Talk:Traditional healers of Southern Africa

A lot of new information has been put into this article in the last couple of months. Unfortunately, the flow of the article has become more difficult to read and a number of inaccuracies have crept into the article. I plan to restructure the article while trying to keep as much of the new information as possible and clarify where a number of inaccuracies have crept into the article. A number of points that I intend to clear/clarify

1. When dealing with the subject of sangomas across Southern Africa, it must be remembered that certain practises/beliefs in one area does not mean a general practice across all sangoma groups across all cultures - example of this is the current line in cosmology : "Often the crab, nokala, is invoked as a mediator between the human world and the world of spirits. The crab is given this power because of its ability to move between the world of the land and the sea" - While this is a good example of the type of beliefs that some sangomas can hold, it does not represent the general sangoma population as a whole and could be used as an example, but not as a blanket statement.
2. The opening summary paragraphs talk a lot about the origin/meaning of the word sangoma without providing a summary of what a sangoma is/does/believes - I suggest that the original paragraphs are reintroduced which provide a general summary of who and what sangomas are. The meaning, language and derivatives of the word should go into a seperate section.

I propose that the article be broken down into the following main areas :

• Beliefs and Background - General discussion around ancestors, muti, witchcraft etc.
• Divination & Healing Practises - Throwing the bones/diagnosis, uses of mutis (bath, vomiting, steaming, cuttings etc.), snuff & prayer, animal sacrifice etc. Also can be used to outline specific practises pertaining to certain cultures - eg Femba (sniffing) used to extract evil spirits/animal entities from a patient (anti-sorcery practise)
• Thwasa and Initiation - Calling/sickness, thwasa and initiation
• Drumming & Ancestral dancing - Drumming, ancestral songs (call & response), ancestral dances / celebration
• White Sangomas - I will create a new topic to discuss the section white sangomas
• Other sections - Controversy, Conflict with Western Medicine, Legal Status etc.

I will also create a seperate topic to discuss the inaccuracies, misinterpretations and generalisations that have crept into the article.

My field of expertise is traditional practises mainly around the Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo and surrounding areas, especially as to how the practises have evolved in township life. I will also be adding a couple of pictures to emphasise certain practises and points. Most of my contributions/experience is experiential, however I will attempt to reference as much as I can.

Mycelium101 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This section is designed to discuss inaccuracies and generalisations within the article. The article should refrain of making sweeping statements that come across as a common or general practice/belief if it is not know whether the practice/reference is common or specific to a certain group/sangoma. Examples of general/common practices and beliefs are ancestors, the use of snuff, muti, throwing the bones, possession, animal sacrifice (chicken, goat, cow) etc. Examples of specific practices is stating that a specific plant is used to heal a specific ailment, specific beliefs around the uses of animals/animal parts.

Below are some examples of inacurracies within the article that I wish to discuss. Please feel free to add your contribution or clarify below my comments :

Section Ngoma

"Ngoma is a healing practice that can be compared to western psycho-analysis and group therapy"

:This is a narrow component of the practice and does not encompass the entire practice. The practice includes diagnosis, baptisms, death rituals, healing physical ailments, spritiual advisor, social work, finding lost objects etc.

:

:The original article explained it clearer : ie

:"Sangomas have many different social and political roles in the community: divination, healing, directing rituals, finding lost cattle, protecting warriors, counteracting witches, and narrating the history, cosmology, and myths of their tradition. They are highly revered and respected in their society, where illness is thought to be caused by witchcraft, pollution (contact with impure objects or occurrences) or by the ancestors themselves, either malevolently, or through neglect if they are not respected, or to show an individual her calling to be a Sangoma. For harmony between the living and the dead, vital for a trouble-free life, the ancestors must be shown respect through ritual and animal sacrifice." Mycelium101 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"The first step is to purify the patient in both body and mind. This may be done with white medicine that is plant or chalk based, or it may be a process of bathing"

:In my experience, the first step is usually throwing the bones in order to diagnose the problem and then to purify the patient if required. A white medicine (too specific) is not necessarily used, however I do agree that the cleansing usually starts with a bath with herbs. Mycelium101 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"The spirit speaks through the patient to tell the Sangoma what what sort of spirit they are and how many are present. If the patient has trouble speaking they may be given medicine to help them express their problem. Drumming is then played and the patient sings the song of the spirits which actively inform the healer of the proper treatment. The Sangoma may ask for clarification from the patient."

:I believe this is inaccurate. The practise of ancestral posession / speaking from the ancestors is the strict domain of the sangoma/healer and not the patient. I have never heard of the patient talking through the ancestors unless the patient is a sangoma themselves (which I have seen numerous times). The job of the sangoma is to divine the problem of the patient and not the other way round. This is how the patient develops a trust for that sangoma, if the sangoma can successfully 'see' the patients problems without the patient telling them first.Mycelium101 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

:

Section Sangoma

"They wear beads around the neck to represent the helping spirits. When they are fully trained they will wear full bracelets and anklets that show their status within the Sangoma order [9]. The beads also produce sound during dance that adds to the rhythm of the drum. They wear white beads in their hair as well."

:Mostly thwasas wear beaded bracelets and anklets. This is not specific only to fully trained sangomas. They can be taken off once initiation is complete (although most leave some on), and it is my experience that they do not represent any form of status or hierarchy. (Most of the elderly sangomas I have met do not wear any type of identification whatsoever) The beads are personal between the sangoma and ancestor or can be used to represent their schooling and/or lineage. There are no hard and fast rules regarding the meaning of the beads. In most cases, a sangoma can instantly tell the level of experience, dedication and discipline of another sangoma simply within the greeting between 2 sangomas. The beads also do not produce sounds during dance - those are different specific ankle bands made of seeds or bottle tops. Mycelium101 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Section Divination and Diagnosis

"To determine if a patient's problem is spirit based the patient must visit a diviner. Some Sangoma act as diviners but this is generally a practice that is outside of the structure of the Sangoma order. In Swaziland, the diviner is called a [Takoza. She is dressed in red ocher colored clothing and had red ocher coated dread locks, a distinctly different appearance than the sangoma."

