Talk:Saloum

I will not give this editor the satisfaction responding to the above silly comments but must importantly, his (and his chums') personal attacks directed at me on other Serer related talk pages. His edits are nothing but bias and agenda driven especially in relation to articles concerning Sub-Saharan Africa and her people. Their attempts to discredit me and my edits on Serer related talk pages is nothing more than agenda driven. If they have they their wish, every single article that addresses civilisations in Sub-Saharan Africa will be deleted, because that goes against their Eurocentric views and POV pushing agenda. As far as they are concerned, Sub-Saharan Africa does not have an ancient history. My contribution to Wiki on African related articles (not just Serer articles) over the years speaks for themselves, whether you like them or loath them. The views of these Eurocentric POV pushers do not interest me. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia. Moving forward, I opened this section about this User:Doug Weller who has a long history of advancing his agenda driven POV on Serer and African related articles. All you have to do is look at the talk pages of Serer articles and you will see what I mean. This editor, copied and pasted unreliable sources on several Serer articles to advance his POV (see below).

According to the historian David Galvan, "The oral historical record, written accounts by early Arab and European explorers, and physical anthropological evidence suggest that the various Serer peoples migrated south from the Fuuta Tooro region (Senegal River valley) beginning around the eleventh century, when Islam first came across the Sahara."^[1]: p.51 Over generations these people, possibly Pulaar speaking herders originally, migrated through Wolof areas and entered the Siin and Saluum river valleys. This lengthy period of Wolof-Serer contact has left us unsure of the origins of shared "terminology, institutions, political structures, and practices."^[1]: p.52

Professor Étienne Van de Walle gave a slightly later date, writing that "The formation of the Sereer ethnicity goes back to the thirteenth century, when a group came from the Senegal River valley in the north fleeing Islam, and near Niakhar met another group of Mandinka origin, called the Gelwar, who were coming from the southeast (Gravrand 1983). The actual Sereer ethnic group is a mixture of the two groups, and this may explain their complex bilinear kinship system".}^[2]

Eventhough they are quotations, I tagged them as dubious and opinionated . This editor then took the matter to RSN (here is my last response, you can read it for yourself -see: "Are dubious and opinion tags appropriate for these quotes by reliable sources?"). Before I even commented, he reverted my edits . For posterity, I will copy and paste my response to this guy here i.e. why I tagged these articles. He is free to copy and paste or respond here, but below are my response to the issues he raised at W:RSN :

