Talk:Yoruba art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change title of this article to "Yoruba Art"[edit]

I would like to change the title of this article from "Yoruba traditional art" to "Yoruba art." The term "traditional" suggests a antiquated, static tradition, whereas many of the modes of art practice described in this article are still alive in contemporary Yoruba art-making practice. Even if that were not the case, I would advocate to change the title to Yoruba Traditional Art, but I believe a more inclusive title will better serve the content of this article.--Alexandrathom (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, but we don't want to have too much on "airport art" as some African articles do. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Johnbod. Ignorance of the diversity and richness of African art, and the perpetuation of that ignorance by way of antiquated language and incomplete articles on Wikipedia, is exactly what I am working to reverse here. I would say that "airport art," which in my understanding is comprised of cheap reproductions of art that is commonly understood to be "traditional" or typical of a given culture, has no place in an article summarizing Yoruba, one of the oldest and finest artistic traditions in Africa, a tradition that remains vital and influential today.Alexandrathom (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yoruba art. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yoruba art. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no such thing as Sub Sahara Africa[edit]

The communities who reside on the continent of Africa aren’t “sub” to anyone or anything, and that includes the Sahara.


Now let’s explore the sentence that was corrected,

“Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in Africa”

This is an accurate statement in its own right, therefore there’s really no need to add any derogatory terminology neither in-front of that, nor behinds this statement as we have already determined this to be factual.

Secondly, as point out earlier, the term “sub Sahara” is absurd, wrong and is as well recognised as a vicious allegory.

This is an open challenge to anyone who insists that the absurd prefix is to be added to the factual statement, for them to provide the rationale behind it.

  1. Otelemuyen (talk) # Otelemuyen (talk) Otelemuyen (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba Art[edit]

I’ve left you a message on the Talk:Yoruba art

There’s really no need to start an editing war, you are in the wrong and you know it.

  1. Otelemuyen (talk) Otelemuyen (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain to us who it is that belongs to the continent you newly created?

As far as I’m aware, there’s no continent named sub-Sahara.


That term is absurd, wrong and frankly border line bigoted. 

Otelemuyen (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why with the war editing[edit]

You’re wrong to call any African the derogatory term “sub Sahara” and I can prove it to you right here, right now.

Instead of war editing, reply here or on the articles talk page.

  1. Otelemuyen (talk) Otelemuyen (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in sub-Saharan Africa.
(2) Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in Africa.
These sentences mean different things. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No they don’t Otelemuyen (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t you get it?

The term sub-Sahara is absurd, wrong and a vicious allegory.

Again, the communities who reside in the continent of Africa aren’t “sub” to anyone or anything, and that includes the Sahara. Otelemuyen (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Otelemuyen, I think this may be a simple misunderstanding. In this situation, the prefix sub- means 'under', not 'less than'. Sub-Sahara means that the part of Africa in question is geographically under the Sahara desert. It's the same prefix that is used for words like submarine (sub "under" + marine "the ocean", something that goes underwater), subcontract (sub "under" + contract "agreement", an agreement that is under/part of a greater agreement), subterranean (sub "under" + terra "the ground", something that is underground) and so on. No one is trying to argue that anyone or anything in Africa is less than anyone or anything else - they're just trying to be clear on the geographical location of the communities in question. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That editor has been blocked for a month, so they won't be able to reply to you. I have to admit that the RfC below became a bit moot as a result of that block, but I agree with you entirely about what "sub" really means. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Answer this question.

Is the statement that reads “ Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in Africa.”

Is that statement true or false? 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


Kindly Answer this question.

Is the statement that reads “ Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in Africa.”

In your opinion, is that statement true or false?


  1. Otelemuyen (talk) Otelemuyen (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigots will be challenged[edit]

This is a message Ficaia, kindly come and discuss your absurd terminology here.