:I would suggest mostly the opposite. In current South Africa, most sangomas divine by throwing the bones and is definitely a practice that is well within the structure of the Sangoma order. The word Thokoza (Takoza) is used to greet/agree with a Sangoma (especially when in ancestor posession) not to define a type of diviner. The red ocher coloured clothing and red ocher dread locks is used in specific stages of thwasa in certain traditions. Mycelium101 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Talk:Traditional healers of South Africa/GA1}}

I have just added 2 external links to the external links sections. While they were seen as doing no active harm to the article, they were deemed as not appropriate for a GA quality article as they do not fit the rigourous criteria of a GA standard article. I have readded them, as I believe they provide invaluable extension and insight into the culture and practices of traditional healers and the article is no longer nominated for a GA standard article. (As noted previously, I have neither any affiliation nor have I ever contacted any person from any of these links, and value them solely on their ability to enhance the understanding of the article)

1. The first link [http://www.mphutungwane.co.za/community/ Mphutungwane] is a website that has managed by a notable traditional healer and expert in the field, Amanda Gcabashe. I came across her website in an article in You Magazine which profiled a number of traditional sangomas and how they are utilising technology in their arts and practices. The BBC wrote an article on her which can be found at [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7969109.stm South Africa's hi-tech healer]
2. The second link is a photo gallery of a photographer that took photos of traditional healers around the Cape Area at [http://peterfrank-gallery.com/sangomas/ Gallery of sangomas from different cultures around South Africa]. The focus of the website is the photos and not the commercial value of them, as there are no direct opportunity to buy these prints from the site.

If you have any issues comments regarding including/excluding these links, please discuss here. Mycelium101 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

::*Conflict of Interest Accusations - Interested readers, future editors & reviewers of this article should be aware of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=513330880#Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa Conflict Of Interest (COI) Accusations] that were made against me by the original GA1 reviewer for including these links above. These accusations were rejected by the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard experts and advisors due to lack of evidence and apparent misinterpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines for External Links by the accuser. The full conversation and accusations can be found here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=513330880#Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa]. Mycelium101 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

:::*I'm afraid that is an entirely erroneous assessment of the discussion. First to correct your errors: 1) the thread was closed with no action taken, and since no action was requested, nothing was rejected. 2) I haven't "misinterpreted" anything, let alone how we use external links. Your use of external links in an educational article is extremely odd and unusual. The vast majority of educational topics do not link to commercial web pages or web sites advertising products or services. Because of your SPA behavior in this matter (this is the only topic you seem to ever work on), I brought my concerns to both the external links and COI noticeboards where they were addressed by multiple editors. At no time have I ever requested action, however, I may have to do this in the future. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

::::*Fortunately, interested parties are able to reach their own assessment of the resolution of the COI accusation by reading the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=513330880#Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa COI conversation] themselves. (Please be aware that according to WP:COIN Outcome Possibilities #2, you are to refrain from further accustations of COI unless you can produce additional evidence of a COI.) Mycelium101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::*Could you detail these alleged "accusations" that I am to refrain from. Quotes might help. Worries and concerns about how you are using your account aren't "accusations". Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

::::::*I do not wish to discuss this further, as the matter has been closed and resolved with no objections from yourself. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please reopen the topic on WP:COIN. Mycelium101 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, charlatan sangomas and scam artists are extremely common around the major cities of South Africa. There are thousands of adverstisement fliers and posters on almost every street corner, especially in the CBD and densely populated areas of all major cities, especially Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban etc., that advertise fraudulent sangomas, faith healers and scam artists. These scam artists and charlatans are mainly of West African origin (mainly Nigeria) that have moved to South Africa and are opportunistic in nature and their motivation is not healing, but to extract as much money as possible from those that visit them.

The flyers target mainly migrants and foreigners that have no experience with sangomas and inyangas and therefore can't tell the difference. The presence of them are becoming more and more online too. Examples of these charlatans is this edit of this page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa&oldid=537729468] and these websites : [http://www.sangomamuti.co.za/index.html], [http://www.drabubakr.co.za/], [http://www.myspellsforyou.co.za/], [http://www.spiritualhealings.co.za/], [http://www.bestofwitchcraft.co.za/] to name a few. These are all false sangomas at best and scam artists at worst.

The charltans are relatively easy to spot from the following common points in their advertisments :

• Zero or only token emphasis of the importance of the ancestors and no focus on the cultural aspects of traditional healing or harmony with ancesors
• Emphasis of cures that appeal to ones sense of insecurity and self-gratification (love, money, sexual problems, success etc.)
• Talking about healing using terms such as witches, witchcraft or witch doctor (Witches or abatagati are very evil people in the eyes of a sangoma and a legitimate sangoma/inyanga would never associate their practises with the word witch)
• Lack of mention of the tradition / tribal affiliation of the sangoma ie. Xhosa, Zulu, Shangaan, Swazi, Pedi etc.
• Lack of mention of where and how they were trained. (The training (thwasa) plays an important role for a sangoma throughout their career.)
• Describing their healing as 'spells'. (Same as witchcraft, a spell is deemed as black magic by sangomas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycelium101 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

These charlatans and scam artists destroy hundreds, if not thousands of peoples lives every day by swindling them out of their life savings, based on false promises and sleight of hand trickery. Legitimate sangomas and traditional healing organisations are actively fighting these people both via legal and other means, however, this will take many years, if not decades to combat.