Response 1

It is good etiquette to notify the person under discussion. The person who opened this discussion and I have had several disagreements over the years regarding African and Serer related articles in particular. Following my return to Wiki, I saw the numerous nasty comments he has left on some of the Serer talk pages directing them at me, backed by his Wiki friends some whom have hounded me from this project. I ignored those comments and did not dignify them with a response. I will not comment or pass judgment on another editor's remark about his racial bias, but from my experience dealing with him over the years, I find his edits to be racial motivated when it concerns articles relating to Africa especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Whether that is conscious or unconscious I don't know. I will state it here and will have no problem stating it elsewhere. My life does not revolve around Wikipedia. Because of the hatred he has for me, he has been targetting Serer related articles, which I have been active on, and providing selective sources which not only goes against general consensus, but substantiated no where else by reliable sources. He is merely doing that to advance his own POV, but most importantly to infuriate me. Little does he know that he is not actually infuriating me, he is destroying the Wikipedia project. Forget about the Kingdom of Sine for a minute (which I will come back to and will address wholesale with Serer history and Serer people, because he copied and pasted the same material in all three articles, see Serer history#Resistance to Islam, 11th century and Serer people#Ethnonym), a good example of his POV pushing is the Kingdom of Saloum article. Every reliable source would state that the Kingdom of Saloum was a Serer Kingdom along with the Kingdom of Sine from the medieval period. All one has to do is search for Kingdom of Saloum on Googlebooks and all reliable source would attest that it was a Serer Kingdom. This editor in his wisdom, skipped all those sources and went and select an obscure source (Saine, Abdoulaye (2012). Culture and Customs of Gambia. Greenwood Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-313-35910-1) who state that it was a "Serer or Wolof kingdom". There is no argument there are/were Wolof people in Saloum, but as noted by Diange (Diange, Pathé. "Les Royaumes Sérères", Présence Africaines, no. 54. (1965), p. 142-172) and Klein (Klein, Martin A., "Islam and Imperialism in Senegal Sine-Saloum, 1847–1914", Edinburgh University Press (1968), p.7) the Wolof were immigrants to Saloum. Even the Wolof do not consider Saloum as one of their kingdoms. Forget about Serer readers for a minute, but any Wolof reading that would probably laugh and loose all confidence in the reliability of Wikipedia especially if they are doing some academic research. Yes, I saw that edit too but I ignored it. He is not scoring points with me, but destroying the project. I will now move to Serer history especially the section under King Njaajan Njie. This editor selected specific sources that talk about the nobility of this King not within a Sub-Saharan African context, but within an Arab context, by saying that this medieval Senegambian King's father was an Almoravid. Note that, anyone who knows the history which this editor doesn't, would know that the Almoravid being referred to is no other than Abu Bakr ibn Umar, as stated in his own article. Every reliable source agrees pretty much that Njaajaan ruled Jolof in the 14th century, which was 300 years after the death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar. This editor was selective quoting trying to advance his own POV and agenda. The earliest written narrative/epic about Njaajaan was recorded by the French governor of Goree in Senegal (in the 1700s) - Alexandre Le Brasseur and reproduced by Jean Boulègue in his book "Le grand Jolof p. 25-6". Apart from the oral tradition, every written record about Ndiadiane (specifically) originated from Alexandre's work because it is the earliest written source specifically about Ndiadiane and the Jolof Empire. I saw the nasty comments and false accusations he left on the Almoravid talk page where he claimed that the original performance I was referring to was Samba's work. See the talkpage of Almoravid dynasty under "See above: "In Ndiadiane Ndiaye's epic, scholars observed that:". That debate between some editors and I all those years ago were put to rest. There was no reason to hound me there as he has done on several articles trying to discredit me. Oh for your, information, I was not referring to Samba, it was Alexandre's work I was referring to when I wrote "original performances." Anyone who knows the subject would have known what I meant. I would rather you ask me than run around making false accusations against me on talk pages. I know the history of my people and the Senegambia region better than an obscure American Wikipedia editor. Please do not try to change our history. Thank you very much. And this is not about W:OWN. This is about present material in a neutral manner, using reliable and verifiable sources with respect to weight, as stated in Wikipedia policy. Although "fact" may not be one of the principles of Wikipedia, every good editor try to present the facts in the spirit of Wikipedia policy, because without fact, there is no need for an encyclopedia. I would rather all these Serer and African related articles be brought down than spreading false information by an editor known his his racially motivated edits and with a long vendetta against me. Wikipedia articles are highly ranked in Google. Some readers read these articles and believe in what has been written without doing their own work. If POV pushers like this editor are editing articles based on their own biases, it is dangerous to the project. By the way the OP has reverted my edit . If you have an issue with Serer or African related articles being made available on Wikipedia, delete them. It is as simple as that. It is much better to delete them or reduce them to a stubb than putting out there factually dubious claims. I will still sleep at night whether they are on Wikipedia or not. Generally speaking, it is much better to delete articles or reduce them to a stub than to present factual bias, or worst, incorrect material driven by someone's own agenda.

Furthermore, Galvan is not qualified to make such a statement. His book is about Serer lamanic custom and land in particular. He has no background on languages African or Serer to make such expansive claims. No reliable source who have studied the subject have ever attested that. The closest we have is that Serer and Pulaar are similar. But to jump from that and say the Serer people who migrated were Pulaar speaking is dubious and Galvan's own opinion which he is neither qualified to make nor is it supported by any reliable source. Galvan should have stuck to Serer land law / inheritance (which is what the book is about) than going outside his remit. Étienne is unreliable, because he has confused the Guelowar dynasty (who arrive in Sine in the 14th century according to all notable and reliable sources) and the Serers of Sine who were already there. To jump from that and say the Serer existed in the 13th century is factually dubious. Note that, he or the editor cite Gravrand but did not state the page number. I have Henry Gravrand's book. Please state the page number and I will look it up. These are the reasons why I tagged them.

