Talk:Yoruba religion

Let’s use the talk page to actually talk
“The anthropologist Robert Voeks described Yoruba religion as being animistic, noting that it was "firmly attached to place".

Can anyone kindly explain to us how the inclusion of the above improves the article.

I put it to anyone who cares to listen that it actually attempts to degrade, belittle, stifle the spirit of the article.

The above is nothing other than a false positive that is out of place and totally out of pocket.

What enhancements does the inclusion of the above give to the article? 2A04:4A43:430F:EA93:18BC:60C7:E65A:562 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This removal ? The content seems possibly WP:DUE (I know nothing about him). This article is supposed to be of summary of independent WP:RS on the subject, and if Voek is on one of those, he should be in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've restored it. I suspect this is by the now blocked editor who has been removing it,(although before their block). Doug Weller  talk 11:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Discussion has taken place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Four of the columns in the table 'List of Orisha' are superfluous
Only the first two columns seem meaningful, as the rest have the same content on all rows (all the listed Orisha are Yoruba, all are part of Yoruba religion, all come from Yorubaland etc.). One or two rows may have a qualification ('part' or something like this), but if it is necessary to have such a qualification, it would be better to place it in a footnote. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)