Unfortunately, the image that was just added here (in good faith) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa&diff=556640976&oldid=552572522] has all the hallmarks of an advert of a charlatan or scam-artist and not a legitimate sangoma. The website advertised in the picture [http://www.sangomabobo.co.za/] does not appear legitimate in any shape or form for the reasons outlined above. I would love to move it and write a section on fake sangomas and scam artists, however, it would all be WP:ORIGINAL, so I cannot. Therefore, I have to revert this edit as it is highly likely that the advertisement [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doctor_Bobo_Witch_Doctor_and_Abortion_Flyer_In_Joe_Slovo_Park,_Cape_Town,_South_Africa.jpg] is of a charlatan or scam artist and not a legitimate sangoma. Mycelium101 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

:I agree and support your revert. I have seen press articles about the issue like [http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/traditional-healers-what-you-need-to-know-1.1422478#.UaB3sdI3Cz5 this one] so I think it would be worth adding something about it to the article, even possibly with an ad image like the one removed under a separate heading. These ads are everywhere on our streets and it should be easy to obtain a free image of one. Helen (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

:I would have included [http://www.thenewage.co.za/83744-1008-53-Traditional_healers_seek_equality this source] under Legal status which is my main area of interest here but the online article seems to be missing important content: "Speaking to Morning Live on (Monday) Deputy Health Minister Dr Gwen Ramokgopa said 'in terms of the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (2007) aims to address public concerns over unscrupulous and bogus traditional medicine practitioners and practices.'" Helen (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

:The THO, which represents some but not all local traditional healers, has done [http://tho-news.blogspot.com/2012/11/traditional-healers-say-no-to.html a 180 degree turn] regarding regulation and there is sadly little press coverage regarding the issue. Helen (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

:: Thanks for these references. They help a lot. Based on the sources you provided, I dug a little bit deeper and uncovered some other excellent sources :

::* [http://www.looklocal.co.za/looklocal/content/en/north-east-joburg/north-east-joburg-news-municipal?oid=6604458&sn=Detail&pid=490272&Sangomas-and-healers-must-register Sangomas and healers must register]

::* [http://www.looklocal.co.za/looklocal/content/en/north-east-joburg/north-east-joburg-news-crime?oid=6797940&sn=Detail&pid=490272&Sangomas-cannot-make-you-rich Sangomas cannot make you rich]

::* [http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/wealthy-women-sucked-into-sangoma-scams-1.981910 Wealthy women sucked into ‘sangoma’ scams]

::* [http://africawitness.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/366/ Inside the Fake Healers Shrine]

::* [http://www.citypress.co.za/news/sangoma-defrauds-teacher-of-r1m/ Sangoma defrauds teacher of R1m]

::* [http://www.tametimes.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7358:community-warned-of-bogus-sangomas&catid=77:newsgeneral Community warns of Bogus Sangomas]

::These sources together, cover a well rounded perspective of the problem. I will put all the information together and write a couple of paragraphs regarding this in a new section and use the previous picture that I reverted as illustration. Mycelium101 (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

::: Section has been added. Comments, direct edits or fixing up my prose is welcome. Mycelium101 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your efforts. I read it quickly, will review again later when I have some more time. Helen (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

::::Yes, many thanks. A few days ago when the original revert happened I was going to suggest we document such charlatans more thoroughly, since your original explanation for the revert was pretty eloquent evidence. I'm glad the photo could spark a useful addition to the article. Steven Walling • talk 04:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::Thanks Steven. Your addition actually triggered something that I have been wanting to write about for quite a while, but didn't know where to start. I was thinking about it from a different angle. The photo and the links that Helen provided, was exactly what was needed to realise how to put it together. Mycelium101 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There can't be any cultural relativism here. No scientific studies exist to prove the reliability of traditional South African medicine. It has to be made clear in the article. Wikipedia has a responsibility to its South African readers to give the most reliable scientific knowledge on traditional medicine. And that is, it doesn't work. And it can be harmful, even life threatening. This is demanded by WP's guidelines.

See: WP:MEDRS

Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials.

This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine.

87.93.55.239 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.93.17.233 (talk)

::Mr IP Address, before we begin, let me point out some things to be clear. So far, you have displayed a behaviour of WP:SOAPBOX and have not provided any specific details for your concerns or even any WP:RELIABLE sources to investigate. You have made some very ignorant blanket statements and nothing further apart from some aggressive reversions starting here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=668382774]. This is WP:NOTFORUM to discuss your personal point of views on a matter. Provide reliable sources and specific concerns if you are interested in improving the article. If not, you are just demonstrating troll behaviour. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668438128&oldid=668437448] If you continue to behave as such, this section will be removed as a demonstration that you are here to troll and not to provide any valuable input (Maybe try signing in too).

::The article is heavily referenced by material that conforms to WP:MEDRS standards. There are numerous references from the top professors of plant and biotechnology of South Africa [http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Faculties/science/departments/botany/about/Documents/Ben-Erik%20van%20Wyk_CV.pdf], there are references from medical doctors and also from United Nations Organisations, such as UNAIDS [http://data.unaids.org/Publications/IRC-pub01/jc299-tradheal_en.pdf], The World Health Organisation [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/release38/en/] and the Treatment Action Campaign and AIDS Law Project [http://healthlink.org.za/uploads/files/TAC_Law_Proj.pdf]. The article is heavily referenced from reliable secondary sources and any points of view are highlighted as such. I suggest you read through the WP:NOTTRUTH article, and provide some sources backing your claims, else your opinion is irrelevant.