  1. Otelemuyen (talk) Otelemuyen (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on "sub-Saharan Africa"[edit]

Should the first sentence of Yoruba art#History end in the word Africa, or in the phrase sub-Saharan Africa? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Important note: The sentence that was the subject of this RfC has been removed in its entirety, as a copyright violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not really involved in this page, but because there has been edit warring over which term to use, and because the dispute has spilled over to some noticeboards, I felt that there should be a community discussion to resolve this issue. I don't feel strongly either way, but I lean toward "sub-Saharan Africa" as more precise. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the discussion has gone on, I'm increasingly feeling strongly that it should be "sub-Saharan", while also feeling that it might be best to rewrite the sentence entirely instead of worrying over one word. This is being discussed in the Discussion section just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-Saharan Africa because it's the more precise term. This article also desperately needs more sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The source itself is specific: "They divide themselves into several kingdoms, each headed by a king, and abundant natural resources have enabled them to develop one of the most complex cultures in sub-Saharan Africa." (1) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that may make the sentence too close of a close paraphrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Africa The term Sub-Saharan Africa is inaccurate, Eurocentric, arbitrarily defined, and is often used as a euphemism for race. [1][2] There are not two Africas, a Black "sub-saharan Africa" and a white "north Africa"[3] - if more precision is needed use one of the regional designations of the African Union, or refer to a specific language group or country (Nigeria is the 6th most populous country in the world with an enormous amount of ethnic diversity) etc. Moreover, this sentence requires a citation and in it's current form I would suggest that it is MOS:PEACOCK.
  1. ^ de Haldevang, Max (1 September 2016). "Why do we still use the term "sub-Saharan Africa"?". Quartz Africa. Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  2. ^ Mashanda, Tatenda (10 May 2017). "Re-Thinking the Term Sub-Saharan Africa". The Herald (Zimbabwe). Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  3. ^ Fanon, Franz (1961). "The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness". The Wretched of the Earth.
  • It's very common practice to create RfC subsections in this format. That does not make it a vote, and the person closing the RfC will understand it accordingly. The reasoning for the split is to allow extended threaded discussion without breaking up the flow of other comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-Saharan Africa as it is a professional term used to denote the portions of Africa south of the Sahara desert which are a different cultural sphere than those north of the desert. While User:MassiveEartha has a point in that the Latin term "sub" has taken on a bad connotation, though not as bad as inferior in Germania Inferior or Inferior transverse ligament, the change of Latin speak into more inclusive speak should not be performed with a loss of precision. Sub-Saharan Africa is, after all, only half of Africa, and specifying just Africa would be less precise. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-Saharan Africa per StellarNerd AnneDant87 (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sub-Saharan Africa Precision never hurts. ~ HAL333 02:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but the term is not precise, which is the issue, it it general and arbitrary used to describe a geographic region with an enormous amount of diversity over place, culture and time. MassiveEartha (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Above, MassiveEartha raises some points that I think are worth discussing in more depth. To take the last point first, the idea of simply deleting the sentence (although the source cited for the sentence after it applies to both sentences) is something that has occurred to me as well. I would not object to doing it that way, with perhaps a more narrowly-worded, and less closely paraphrased, summary sentence based on that source taking its place.

