Talk:Babalawo

Revision
Iboru Iboya, My immediate problem with this page is a lack of resources other than Chief S. Solagbade. I'm sure even S. Solabade would agree that there are many roads to knowledge and the absence of any other authors looks at best suspicious. Furthermore, there is no further reading to stimulate or acknowledge ANY other experts (or Babalawos for that matter). For those editors reading this do note the title of "Chief" (sic Yoruba) is often honorary among the Yoruba tribes : I point this out simply for the unenlightened and mean no disrespect to S. Solabade. The text is OK and concise. Religion and even titles are often controversial and I like the fact it was seemingly written with this in mind. Certainly it could be expanded, yet each expansion MAY bring controversy. One difficulty in discussing this page is that the author is either from the African branch of Orisha/ Orisa worship and the majority of Orisha worshipers in the US belong to the Cuban system. Of course ANY author has to be from a particular branch, yet I'd humbly suggest to have the page a bit more balanced. About 45- 50% of the page is dedicated to the subject of Women in IFA and while this is an important issue, personally I do not think it warrants this much of the page. "Awo's" just pops up with little lead in that Baba means father and lawo means (sic/ of mysteries or secrets)....yet for the unenlightened seeing Awo is confusing... so that could be cleaned up. I'd like to see more on the Odu, something addressing the US, Cuba and Brazil, Lucumi and certainly more on IFA. Finally, the author gives a late opinion that William Bascom ( who was certainly AN expert) was THE FOREMOST....and that as we know should at the least be ONE OF THE FOREMOST.....Really, there are plenty of subtopics that are NOT controversial, Ikin for example, or they might talk about the Iro Ifa etc. The author uses the phrase "diving chain" (Opele) yet he or she does not tell the reader what that is, only what it is used for. Kola nuts though less common in the US are also used in Africa and this is not mentioned. We see a word "Ajogun" with no explanation." no one can not become a full Awo " (double negative AND I think he/she meant no one can become....The page worries me because it is VERY close to being non neutral. Awo Ogbe Sa  Cubaking (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Cubaking (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisions Removing Sourced Material, Replacing It with Biased Article.
Iyalawo and Omo Obatala keep revising materials which have valid, properly cited sources in favor of an article that only contains their own personal biases with no sources to back up their POV. Those of us who are in the religion are acutely aware of controversies surrounding the initiation of Iyanifas or now Iyalawos. These two replace material showing both sides of the controversy with an article containing only their personal bias. To prevent certain accusations of not being properly acquainted with the subject matter, I should mention that I am a babalawo (and omo Odu) myself with twenty years experience and twenty five years as an Orisha priest. Lozen8 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is you who insists on revising the article to an older edit without consensus. Also, the sources are mainly – if not all – related to Iyalawo, and therefore hold no value to the Babalawo article. I simply cleaned up the article and removed irrelevant/unsourced content. What POV is being pushed? You keep referencing a personal bias without providing evidence. I would like to resolve this conflict peacefully, as we are all practitioners and our focus should be on improving religious articles. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Omo Obatala and I are in general agreement as to the changes and willing to resolve this peacefully. Everything added had a reference and any information presented should be able to show both sides or none. It was reasonable to separate the articles and remove bias. Your edits do not reflect the majority of tradtional Ifa, most of Nigeria or the United States. Your references are outdated by at least 50  to 100 years. I have suggested that a point to differentiate the two may be in order to avoid confusion. Lucumi has clearly stated they are different, separate, and distinct therefore they should have their own pages when expounding on their theology. In absence of such a distiction needs to be made when presenting different lineages perspective as fact for the whole tradition.  Like it or not, Iyanifas do exist and are initiated priests of Ifa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyalawo (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The older version had the ONLY sourced content in the article, which you keep removing. It showed both views on the subject, saying that in some areas the Iyanifa exists and in others it does not and that the subject is a controversy amongst practitioners both here and in Yorubaland. To say the the Yoruba of Ode Remo, Ibadan, Ijebu and other areas as well as the Lucumis should have another page is more than a little disingenuous as the article is on babalawos, NOT an article on what is practiced in one or two parts of Yorubaland. You are attempting to use Wikipedia to give authority to ONE POV that is NOT even close to being universally accepted even among the Yoruba in Nigeria or in the New World and frankly that is nothing short of being dishonest. A view held by two people is also far from being a 'consensus' in anyone's definition of the term. Your version of the article now has no citations whatsoever. If you wish to change the article the content needs to have valid citations. Either the article should contain both POVs or neither. Lozen8 (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only sources for what Babalawo's think of Iyalawo/Iyanifa in different regions; this article is regarding Babalawo only. You're trying to include irrelevant content to this article. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The only sourced content in this article has been removed repeatedly as it contains references apparently not to the liking of a pair of editors. The subject of the Iyanifa or Iyalawo is a controversy in Yorubaland as well as in the diaspora. I believe one of three things should occur: 1) The subject of Iyanifas or Iyalawos be removed entirely to avoid further controversy. 2)The article to be reverted to the version showing both sides of the issue. 3) The aforementioned editors find valid sources to back up their material before making changes.Lozen8 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is controversial throughout West Africa and the diaspora. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this has become a sticking point, I suggest we keep the article as is, removing only the reference to Iyalawo at the beginning of the article. As Omo Obatala says, the article is about babalawos and talk of Iyalawos cannot be mentioned without bringing up the controversy as most practitioners in the world do not recognize them as being Ifa priests. We can then leave the description of the controversy for the article on Iyalawo.Lozen8 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again any mention of the Iyalawo or Iyanifa must include the controversy as to this day the vast majority of Orisha worshipers do not recognize the position. Almost all Iyalawos or Iyanifas are in the United States and it appears the initiation is almost exclusively performed on outsiders traveling to Yorubaland from such places as the U.S. and Europe as opposed to Yorubas themselves. In fact, I invite you to name twenty Yoruba Iyanifas or Iyalawos (I suspect you will find it extremely difficult to name even ten). If the Iyalawo/Iyanifa is as traditional and common as you suggest, you should also have no trouble listing five or ten odus of Ifá (out of literally thousands) directly mentioning the title Iyalawo or Iyanifa by name, as in something like "Iya odara was the name of the Iyalawo who divined for..."). Of course, none of us know how things will pan out in the future where it is entirely within the realm of possibility the Iyalawo/Iyanifa will become generally accepted. The issue I have here is the obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as a tool to fabricate that generalized acceptance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozen8 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion for controversy regarding the position of Iyalawo can be found here.

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions
— Assignment last updated by Someonecute1 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)