:: The section heading has been changed as it's unhelpful and disruptive to have such a long diatribe in the section heading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668393844&oldid=668393734]. Please use signed comments to make your statements or comments. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

::: My point is about traditional healing being unscientific and harmful. And therefore that is written in the headline. There are no high quality medical papers saying that herb enemas, animal sacrifices, drinking goat blood or washing in goat blood or talking to dead ancestors, or taking herbs that make you vomit, or taking herbs that can be toxic etc. etc. would cure illnesses. There is not one reliable, mainstream medical paper that would support such claims.

::: An encyclopedia needs to be a reliable source of verified, scientific, rational information. I take the vantage point of a South African, in 2015 or in 2025, as wikipedia is here to stay irrespective of its quality, uncertain of whether to trust traditional healing or not, googling for advice and coming up this page. The information here has to be reliable, scientific and of sound medical advice. In its current state the article is completely unacceptable. There are a few caveats, couple of soundings for concern, but overall the article is very positive and supportive towards, at worst fraudulent and life threatening, unscientific practices that do NOT cure seriously ill people and can seriously harm healthy people. Whatever "positives" there are are fully placebo effects and mistaken causation. Body's natural processess cure the common cold, stomach bug or some other lesser illness, and not the herbs, not the sacrificed animal and not the enema.

::: This skeptical, rational, empirical epistemological stance, the ethos of modern science and modern western medicine applies to christian faith healing, shamanism, homeopathy and traditional (South) African healing.

::: Age expectancy in Africa was around 20 years before western influence in good and bad. That is how well the traditional healing works. It doesn't work. It's illusionary medicine, and in the larger picture it's a threat to a working civilizational fabric, working health practices and damaging to human health. These are facts, this is science. And the significance for a country and continent ravaged by HIV/AIDS and other serious threaths to human health is of no small concern. Superstition and traditional healing are interwoven and give credence to practices that do far more harm than good in the larger picture and in the longer run. From Tanzanian witch doctors to Niger delta exorcists to South African sangomas. The South Africa of 2050, if it wants to be a modern, prosperous society cannot be a society where there are 10x more traditional healers than real doctors applying real science looking after the health concerns of the citizens.

::: To any rational, scientific person these are self-evident truths. How to completely rewrite the article so that a) traditional practitioners are not insulted (that is NOT the point) b) traditional practices are described in required detail and c) (most important) the inadequacy, dangers, and unscientific, unverified, unreliable, superstitious nature of traditional healing is made clear, that is another question. But an encyclopedia, the source of rational and reliable information cannot pander to pseudoscience, magic crystals or goat blood. That is clear. South Africans deserve better.

176.93.61.118 (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

:::: This is still your opinion only. The talk page is not a forum and your opinion is irrelevant here, as is mine. You still haven't provided any reliable references or specific details of concern in the article that are sourced incorrectly. There is no recommendations in the article on what is deemed medical. The article documents the traditional practices and beliefs of sangomas. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not endorse nor condemn. It merely reflects available reliable sources. The section heading needs to remain neutral as per WP:TALKNEW. Do not change it again as it is being disruptive. I would also like to see a reliable reference for your claim of a '20 year age expectancy before western influence', as you are approaching borderline racism here.

:::: Also, please explain why you have 2 IP addresses or posing as another IP Address. Mycelium101 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

::::: It is not my opinion only, that faith healing is unscientific. It is a verified scientific fact, and it's normatively applied in several wikipedia articles on different forms of faith healing. An article on homeopathy or so called Christian Science or creationism for that matter couldn't ever be written like this article. Adding indigenous does not make it less unscientific, less harmful or guarded from criticism. South Africans deserve to be treated by real doctors and real medicine, not by imaginary medicine that does not cure seriously ill people and can seriously harm healthy people. This is the opposite of racism. And your accusation is very distasteful. Age expectancy in Europe varied between 25-35 years just 300 years ago. In Africa it was somewhat worse. This all changed with the scientific revolution, modern agricultural practices and modern medicine. Faith healing, herbs, goat blood, enemas, ancestor worship, prayers, amulets didn't contribute one bit. It is from that scientific and rational angle that an encyclopedia must cover issues that are linked to health and medicine and have real life consequences. 188.67.89.105 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Livescience - 'Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years' by critical thinker, Benjamin Radford - [http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html]- "But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact. "... "Again, the high infant mortality rate skews the "life expectancy" dramatically downward. If a couple has two children and one of them dies in childbirth while the other lives to be 90, stating that on average the couple's children lived to be 45 is statistically accurate but meaningless. Claiming a low average age of death due to high infant mortality is not the same as claiming that the average person in that population will die at that age."

:::::: - You still have not provided any reliable sources for your statistics or your claims. My position is stated, and without any reliable sources provided by you to investigate or specific examples in the article to discuss, I cannot discuss this any further as you are merely stating opinion and conjecture. Once again, please read the article WP:NOTTRUTH to understand why your opinion has no relevance here. Mycelium101 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::: If your point is that modern, western medicine is saving mostly 0-5 year old infants in historical comparison, and the impact is less on older age groups, there is no disagreement. For thousands of years traditional healing rubbed infants with herbs, fed them herbal mixtures or goat blood and gave them enemas, or prayed by their bedsides, excorsed spirits and tried to shield them from evil eyes and the infants, they died. This only changed with modern medicine.

::::::: In the article nearly all sources are pages from books that most editors have no access to. There are no links to reliable high quality medical papers as required per WP:MEDRS. And such sources of course do NOT exist.

::::::: The article starts with

::::::: "healing physical, emotional and spiritual illnesses" ... "counteracting witches"

::::::: and continues in similar vain. The tone is approving of the practices, and the claims are made neutrally in a as-a-matter-of-fact tone.

::::::: "By using ngoma, the sangoma can create harmony between the spirits which results in the alleviation of the patient's suffering."