He then insisted on the reliability of the sources he cited according to "our criteria" but could not refute my arguments above. Then I responded as follows:

Response 2

And what criteria would that be? A criteria you invented or a Wikipedia criteria? For a source to be deemed reliable, the author must be qualified in the subject. Further, even authors have to cite reliable sources. Neither of these people you have cited are qualified on the subject or cited references to support the claims you have cherry picked to push your own POV. I will state it again since you have missed it the last time: Galvan's book is about Serer customary land law/ lamanic land inheritance, which he wrote by interviewing some Serers and cited them as primary sources. He went against the remit of his book by making expansive claims which he provided no refs for, not to mention not qualified to make such a claim. He is the first person that I've ever seen made such a claim. There are numerous scholars who are qualified on the subject, well verse in Serer history, languages and culture and have worked extensively with these people for decades but have never made such a claim. To take his claim as fact and insert it in the article under the guise of quotation is nothing more but disingenuous. It is dubious and an unqualified opinion no matter how you frame it. As for your comment on Étienne, I will take it that he did not provide a page number when he cited Henry Gravrand? Therefore, I now take issue with using Étienne for two reasons: 1. In his haste, he mixed up the Guelowars with the Serer who were already living in Sine as you well know since you co-edited the Serer history and Guelowar articles, and cited Alioune Sarr ("Histoire du Sine-Saloum (Sénégal)" Introduction, bibliographie et notes par Charles Becker. 1986-87), a paper you knew about thanks to me because I cited him before. All mainstream reliable sources state that the Guelowars arrived in the Sine in the 14th-century. You knew this yourself because you co-edited some of the Serer articles. To go from there and cite an author who clearly hasn't done his homework properly is disingenuous. He clearly hasn't done his homework because if he had, he would not have made such a silly statement that the Serer are a mixture of Mandinka and only came about in the 13th-century. Even Galvan, the person you cited above made reference to the fact that the Serer were resisting Islamization back in the 11th-century. That fact is well known and record in all mainstream sources. If Étienne has done the leg work, he would have known that rather than make his ridiculous claims which is unscholarly. Of course you were not interested in facts or Wiki policy on neutrality and weight. You were only trying to advance your own agenda. I remember you stating somewhere that the Serer are a recent ethnic group around the 14th century when plenty of sources disagree (here are some sources that may interest you: (1. Chavane, Bruno A., "Villages de l'ancien Tekrour: recherches archéologiques dans la moyenne vallée du fleuve Sénégal", KARTHALA Editions (1985), p. 10, 28, ISBN 9782865371433; 2. Asante, Molefi Kete; Mazama, Ama; "Encyclopedia of African Religion", SAGE Publications (2008), ISBN 9781506317861 - I threw in Molefi there because one of your chums on the Serer talk page I believe kept stating there are no Serer references in Molefi's work. Clearly they did do their homework because it is available on Google books). You then went on copying and pasting unreliable sources everywhere: this and this. For someone who once claimed to be very thorough when it comes to reliable sources. Please! I bet you couldn't believe your luck when you stumbled upon Étienne, or dear I say entered certain keywords on Google search to justify your POV. Sorry, he is not reliable and anyone that claims otherwise is not truly interested in creating an encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia full of bias and factually in accurate material. 2. The other issue I take with Étienne is that, he cited Gravrand but did not provide a page number. You have addressed him as "professor" in some of the Serer articles when you inserted his unreliable material. You inserted the title "professor" solely to give him credibility and advance your POV. A professor/scholar cite his sources in full, not just provide a name of the author and year of publication. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. He is not reliable. Neither of them are reliable for the claims you have cherry picked to support your POV. That is the reason why I tagged the article. As for your Martin Luther King claim, don't take me for a full. Not for one minute do I believe you will be made to revert your edits back to my tags even after demolishing your agenda driven unreliable source citations. Therefore, I will be copying and pasting some of what I've stated here to the relevant talk pages.

This editor has a long history of pushing his Eurocentric POV on Sub-Saharan African /Serer related articles. Since he could not rebuke my argument at RSN, I doubt he could do it here. Therefore, I will not be wasting my time responding to any comment he may have unless he can back up the reason he has cherry picked those sources to advance his POV which goes against any mainstream reliable sources. Unless he offers something new, I will not be wasting my time. All I got from that RSN debate was "I am the Administrator. I can do whatever the hell I like and you can't do nothing about it." Take a look at RSN link above and see how he worded his response, to gather support against me. As he has done on numerous occasions including here . My conscious is clear. I sleep at night very well. And I have a life outside Wikipedia. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tamsier, are you going to post this to every Serer articles I've edited? I'll repeat my response: "Great. I sleep well too. Your arguments at RSN have been refuted, you just don't accept that. You're unhappy that a respected academic didn't give a page number in a reference in a quotation added to an article, but we actually don't require that and to try and guess what page he was referring to would be original research. That you don't believe that I marched with King at Selma is your problem, not mine. If I had a Eurocentric or racist point of view I wouldn't, for instance, have Great Zimbabwe on my watchlist and revert edits by the real racists/Eurocentrics who deny that it was build by Africans. It's a lie to suggest that I want articles on sub-Saharan Africa to be deleted.

