaya' or taksi for taxi, etc. So from that understanding it is less of a language shift whereby populations adopt Wolof language but whereby Wolof speakers adopt a foreign word. From my experience this is a common usage of the word among learners and academics of the Wolof language. 2601:1C0:4700:D48:F9C6:D9E7:E428:6FF3 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)