::::::: "An experienced inyanga will generally seek the guidance of an ancestral spirit before embarking to find and collect muti. The healer, through dreams, or during prayers, will be advised of an auspicious time for collecting the plants, and in some cases will be told which particular plants to collect for a specific patient and where these plants are located. The healer supplements the advice from an ancestral spirit with their own knowledge, training and experience."

::::::: The article is full of factually and neutrally given claims like these. It clearly creates the picture to an unsuspecting and uninformed reader that these are valid practices, and that there is evidence for them working. It should be made clear in the article that that is not the case. I'm not going to butcher the article by removing such content, which would then mean pretty much the whole article. I'm saying that it needs to be rewritten. Much of the current content can be used, but it has to be placed in a rational and critical, scientific framework.

::::::: To give a comparison. About, as far as I can reckon, one of the most famous, if not the most famous, sangoma in South Africa, and one linked to in the article, Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa. It says on his subpage, that:

::::::: "Credo has been an active and vocal advocate in the use of traditional African medicines for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer and tuberculosis. He created a trust called the Vulinda Trust in 1999 to preserve traditional knowledge and to promote the use of these traditional medicines. The primary focus of his research has been on a South African plant called unwele in Zulu (Sutherlandia Frutescens). Unwele is traditionally used as a well being tonic, however has demonstrated anticancer activity through in vitro studies. Research of the efficacy of Sutherlandia Frutescens in the treatment of HIV/AIDS is ongoing and phase IIb trials are being conducted at the South African Herbal Science and Medicine Institute (SAHSMI)."

::::::: And here is what science based medicine has to say ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherlandia_frutescens#Scientific_study ):

::::::: Although some animals studies have been conducted on the putative pharmacology of S. frutescens,[2] there is no good evidence relating to its safety and efficacy.[4] S. frutescens has been promoted as useful to people with HIV/AIDS, but there is no evidence of benefit, and it interacts adversely with conventional drugs used, such as antiretroviral drugs.[5][6][7]

::::::: And the sources given:

::::::: Johnson, Q; Syce, J; Nell, H; Rudeen, K; Folk, WR (2007). "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Lessertia frutescens in healthy adults". PLoS clinical trials 2 (4): e16. doi:10.1371/journal.pctr.0020016. PMC 1863514. {{PMID|17476314}}.

::::::: Mills, Edward; Cooper, Curtis; Seely, Dugald; Kanfer, Izzy (2005). "African herbal medicines in the treatment of HIV: Hypoxis and Sutherlandia. An overview of evidence and pharmacology". Nutrition Journal 4: 19. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-4-19. PMC 1156943. {{PMID|15927053}}.

::::::: Müller, AC; Kanfer, I (2011). "Potential pharmacokinetic interactions between antiretrovirals and medicinal plants used as complementary and African traditional medicines". Biopharmaceutics & drug disposition 32 (8): 458–70. doi:10.1002/bdd.775. {{PMID|22024968}}.

::::::: Mills, E; Foster, BC; Van Heeswijk, R; Phillips, E; Wilson, K; Leonard, B; Kosuge, K; Kanfer, I (2005). "Impact of African herbal medicines on antiretroviral metabolism". AIDS (London, England) 19 (1): 95–7. doi:10.1097/00002030-200501030-00013. {{PMID|15627040}}.

::::::: And that is the difference between imaginary medicine and science based medicine. And that is why South Africans like all people in this world deserve to be treated by science based medicine and why different forms of faith healing and interwoven superstitions are obstacles to human well being. South Africans who are uninformed or uncertain on these questions and are seeking information, deserve a scientific, reliable and verified answer from an encyclopedia. And that is why the article needs to be rewritten. I'm not outlaying how, but why that is the case. I would wish more people to consider this view. Outside reviewers of the article content would be helpful. 188.67.89.105 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

{{outdent}} A couple of points to make :

• My point in mentioning the LiveScience article on Life expectancy is to highlight your own predujices and dependance on pseudoscientific stats to create a culturally ignorant hypothesis that Africa needs to be saved from itself, which amounts to nothing more than historical revisionism. You presented them as facts and science and relied on pseudohistory and distorted statistics which you are unable to corroborate (Africans had a "20 year age expectancy before western influence") to justify a fallacy and neo-colonial understanding of African culture and history. Wim van Binsbergen, Associated Senior Researcher at the African Studies Centre in Leiden, summarises it best when he says, "One of the principal reasons the North Atlantic has had both for studying ‘other cultures’, and for reifying these as absolutely and insurmountably different, has been: to allow North Atlantic civilisation to construct itself on the basis of a claim of a rationality and science incomparably superior to the thought processes engaged in by humans in other continents."[http://www.shikanda.net/general/paper_brussels_BIS.pdf] A scenario and attitude that, unfortunately, Africa has seen far too much of. No wonder the African Union has adopted and popularised the phrase "African solutions for African problems."
• You have stated that the article is "full of claims made neutrally in a as-a-matter-of-fact tone." and "The article is full of factually and neutrally given claims like these". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668470223&oldid=668465180] From your own acknowledgement, you have confirmed that the current content is written in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone. Therefore, we don't have a dispute of neutrality, but a standard run-of-the-mill wikipedia dispute on *content*. This is no different to any article, so if you feel that a view point is not suitably represented, and you can find reliable references and are able to write it in a neutral manner, then add it. It is up to each contributor to provide and neutrally represent the reliable sources that they believe should be represented. The article hasn't distorted any references, it has merely articulated them in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone. Therefore, the removal of the neutral dispute tag is not a violation of WP's guidelines[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668542198&oldid=668518663], as you have admitted that there is no dispute of the neutrality of the current content but you have an issue that you believe certain content is not represented.
• If there is one criticism of the article, is that it closely paraphrases many of the references that it represents. That is one of the reasons that it did not make a GA status, and rightly so. Some areas should be rephrased as to not closely paraphrase it's sources. The ones you have mentioned above are examples, and that is easily fixed. It might get us closer to another GA nomination.
• The relevant place to make your points on Credo Mutwa is on that page, not here. The efficacy of individual medicinal plants is not within the scope of this article. This article is about documenting the cultural and traditional practices of SA traditional healers. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

:: I, of course, did not rely on pseudoscience. Infant mortality is part of the general concept of age/life expectancy. This is all I said, and it is true. Infant mortality is not nice nor desirable. Neither are HIV or AIDS which should be treated with modern medicine, and not with a herb with adverse health effects, like one of the most famous sangomas in South Africa suggests. Therefore that is entirely relevant for the article. It is one detail in the larger picture, that South African traditional healing does not work, there is no evidence it works, it does not cure ill people, it is irresponsible to claim so. Only modern science based medicine offers hope of curing seriously ill humans.