Everyone edits from one or more povs, there is nothing wrong with that, it's whether we follow NPOV that matters. My pov is basically that of mainstream science, history and archaeology. I'm not sure that you do. Perhaps you can tell me how old you think Serer religion and the Serer people are? My experience with you is that you are unhappy with showing different povs in the articles you've created - as you are doing by claiming that these two academics aren't reliable sources. And that just as you think I've used unreliable sources (although so far no one agrees with you), some of the sources you've tried to use in the past have been shown to fail WP:RS. As for using 'Professor', if someone doesn't have an an article of their it seems reasonable to show in some way who they are and that they aren't just a random source found through a Google search. And since I'm the one who added the Galvan quote about the Serer resisting Islamisation in the 11th century (which I think you agree with despite not liking Galvan) I'm hardly going to argue that they didn't exist before the 14th century. Having said that, if a source meeting WP:RS makes that statement we should probably also use it, suitably attributed. What we shouldn't have is articles that only present one perspective and ignore the rest. Doug Weller (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Only to the affected articles at the RSN discussion, and here is my response:

You sleep well! I don't know how but good for you. Here is a response I made earlier on my talk page so I will change some of the wording rather than wasting my time.

I made my case succinctly regarding the unreliability of the sources you have cited and for which they were cited. I've said it before and I will say it here. Galvan, may be reliable but only in the context of Serer customary land law and lamanic system (which is what his book was about) because that is his remit i.e his qualification. But he is not qualified to go outside that remit by making expansive claims without first sourcing them from reliable sources. That is the reason why I tagged Galvan's citation. As for Étienne, not only is he not qualified on the subject and went against mainstream sources, but he confused two facts and prescribed his unsubstantiated opinion. First, the Guelowars arrived in Sine in the 14th century, which you well know, but just in case it escaped your memory, see Sarr (as stated in RSN). Second, there were already Serers in Sine, which also knew since you co-edited Serer articles, so for Étienne to come up with that ridiculous notion is unscholarly. Last but not least, Étienne quoted Gravrand for his dubious claims, but only gave the surname of Gravrand and the year of publication of his book (according to your insertions). Even scholars have to quote sources in full when making such claims. I have never seen a scholar quote like Étienne. Never in my life. For that reason I tagged him too. I tagged them for different reasons which are justified. I have stated my point at RSN. Notice that provided nothing in return that rebukes my argument. For someone who once claimed to be very good at selecting sources, I'm surprised you didn't picked that up. As such, I am surprised why RSN didn't ask you to revert your edit or at the very least provided reliable sources that substantiate your claims. I have scoured the internet and the books in my possession trying to find reliable sources that backs up your claim but found absolutely nothing other than the sources you inserted, which means you were cherry picking.

You said and I quote : "And since I'm the one who added the Galvan quote about the Serer resisting Islamisation in the 11th century (which I think you agree with despite not liking Galvan) I'm hardly going to argue that they didn't exist before the 14th century."

On the matter of resisting Islamization in the 11th-century, because that is in the mainstream sources. There is a huge difference in stating something that is in most mainstream sources and saying something totally new which you are not qualified, not to mention no reliable source to back it up. Again, that is the reason why I tagged Galvan. Serer resisting Islamization in the 11th century is in countless reliable sources. As for your last statement : "I'm hardly going to argue that they didn't exist before the 14th century." But you did countless of times. Remember this Really? Wow! Forget about the 13th, if they were resisting Islamization in the 11th century how could they have existed only in the 11th century, formed a religion, culture, language, etc. all that in the 11th century. Wow you are a genius. Who need reliable sources when we have you? and this and this . I am tired waisting my time here. Perhaps someone else in the future can deal with this editor's POV pushing. I am done! Tamsier (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're getting confused. The Galvan quote says ""The oral historical record, written accounts by early Arab and European explorers, and physical anthropological evidence suggest that the various Serer peoples migrated south from the Fuuta Tooro region (Senegal River valley) beginning around the eleventh century," - which clearly means that they existed before the 11th century. I added that quote. One real problem seems to be the lack of recorded history for this period.