The larger issue, however, is whether or not the term "sub-Saharan" is racist or arbitrary. If one looks at the talk section just above the RfC, this was the view of another editor whose edit warring over the issue prompted me to start this RfC. I found it interesting to read those three sources, to get their perspective on the matter. However, I also feel that we need to stay on the right side of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RGW. It's true, based on those three citations, that there is a point-of-view that "sub-Saharan" is a term that should be discarded. However, NPOV requires us to follow the preponderance of reliable sources, and it looks to me like the three cited ones do not reflect the preponderance of views. We have a page on Sub-Saharan Africa, and it uses that term (with a criticism paragraph at the end of the Nomenclature section), as do numerous other pages in Category:Sub-Saharan Africa. It would take a more extensive RfC than the one here to deprecate the term across Wikipedia, and it would require a better reason than RGW. As noted by editors above, we are unlikely to find sourcing that would place Yoruba art's impact above those of all other African cultures in such a way as to justify just saying "Africa" in the sentence. I see that our page on Yoruba people locates them in West Africa, which is a region designated by the African Union. However, that term covers a much smaller part of the continent than "sub-Saharan" does, so whereas "Africa" without a qualifier may overstate what sources say, "West Africa" may understate it. Finally, it's worth noting that, although sometimes the prefix "sub" denotes inferiority, as in "subpar", it does not generally do so. Being physically located under something else does not equate to being inferior in quality to it. Words such as submarine, subscript, subcutaneous tissue, and so forth abound. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question "Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in sub-Saharan Africa" is I think a direct quote from the next ref (currently 3). Yes, "sub-Saharan" and all. Does it help if we put it in quotes, as we probably should? On the other hand, it is rather peacocky, & I suspect specialists on other African groups might demur, preferring their guys. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the source material to know about what other sources would say. I think a direct quote should either be removed and replaced, or significantly reworded, and not just put in quote marks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Perhaps we can make the RfC question moot, and simultaneously fix the problem of a direct-copy quote from the source, by changing the sentence entirely. I suggest that we change the current: Abundant natural resources enabled the Yoruba to develop one of the most complex cultures in sub-Saharan Africa. to something like: Yoruba culture and art reached a high level of sophistication, enabled by an abundance of natural resources. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit bland, but that would work. But I remain fully supportive of using Sub-Saharan when it is a necessary qualifier. Obviously using just "Africa" here would have been wrong. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "High level of sophistication" is basically meaningless without some comparison. Why be less precise than the source? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "High level of sophistication" is a statement and doesn't require a comparison. The source is vague, there are thousands of other "complex" and "sophisticated" cultures in "sub-saharan Africa". MassiveEartha (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. "The Yoruba developed one of the most complex cultures in sub-Saharan Africa"
2. "Yoruba culture and art reached a high level of sophistication"
These are two different claims. The source makes the first claim, not the second. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with changing "a high level of sophistication" to "a high level of complexity" or something similar. But I'm not OK with violating WP:COPYVIO. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to avoid using SSA as a generic term of geography is a valid editorial question of style that will probably be addressed on the WikiProject sooner or later. For this particular case though I echo Tryptofish's suggestion or some variant. My initial thoughts were that 1000–1300 CE is during the Islamic Golden Age, so comparison against the Mediterranean coast would be shaky. But as Johnbod begins to point out, there's several great kingdoms popping in and out – in West Africa alone – over the next few centuries. So "one of the most complex cultures" doesn't localize well, especially not without a known period in history over which this comparison is made. (That time must be specified probably applies to any qualitative historical comparison.) "Complexity" and "sophistication" are not totally empty, but the fact that they had an urban center (was that quantified?) is something more concrete, and it might just be better left on its own. IMO urbanization would naturally imply complexity and sophistication to a reader, but maybe that's an incorrect assumption. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in framing this as a comparison between the 'complex' achievements of northern Africa's "Islamic Golden Age" in opposition to (presumably) 'unsophisticated' 'sub-Saharan Africa' fails to recognise the richness of the Mali Empire and Songhai Empire, scholarship in urban centres like Timbuktu all in west Africa, the medieval Kingdom of Mapungubwe in southern Africa, and the extraordinary architecture of 13th century Amhara region in Ethiopia - for example![1] This is an incredibly reductive and imprecise arguement that assumes an impermeable political and cultural division on the continent based on ideas of 'racialisation' and 'civilisation'. MassiveEartha (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missing word at the start there. I don't think anyone "framed this" in that way, & I'm sure many of those commenting are very well aware of S-S achievements. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Johnbod, that's precisely what the previous comment does. If commenters are "well aware" it's a shame the many of the arguments are so reductive. MassiveEartha (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody except you & the currently blocked guy in the previous section saw this as a question of geography and precision. Nobody mentions anything like "an impermeable political and cultural division on the continent based on ideas of 'racialisation' and 'civilisation'", or "presumes" an 'unsophisticated' 'sub-Saharan Africa'. That's all you two, and if anything is "reductive" it's that. Of course the term turned out to be a quote from the source. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was unclear in my comment. My point was that geographic comparison seems silly in this case in this imprecise range of time exactly because of all the other cultures you bring up, several relatively nearby. Because of this, I suggest expanding on the urban center mentioned in the Clark if there's more literature on it, describing that and any other early markers of development in the article without qualification such that the reader infers development and sophistication on their own. Show, don't tell, as they say. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the source itself puts 'Yoruba art' in the context of 'sub-Saharan Africa'. It's not for us to extrapolate a claim of general "complexity and sophistication". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC should be closed – after the bot removes the RfC notice, which hasn't happened yet – by an uninvolved closer. Not by anyone who has participated in this RfC (that includes me). Please, no one should try to implement any version of the language on their own. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the RfC was clear: Should the first sentence of Yoruba art#History end in the word Africa, or in the phrase sub-Saharan Africa?.
There's a 6-1 majority favouring 'sub-Saharan' in the "Survey" section.
I don't see why the 3 votes for the proposal in the "Discussion" section should overrule that. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, did you want our votes properly collated and checked for hanging chad too before we turn them in? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I feel a (when did I get so old!) dated joke is more dignified (and fun) than some lawyery link to a policy page. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting any mention of a location is supported by me and MassiveEartha (you've reverted both of us on it), SamuelRiv and User:Tryptofish, which makes 4 - everybody in the discussion except you. The drive-bys have driven on, but User:StellarNerd, User:AnneDant87 and User:HAL333 are very welcome to return and comment on that. Or anybody else. Then there's the fact that you are edit-warring to reinstate a copyvio. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I started the RfC because there had been some disruptive editing, and so it would be best to have a settled consensus to resolve it. The bot will end the RfC (soon) once a month has passed since the start. That's also when the block of the disruptive editor will end. I anticipate that, perhaps, there will be a burst of disruption against the RfC consensus around that time. This is why there should be a close made by someone who is uninvolved, so the consensus will be beyond reproach and readily enforceable at ANI. It's also best for someone uninvolved to evaluate how to weigh the alternative language (proposed by me) in the discussion section. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we consider the votes in the "discussion" more important than the greater number of votes in the "survey"? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They are more recent, and respond to a new suggestion. Of the 7 in the survey, 3 plus a new entrant support the new suggestion, 1 (you) is presumably opposed, and 3 haven't commented on the new suggestion. I don't see how you can count me, MassiveEartha & Trypofish in your "greater number of votes in the "survey"" as we have explicitly said we prefer no location. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still support sub-Saharan Africa, and there is no lack of consensus for it. StellarNerd (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, these two recent edits: [1], [2], taken together, eliminate the copyvio concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree myself. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest an alternative that would get consensus here? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I simply think that those edits get us sufficiently far away from having copied the language of the source, that this version can serve pending the closure of the RfC. I'm fine with further revisions once a consensus has arrived. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now that the RfC has run its course, it turns out that it is probably going to be moot. I was mistaken in what I said just above, about the copyright issue having been resolved. An admin whose judgment I respect about copyvio issues has removed the paragraph entirely. I suppose that the RfC may still be of some use in future discussions about this page, if something related comes under dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Fauvell, François-Xavier. "Trade and Travel in Africa's Golden Global Age (700–1500)". In Hodgson, Dorothy; Byfeld, Judith (eds.). Global Africa into the Twenty-First Century. University of California Press. pp. 17–26. ISBN 9780520962514.

Wiki Education assignment: ANTH 420 Museum Anthropology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 2 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NevaehSenob (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Coryannyyz (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ARTS 355 - Arts of Africa[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AdriN070, Cmagada20, Talliejoy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Smancione, AbigailLynnArts, ScoutB12, Sneakyninja12.

— Assignment last updated by ScoutB12 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoruba_art&oldid=1210523891"