:: Falsehoods told in a matter-of-fact tone do no become facts. The article is full of falsehoods. And there is not one link to a reliable, high quality medical paper, as required by WP:MEDRS. Book pages are not valid sources for claims of faith healing working. WP:MEDRS makes it clear that it applies also to alternative medicine, so you cannot hide behind indigenous culture. Indigenous culture or not, it is unscientific, potentially very harmful to people, and do not belong in an encyclopedia in the current format.

:: Quoting what you quoted "a claim of a rationality and science incomparably superior to the thought processes engaged in by humans in other continents", and the rational reply is that, they are. Of course they are. Rationality and science are superior. Far superior. Rationality and science *are* the basis of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a source of rational and scientific knowledge. An encyclopedia cannot pander to superstition, religious faith, claims of supernatural. It is the responsibility of an encyclopedia and its contributors to formulate rational, scientific, verifiable knowledge. If you want to write positively of faith healing, gods, herb enemas, goat blood or talking to ancestors, an encyclopedia is not the place for that.

:: The above said, it is clear that there remains a dispute over the neutrality, accuracy and NPOV of the article. Therefore it is correct, as by WP's guidelines, that the tag remains. The article has to be rewritten to place the content in a critical, rational and scientific framework. I would prefer to talk first before editing. And see what others think. But it is unacceptable that the article would remain in its current form in the long term. South African readers of an encyclopedia deserve the scientific and rational view on pseudomedical practices that do not work, do not cure their serious illnesses. It will cost them hard earned money, for no tangible return. And can seriously harm them. This has to be made clear in the article. 188.67.13.48 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

::: This is now going around in circles. When you say the article is full of falsehoods, you still haven't read WP:NOTTRUTH. The article is full of references to valid reliable sources that are also covered by WP:MEDRS mentioned here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668450155&oldid=668438335], whether you like it or not, whether you agree with them or not or even whether they are factual or not. Verifiability Not Truth. Rationality and science *is not* the basis of Wikipedia - Verifiability is. By your very initial quote from WP:MEDRS : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668080126&oldid=665057233] "Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". Ironically, even if Sutherlandia/Cancerbush/Unwele was mentioned in this article, which it is not, a recommendation on it's use from the SA Ministry of Health would still conform to MEDRS as it is a national body. We are not here to determine what is fact or what is fiction, what is acceptable and what is not. We are here to reference and represent reliable sources. It's the cornerstone of Wikipedia. If you wish your version of facts over verifiability, then write your own blog. The onus is now yours to substantiate your claims of non-neutrality or POV with substance and reliable sources, instead of your opinions about what wikipedia should or should not be, or what the facts are or are not. The neutral dispute is not long term tag, so if you cannot provide any further evidence / reliable sources of your concerns, dispute is over.

::: Incidently, I notice that the contributions to wikipedia from your IP Addresses are the only contributions that you have made to Wikipedia. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.93.17.233], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.33.21.5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.67.89.105]. Can you please confirm whether these are your first edits to Wikipedia or whether you have a registered account that you are not singing into to make these edits? Mycelium101 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

:::: Your attitude is not engaged, nor helpful. You have not given one single reputable medical paper for your and the article's claims of supernatural cures for physical and "spiritual" illnesses. Such papers of course do NOT exist. No reputable paper would let such content through its peer-review and/or quality standards. The books you link to are either obscure and unreliable sources, not WP:MEDRS standard, or the sources given do not support the claims made. It's like giving a page in a creationist journal/book and claiming it's a quality source. It isn't. Or to a political tract or the relativist musings of an individual. But a reliable medical journal it isn't.

:::: The clear fact here is that there are no reliable, high quality sources for the verifiability of supernatural "healing". A Governmental institution supporting a potentially toxic weed as a treatment for HIV/AIDS, a grass that has adverse effects on HIV treatment as per several REAL scientific studies in reputable papers, is not a reliable secondary sources in serious questions of health. Faith healing does not work, there is no evidence for it, it is unscientific and potentially harmful, that is the normative stance at wikipedia from homeopathy to christian science, scientology and shamanism. And that WILL be the line that will win here. This article WILL be radically altered. And you can participate in it or not, but it will happen. As it is the responsibility of an encyclopedia to offer reliable and science based information on medical questions. An encyclopedia cannot and WILL not pander to faith healing, herb enemas or exorcism. South Africans deserve better. South Africans deserve reliable information on traditional healing, they deserve to know that it will NOT cure them and that in case of serious illnesses they need to see a REAL doctor, one who applies science based medicine. South Africans deserve better than pseudomedicine, they deserve real medicine, real cures. And the little bit an article like this can help in raising that awareness is the responsibility of an encyclopedia. No pandering to unscientific pseudomedicine, reliable and verifiable information needs to be given. And the article rewritten from this premise.