I've found something more recent. François G Richard has a chapter in Ethnic Ambiguity and the African Past: Materiality, History, and the Shaping of Cultural Identities called "The Very Embodiment of the Black Peasant?’ Archaeology, History, and the Making of the Seereerof Siin (Senegal)". In it he writes that " Oral traditions chart the Seerecr expansion across Senegal and their settlement in the Siin, as they peacefully’ absorbed ‘autochthonous’residents and subsequent waves of Mandinka migrants, resulting in the emergence of a small polity sometime in the mid-14th century (M.-C. Diouf 1996; Gravrand 1981. 1983). In effect, historical sources document the existence of a Seereer kingdom at the time of early Portuguese navigations (Boulegue 1987)." He acknowledges that "Historians of oral traditions have generally accepted the consistency across dliferent myths of origins and linguistic affinities between Siin and Fuuta Tooro to imply that a ‘Seereer' identity had already existed at the time of separation or had crystallized through the process of migration and that recognisably Seereer groups emigrated from northern Senegal around the 11th century and gradually spread south to the Siin and Saalum through different migrations (Becker and Martin 1981)" but continues saying "Yet other signs invite us to pause before postulating the existence of Seereer social consciousness avant la lettre. The most obvious problem is that the current ‘Seereer' denomination and its colonial antecedents do not represent a single ensemble but an amalgamation of seven distinct subgroups whose histories, languages, and social organisations do not always coincide (Galvan 2004: 38, 40)." Copyright limitations mean people will have to read it themselves from the link, but he notes that "At the same time, the facts that considerable cultural differences remain between different Secreer communities and that their political trajectories over the past centuries have taken very different paths demand that we regard scenarios of deep-time Secreer connections critically (sec Richard 2007: 121-24)" and says "A second difficulty stems from the fact that what we call today the Seereer of Siin are not a singular, authentic entity but a historical product shaped bv several centuries of contact between different populations and their political traditions" and refers to " the fact that what we call today the Seereer of Siin are not a singular, authentic entity but a historical product shaped bv several centuries of contact between different populations and their political traditions". I realise this will be unpopular with Tamsier but again, by our criteria if not his, it's a reliable source.

I also note that Tamsier says elsewhere"Saine described the Serer as idol (kharem) worshipers. The word kharem is an Arabic word used by Senegambian Muslims to when speaking about those who follow the Traditional African religions. Serers who follow Serer religion would never ever used such a word because it is found offensive. Mainstream scholars use the word pangool which is linked to their religion and ancestors." I think this is part of the problem - he's appears to be saying that mainstream scholars are Serer, almost by definition. If we only used Serer scholars these articles definitely would violate NPOV. I've asked Tamsier when and where he thinks the Sereer originated but he hasn't answered yet. Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This User:Doug Weller, known for his long history of trying discredit Serer articles and advancing his POV by selective sourcing is at it again. Of all the reliable source he could find he went and cited Saine, Abdoulaye (2012). Culture and Customs of Gambia. Greenwood Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-313-35910-1 and prescribed the following edit and deleted my edits:

The Kingdom of Saloum was a "Serer/Wolof^[1] kingdom in present-day Senegal. Its kings may have been of Mandinka/Kaabu origin.^[1]"

