Talk:Ukuthwasa

GA review discussion
Hi @Sawyer-mcdonell, I think it is better to discuss this with you rather than re-nominate the article. As I mentioned on my talk previously, I understand your issues with using words like "journey" and "traditional practice" put I do not think I can change that as I do not want to upheld one view especially after South Africa adopted the Traditional Health Practitioners Act 35 of 2004 but I understand the sentiment. I have used encyclopaedic language, and start each section that takes the South African cultural perspective by "In the culture of traditional healers of Southern Africa, ... " to find a proper language that describes this topic without infringing on other people cultures, that - as I stated earlier - are upheld by the law. I did not present any part of that section as fact (except from the act itself), and would amend any part that convey such a message (see NPOV tutorial).

Without the need to be philosophical about how to present (or contest) certain views, I think it will constructive if you can point out where the language can be improved without information suppression.

I also understand the contested sources used for the ritual part but whether the practices is wrong or right, these sources converge when describing the event. The sources that you critiqued are used only in the section that pertain to the cultural aspect of this ritual (or the process). I doubled checked that they are not anywhere else.

Having dedicated a lot of time to write this article, I would appreciate your opinion to improve it before a re-nom. PS: fixed the lead and there is an offline book by Livingstone Mqotsi called A Study of Ukuthwasa I will be reading to expand the text more. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i still think it does not meet the GA criteria - whether the sources you're using agree with each other on the ritual aspect isn't relevant if they're unreliable, low-quality sources, which they are. you've got a ton of excellent academic sources, and the Mqotsi book seems promising; see how much you can get out of those. in addition to the sourcing, the article still lacks clarity and focus - i have no issue with terms like "traditional practice" as that's a completely neutral term, and "journey" is acceptable if RS are using it, but it makes it more confusing when many different terms are being used. i would also suggest some reorganization - does the "cost" subsection really belong under the "criticism" section? it doesn't mention criticism of ukuthwasa. likewise with the sections under "compatibility with other modern systems". if i were reviewing the article at this stage, it'd still be a QF; i'm not seeing significant improvement (other than the lead being cut down, which is good) in sourcing or organization. however, you're welcome to renominate it and get a fresh opinion. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailed answer. Let's see what I will get from Mqotsi's book and find more reliable sources for the ritual section, as I think, it is where we have the QF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)