:::: If you don't want to participate in rewriting the article and instead want to guard it, then go and ask a third party opinion. I would be surprised if you can get a larger collective to support your stance and protect this article from radical editing. As this article has been reviewed by the community in the past and it is C-rated, the lowest rating for an article that is not a stub/start. And that is understandable for the reasons I have outlined. It is unacceptable to offer uninformed South Africans seeking reliable information the falsehoods of ancestral spirits, herb enemas, bone throwings, skin cuttings etc. instead of the verifiable fact, that nothing of it works, and they have to go and see a real doctor in case of health worries.

:::: The article has to reflect that. And the article will reflect that. You can participate in the process or try and fight to keep pseudomedicine on wikipedia's pages, but I wouldn't give your stance high chances of success. Better to accept that the article will be radically changed and take part in the process. 87.95.14.161 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

::::: I'm not opposed to including any scientific material or any other material positive, negative or neutral, if it is sourced to WP standards, written neutrally and accurately represents the source material (unlike your example above from the scientific research on Sutherlandia, which is not neutral (good is not a neutral term) and doesn't reflect the source (the source says 'little evidence' not 'no good evidence' + the source was a test on humans which found no statistical relevant adverse effects, which isn't even mentioned). These kinds of things will be challenged, just as I have challenged you on your depiction of African history. What I do object to, as a South African, is your arrogant, self-righteous & culturally ignorant depiction of a central theme of Bantu Southern African culture. Whether you like the label or not, your comments above are rascist and ignorant. The attitude that you have depicted above will not be allowed. So if you feel you can enhance the article in a factual and neutral manner, unlike what you have displayed in your comments so far, then please go ahead. However, accept that the slightest deviation from referenced material or any original research will be challenged and removed. Mycelium101 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Your sources, obscure book pages instead of reputable medical papers on health issues covered by WP:MEDRS will be removed when need be. No claims of supernatural healing working will be left in the article. Reliable quality sources, like on Sutherlandia will be used when need be. You can "challenge" them, or try and twist their content, but it will be of no use, as they are acceptable sources per WP:MEDRS, unlike your book pages. You simply cannot claim in an encyclopedia that faith healing, divination, talking to dead people works, 'source: "a book, p. xxx"', that is unacceptable and can not be tolerated. And it will be altered. And you can try and edit war, but you will lose on this, as it is the basic standard of an encyclopedia not to allow such content. You are in the wrong here. If you want to test it, I repeat, go and ask for a third party opinion, a larger community review of the matter. And your accusations of racism (now second time) are in clear violation of wikipedia's guidelines and will result in a ban if you persist. South Africans deserve reliable, verifiable, scientific and rational information on traditional healing. They deserve to read from an encyclopedia the fact, that faith healing does not work, and they have to go to see a real doctor, who applies science based medicine, in case of health worries. That is what an encyclopedia must offer those who come to it to seek reliable information. And that is the information this article must eventually formulate. I would suggest you take part in the process of changing this article towards that direction. 37.136.26.236 (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::: What is obvious from your comment of "obscure book pages" is that you don't understand how harvard shortened footnotes on wikipedia work. Please click on the template link to understand. The template references the author and the page number. Click on it, and it will take you to the reference section, where you will find the full details of the publication, including an online link if available. As an example, the "Truter 2007, p 56-60" citation will take you to the reference section for the article published in the South African Pharmaceutical Journal Truter, Ilse (September 2007). "African Traditional Healers: Cultural and religious beliefs intertwined in a holistic way". SA Pharmaceutical Journal 74 (8). (I will even link it in the reference section to the online source for you to read in full). I'm curious to understand why you don't think that the article published in the South African Medical Journal [http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/view/5712/3896] which outlines the exact argument of the differences/collaboration between Traditional Healers and South African Medical Practices is not a "reputable medical paper". - I suggest you reading that very carefully to understand how medical practices and cultural relativism work together in a reputable and scientific way in modern South African society before you carry on your high horse.

:::::::You still haven't answered the question about whether or not you have a registered wikipedia account that you are purposefully not using to edit this article. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: You made it now quite clear that you have a political and ideological POV here. Cultural relativism is a point of view, it is not a basis for verifiable, rational and scientific information. Instead it is an ideological premise, which, when applied to subjects like faith healing, can seriously skew what is real, verifiable and scientific and mislead uninformed people. With harmful consequences to human health. That is a position that an encyclopedia cannot take. There are other outlets for culturally relativist and holist medical "science", but an encyclopedia is not one of them. You have not produced one single study, not one, to support any of the claims of faith healing working made in the article. Your attempt at one, this,: http://www.sapj.co.za/index.php/sapj/article/view/239/231, as anyone can read, is an overview, not a study, not a study reviewed and accepted in a high quality medical paper. It doesn't verify anything, it describes. There are no such studies adding up to verifiability on faith healing, talking to dead ancestors or on herb enemas. That is not a high horse, it is not racism, it is only what is scientific, rational and based on verifiability. The standards we have to apply here. Culturally relativist opinions pieces and overviews are not acceptable sources of information on serious questions of health as per WP:MEDRS.

:::::::: This talk I think has come to its end. All claims of faith healing working, that could mislead uninformed South African readers seeking information on the matter, will be removed from the article. This will happen. You have produced no basis for keeping the article in its current form. I think it was fair to talk first and edit later. And we have a conclusion here.

:::::::: But respecting how culturally sensitive this issue is for you, I of course have nothing against it, that you will try and update the article to the required standards of scientific and rational verifiability in a culturally sensitive way. Tell in a culturally sensitive way that faith healing does not work, and in case of health worries, especially more serious health worries or health worries concerning children, South Africans are better advised and need to see a real doctor and cannot rely on imaginary healing, that will not cure them or their children. You can try and tell that in a culturally sensitive way, if you are afraid that saying it in an insensitive way can hurt and offend people. We can take a long term view here at wikipedia. It's been around for 14 years and many of the articles are still requiring lots and lots of work. There's no hurry here. Let's build this page as a reliable source of verifiable scientific and rational information. It will take a lot of work and will require more contributors. It would of course be ideal, if as a South African, you'd know someone from the science based medical community with a more 'on the ground' feeling and knowledge base to these issues, but firmly on the side of verifiability, rationalism and science.