I have made a response to this issue see above. Saine is not a reliable source. Every mainstream source states that Saloum along with Sine were Serer Kingdoms. This Doug Weller knew this but he was trying to score points with me and went and selected and unreliable source to advance his own POV. What he is trying to do here is disinherit the Serer from Saloum by advancing his POV. I cannot believe Wikipedia has come to this. All one has to do was google search the Kingdom of Saloum and you will know that it was a Serer Kingdom. Saine provided a limited text on the Serer from the link provided and then prescribed that Saloum was either a "Serer/Wolof kingdom" and the kings where either "Mandinka/Kaabu" origin. Really! If this Saine does not know whose Kingdom it was all he had to do was "Google it" on Google books where he would have found countless of reliable sources attesting to the fact that it was a Serer kingdom. First of all the Guelowars came from Kaabu. The Guelowar women married the Serer nobility and their children (the men) were the kings, who saw themselves as Serer, adhered to Serer religion, adopted Serer culture, and spoke the Serer language, that is why the Kings of Saloum have Serer names. No one with a Mandinka surname have ever ruled in Saloum. This Doug Weller knew this because he had co-edited Serer articles before including the Guelowar. In his attempt to disinherit the Serer people he skipped all reliable sources on Google and prescribed Saine. I bet Saine was probably on page 10 on Google searches because he is not reliable or mainstream. He also failed to provide sources for his claim. Even authors have to cite reliable sources not to mention qualified to write on the subject. Further, Saine described the Serer as idol (kharem) worshipers. The word kharem is an Arabic word used by Senegambian Muslims to when speaking about those who follow the Traditional African religions. Serers who follow Serer religion would never ever used such a word because it is found offensive. Mainstream scholars use the word pangool which is linked to their religion and ancestors. For an editor who keeps going on about how he is good at finding sources I cannot believe he found this nonsensical Saine. He is not a scholar and I can't phantom why you added this nonsense here. This editor is not interested in an encyclopedia but his own agenda driven POV. I have lost patience with this editor and I will be tagging the article. Look at some of his edits too many to list actually, Mbey came from the Serer oral tradition of Saloum where Ba got it from whom he interviewed for his paper. Forget about Serer of Saloum for a minute, it was also mentioned in "Chosaani Senegambia" in their 1973 history program.; and another That program was actual the history of the Senegambia by scholars as well as griots familiar with the subject. Whether you know it or not, history program which the subject is discussed in detail by reliable speakers are acceptable provided it can be verified, removing Mbegan Ndour is silly. All sources list him as the first king of Saloum during the Guelowar period. 1494 to be exact. And leads do not necessarily need a ref when they are covered below ; this one was the biggest one. He removed the content sourced from Diage and Klein (see below) some of the most notable on the subject. This is just a snippit of his POV. Take a look at his contribution to this article. I have lost all confidence in this editor. I will be tagging this article. Here are some sources that may interest others because I will not be waisting my time on this POV pusher with a vendetta. Some sources that may interest others before he delete them as they do not agree with his POV:

1. Molefi Kete Asante, Ama Mazama, "Encyclopedia of African Religion" (new source)

2. Diange, Pathé. "Les Royaumes Sérères", Présence Africaines, No. 54. (1965). pp. 142-172

3. Ba, Abdou Bouri, « Essai sur l’histoire du Saloum et du Rip  » (avant-propos par Charles Becker et Victor Martin), Bulletin de l'IFAN, tome 38, série B, numéro 4, octobre 1976

4. Klein, Martin A. Islam and Imperialism in Senegal Sine-Saloum, 1847–1914. Edinburgh University Press (1968). P.7

Just a sample of refs for those that may be interest because I'm done with this POV pusher. I came back to Wiki temporary to help with a portal little did I find that this editors POV pushing especially on Serer and African related articles hasn't changed. I am done. Someone else can deal him. Tamsier (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but a Google search on Serer Saloum puts Saine on the first page, not the 10th. And that's with at least two collections of Wikipedia articles above him. Reverse the words and he's at the top of page 2, but page 1 has three Wikipedia collections. Either way Godfrey Mwakikagile shows up on the first page and he says "One group of migrant Mandinka intermingled with the Serer and eventually controlled them, but assimilated Serer culture and language. These Mandinka rulers came to be known as Gelowar (Gelwar) in the states of Sine and Saloum." I note that Tamsier says "Saine described the Serer as idol (kharem) worshipers. The word kharem is an Arabic word used by Senegambian Muslims to when speaking about those who follow the Traditional African religions. Serers who follow Serer religion would never ever used such a word because it is found offensive. Mainstream scholars use the word pangool which is linked to their religion and ancestors." I think this is part of the problem - he's saying that mainstream scholars are Serer, almost by definition. If we only used Serer scholars this article definitely would violate NPOV.

If anyone else reads this, I'm wondering if they understand the bit about needing a worldwide view. You aren't supposed to tag whole articles without explaining what you mean. Doug Weller (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tamsier, please stop undoing my edits and personally attacking me. There was absolutely nothing anti-Serer in anything I wrote, though feel free to provide a quote if you'd like to justify yourself. I was cleaning up the paragraphs to make them more readable, to improve the flow of the article, and to make citations more consistent. You also removed the history of Saloum's conquest by Maba Diakhou Ba, fully cited from reputable sources, and have not replaced it.