:::::::: I added different tags to the article. I hope they will remain. They are not to insult anyone or to demean anyone. They are placed there, as intended by wikipedia, standard tags, to invite people who know about this topic to work on this article. I'll give people more knowledgeable and more sensitive on the topic time to put the article right in a way that will not insult anyone's cultural sensibilities as that seems to be a central concern here. But if in a 4 months time the article is still lacking in scientific and rational verifiability, and if claims of faith healing working are still made I'll edit it myself to the extent that it needs to be edited.

:::::::: Last comment till then. 188.67.117.144 (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::::: As I've said before, I'm not opposed to adding any material from reliable sources, and I'm not even opposed to working with you to improve the article. I do appreciate discussing this on the talk page instead of edit warring, and I also appreciate your acknowledgement of cultural sensitivities, however I'm also not opposed to adding content that details further issues or complications that arise from traditional healing, that are sourced reliably and I'm happy to work with you for that, if you wish. The article is not meant to state that the power of ancestral healing works, but is meant to state that Sangomas believe in the power of the ancestors to heal. The verifiable part and facts is that sangomas believe it, not that it works. (I think the word belief would be the most commonly used word in the article) If there are areas that come across as factually suggesting that ancestral/traditional healing works, then let me know, and we can discuss and come to a wording that ensures that the reader understands that this is a cultural belief only. The aim of the article was to document the beliefs and traditional practices of sangomas in a neutral manner, it was not meant to endorse nor deny their practice. As a sign of good faith, I suggest taking a paragraph out of the article (leave the lede out for now) and highlight on talk what your concerns are about it. Let's see if we can work together to rewrite that paragraph that suites both sides of the argument, which is what the evolving collaborating nature of WP is designed to do. If we find that we can work together, then we can tackle more complex issues/areas of the article. If not, I'll see you in 4 months.... Start a new section, choose a paragraph, let's discuss it, the concerns and the source and what can be added, and then let's see if we can produce something better than what is currently stated. Mycelium101 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The tags of this article are being removed for the following reasons :

• This article is a clear case of WP:OVERTAGGING and the tagger has yet to demonstrate any specific issues with the actual article content based on the tags.
• The 'unreliable source' tag has been removed for the following reasons :

:- The tagger has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the harvard shortened citation notation format used in this article and therefore has assumed that all references are 'obscure'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668881084&oldid=668708833]

:- In this entire conversation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668891013&oldid=668080126], the tagger has yet to provide one specific reference in the article that is deemed to be an unreliable source.

• The 'speculation' tag has been removed for the following reasons :

:- As this conversation demonstrates [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668891013&oldid=668887151], the article is clear that it documents the *beliefs* of traditional healers and does not attempt to prove or disprove the beliefs. This article is designed to document the culture and traditional beliefs of traditional healers in South Africa, in an academic and anthropological manner.

:- The only 2 instances of concern that were actually raised were rectified [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668599818&oldid=668542400]

:- Based on the conversations above [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668891013&oldid=668080126], the taggers actions demonstrate that the article was tagged more for reasons of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT than of any content dispute.

• The 'medref' tag is being removed for the following reasons :

:- As stated here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATraditional_healers_of_South_Africa&type=revision&diff=668450155&oldid=668438335], this article is heavily referenced with sources that conform to WP:MEDRS - The article is linked to national and international bodies such as UNAIDS, WHO & the Treatment Action Campaign. The article is heavily referenced by the leading Professor of Botany in South Africa, [http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Erik-Van-Wyk/e/B001JS1RUY Professor Ben-Erik Van Wyk] and contains numerous articles that have been published in the South African Medical Journal, the South African Pharmaceutical Journal, The British Medical Journal and various other academic sources, such as the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of California Press.

:- Same reasons as discussed in unreliable sources, the tagger does not understand the harvard shortened notation and therefore sees the references as 'obscure'. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why refs are here, but just to keep them out of the way of other conversations, added another section Mycelium101 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Traditional healers of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521074002/http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=194122&sn=Detail&pid=334&Healers-threaten--poll-boycott to http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=194122&sn=Detail&pid=334&Healers-threaten--poll-boycott
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105110602/http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/forms/2011/nomination_frm.pdf to http://www.doh.gov.za/docs/forms/2011/nomination_frm.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208082522/http://www.paganrightsalliance.org/press.html to http://www.paganrightsalliance.org/press.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521074016/http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=291141&sn=Detail&pid=146826&Witchcraft-education-needed to http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=291141&sn=Detail&pid=146826&Witchcraft-education-needed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608103340/http://www.wits.ac.za/placesofinterest/lifesciencesmuseum/izangoma/indigenous%20healing/2887/ to http://www.wits.ac.za/placesofinterest/lifesciencesmuseum/izangoma/indigenous%20healing/2887/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes the article does explicitly mention other countries (besides South Africa), but it also mentions explicitly that the practices northwards are not exactly the same, and the practitioners may be known under other names, which are neither sangoma or nyanga. If a new article name is accepted, it means that the article has to cover the whole regional subject adequately, which I don't think we are ready to do. Who will describe all the practices up to the Congo? And southern African is spelled with a capital "S", implying that we should know the limits of it, but in fact it is a vague regional descriptor. So rather revert, and we'll know what is being discussed. JMK (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

Need to explain the differences between the 3 types of traditional practitioners in South Africa.

~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:4A0:9B00:D593:ACFC:3F94:6C85 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)