You do not own this article. If you want complete control over the layout and content and want to rant against imagined slights to the Serer, I suggest you start a blog. As for the constant accusations of bias and POV-pushing, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." Catjacket (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, I'll be going through the entire article as it seems some have an act to grind against the Serer and are advancing falsehoods / cherry picking dubious sources not supported by credible scholars, just to push their agenda. I do not own this or any article. What I'm more interested in is ensuring African articles are represented with historical accuracy, and not based on ethno nationalist/tribalist or hatred of another group because on their ethnicity and/or religion (historical or otherwise). I'm not going to sit here and let POV pushers immortalise a 19th century Senegambia slave trader like Maba Diakhou Ba, a jihadist, murderer of so called "pagans", raviger, etc. Not just immortalising him, but even worse, concealing his historical accounts in order to protect his legacy. I stated that in his talk page back in 2011. The people he killed and enslaved do not have a voice and do not have a Wiki page, and their stories are ignored or forgotten. His followers to this day (who hold him in high regard for propelling Islam in the Senegambia) believe that the Serer killed their most revered 19th century prolific religious leader back in 1867, and now they are taking it out on the Serer and Serer related articles, and/or trying to Wolofize/Fulanize Serer articles when those articles actually have nothing to do with them. They ignore Wiki policies like RS, weight, neutrality, and even basic sourcing of content, etc. For years, they have decided to flood onto Wiki, and to use this project to drive their agenda. I don't care about what POV pushers call me. All I'm interested in is representing African articles (whether they are Serer, Lebu, Tukuloor, Wolof, Fula, Mandinka, Sonike, Jola, etc.) factually as per RS and to counter systematic bias from POV warriors. I have done it for countless of articles which have nothing to do with the Serer. I did it for the Toucouleur article following our discussion in that article; I did it for the Mandinka articles by editing the Sudiata Keita article from start to finish many years ago; many of the Mansas of Mali which I created; the Jola; Soninke; Ghana Empire, etc., etc. None of these have nothing to do with me, but I believe their stories and historical narratives are vital for the understanding of African history, and are encyclopedic, etc. And I haven't even mentioned the countless of African articles I've saved over the years from deletion. I don't care what someone calls me. I'm more interested in advancing the Wiki project especially articles relating to Africa - my speciality. My conscious is clear. History has shown that, those who were fighting me, years later, did exactly what I was fighting for. My conscious is clear. I will be going through this entire article among others. On a side note, I find it interesting that you thought my edit summary was about you when I have not mentioned your name! And the very fact that I went back to edit the article after restoring it to an editor's version clearly shows is not necessarily about you. Hmm! Anyway, I'll go through this entire article amongst others as stated in my ed summary. I see that two of the most prolific Wolof POV pushers and SOCKS have been blocked.Tamsier (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the way Ba's jihad was described, then edit that section directly or bring the issue to the talk page and let's discuss it. I'd be happy to integrate other sources. But reverting a large edit that is mostly fixing citations, grammar, clarity, and paragraph order just to get your point across is Wikipedia:DE. I'll have to go back and redo that work.

I got a notification when you reverted my edit, and the only edit between mine and your reversion was by a bot, and by yourself. I assume you're not accusing yourself or a bot of racism and bias, so it's obvious that the person you're accusing of racism, lying, using unreliable sources, hatred of the Serer, and hero-worshipping a slave raider, is me. But considering nothing I wrote remotely resembles any of that, you'll need to show your work. If your attacks aren't against me, then your reversion doesn't even address the problem, and there's no need to be so accusatory. In the meantime, Wikipedia:GOODFAITH.

I'm not your enemy, and I'm not trying to push some radical pro-Wolof or pro-Fula agenda. We're both interested in African history. We should be working together to make the wiki better. Add better sources, if you think the existing ones aren't good enough. For God's sake, just don't be so rude. Catjacket (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not your enemy either. However, I've been here long enough to witness anti-Serer sentiment, hatred, and bias, and even personal attacks against me. Anyway, if you take offence to my edit summary, I apologise. Moving forward, let's work together and make African articles better.Tamsier (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)