Talk:Santería/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Karaeng Matoaya (talk · contribs) 10:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a truly impressive piece of writing on a fascinating topic, so first of all I'd like to thank you for the surpassing work that has clearly gone into the article. I will be reviewing the article for the next few hours.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this review on, Karaeng Matoaya, and for your kind words about the work that went into it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead, definitions, beliefs

 * The adjective for the Yoruba is usually given as "Yoruba", the form I am personally used to, but in four non-quoted instances as "Yoruban" (including in the lead). This might be better if consistent.
 * I agree; "Yoruba" is the more common term. I've changed every instance of "Yoruban" to "Yoruba" except in the one case where it is a direct quote. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This sentence is a little unclear. What is the initiatory tradition being mentioned here?
 * You're right. This could be clearer. I think the best thing, at least for now, is just to remove "An initiatory tradition" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this sentence could work better at the end of the second paragraph, because it intervenes between two sentences that both explicitly discuss the oricha and which might flow better if directly connected. Alternately, the transition between the previous sentence and this one could be improved by e.g. "The Lucumi language, which is derived from Yoruba, is used in these communications and other ritual purposes."
 * I agree that it would work better at the end of the paragraph, so have moved it there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This would be better contextualized if the fact that the Spaniards enforced a state religion was mentioned explicitly in the preceding sentence.
 * You're right. I've changed the previous sentence so that it hopefully achieves this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What's the purpose of the semicolon here and not a period? In fact, I'd personally prefer combining the first part of this sentence with the preceding one: "or practising the religion alongside Hinduism,[18] or Spiritism, which Santería has drawn elements from since the late nineteenth century."
 * I've rewritten and restructured much of this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Are the meanings of these terms known?
 * They derive from Yoruba words that roughly mean "father-deity" and "mother-deity". I've added this into the article at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the "Definition" section combines discussion of Santeria's status as an Afro-Cuban religion and its flexibility and lack of orthodoxy, while the subsequent paragraph is all about other Afro-Cuban religions. Is there a reason that the discussion of Santeria as one Afro-Cuban religion among many couldn't be combined into a single paragraph or two directly connected paragraphs, while the second half of the second paragraph about Santeria's lack of codification is spun off as its own paragraph, perhaps at the end of the section? Just my two cents, but I think the flow of the text could be clearer that way.
 * I've played around with the structure here, drawing on your comments; take a look and let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer it if the paragraph beginning and the one beginning  were directly connected. As it stands, my impression is that  is a bit intrusive to the flow of the text. As its flexibility is something quite important to the nature of Santeria, I'd like the passage to be either further up (as the second paragraph) or further down (at the end), to better highlight it in the section.
 * I see you point. I've moved the paragraph in question further up, so it comes second in this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm still not completely sure what a camino is—this should probably be defined directly in the article.
 * Most scholars whose work I have read simply gloss this as "avatar", in this way drawing parallels with Hindu theological ideas. Mason does however also call them "manifestations" which I can add into the article. I hope that makes things clearer, but I can have another go if you feel this needs to be clarified further for the reader. We could perhaps talk about the oricha taking "different forms" or something? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be more easily understood, yes.


 * If Oyá is a guerror, is there a reason she's not in the paragraph with her comrades Eleguá and Ogun, while Yemaja (a non-warrior as I understand it) is?
 * I could be wrong about this, but as I understand it, Oyá may be a warrior figure but is not actually one of the guerroros per se. According to Fernandez Olmos and Paravsini-Gebert (p. 58), the guerreros are a triumvirate consisting of Elegua, Ogun, and Ochosi. Both Hagedorn (p. 247) and Mason (p. 128), conversely, add Osun to that list. The latter two scholars are specialists in Santería specifically, so I think their list is more reliable. I'll edit the article to make this all a bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Very interesting that iron and fire are enemies, but also makes quite a lot of sense. Not related to the GA review, just something I found interesting.
 * Isn't the Holy Infant a literal Catholic depiction of the child Jesus? In that case "which depicts" may be preferable to "who is viewed as".
 * I've amended this to "the Holy Infant of Atocha, a depiction of Christ as a child". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why not "something that" instead of "being that which"?
 * I've changed it to "as one which", which I think is nice and simple. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This might be a pet peeve, but the verb "believe" ("practitioners believe", "adherents believe") is very common even when already clear from context that this is a belief.
 * I've trimmed back the use of this term in the article, especially in some of those sections where it has been heavily used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is the definition of an ancestor in Santeria a genealogical ancestor, or a deceased creyente, or both? For example, could a creyente have a non-Cuban, non-santeros grandparent as an ancestor?
 * I'm not sure if there are clear-cut rules here. The instances I have encountered (in the academic literature) refer to deceased creyente being "ancestors" but I don't know if this is the only way ancestors are conceptualised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a little bit more digging and found a passage in the glossary of Hagedorn's book which indicates that an ancestor can be either based on ritual or blood. I'll add this into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Figurative" in what sense?
 * In the sense of sometimes having faces on them. I'll try and make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Again very interesting.
 * This sentence is a run-on.
 * I've rewritten and re-structured several sentences here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If there are traditionally many limits to homosexual men in Santeria, how did this stereotype develop in the first place?
 * If I understand correctly, (and I'm re-checking the sources cited here), there have never been restrictions on homosexual men being santeros, and that is a role that many gay men have come to fill. The restrictions are on gay men becoming babalawos or bata drum players. I'll try and make this all clearer in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Practices

 * Is Lucumi a full language, or fossilized ritual formulas derived from Yoruba? The article on Lucumi language seems to support the latter interpretation.
 * I believe that the latter is a fairer assessment. Do you think this needs to be made clearer in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes—I don't think the term "Lucumi language" should be used without direct qualification to this effect in the sentence and perhaps also in the lead.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence that directly quotes Wirtz which somewhat captures this point, I feel. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * When do they stop being called aleyo? Is this after the iyaworaje?
 * I assume so, but I've actually removed this sentence from the article as I don't think that it offers the reader any crucial information at this juncture and is likely to cause confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Per the above section ("When a sacrifice is made, some of the blood may be mixed with herbs and added to that from previous years. This liquid is called omiero, and is regarded as the most powerful liquid in Santería"), I was under the impression that omiero was mostly blood?
 * It's definitely mostly water with herbs, although blood may be added to it (in small quantities, I believe). I was unsure quite how to introduce omiero into the article; do you think the explanation of it is sufficient or should I try to expand on the subject? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created a new article on Omiero too, which might help the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, and the current rewrite IMO has successfully done away with any confusion readers might have about what omiero is.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Which oricha are these?
 * Unfortunately Mason, who is the citation used here, doesn't actually list them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source so this would be original research but I believe it should normally be Obatalá, Changó, Ochún, Eleguá, and Yemaya. It is possible that this varies according to Ilé, as many things do. Cruxador (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be "As a santero undergoes more initiation ceremonies"? I'm not sure if initiations are something you gain.
 * Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What about Elegua?
 * de la Torre, who is being cited in reference to these items, does not actually state what object represents Elegua. My guess would be that it is one of the cement heads with shells stuck into it, as those represent Elegua, but I do not know that as a fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Could there be a clearer expression than "refer to" here? Perhaps "invokes" or "is linked to"?
 * I've gone with "links to" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is Ogun not offended by the wood?
 * I presume not. It's a little off-topic, but there are various instances of supernatural beings being scared off by certain metals (in West European folklore, for instance, fairies are often driven off by iron) and yet I can't think of any instances of supernatural entities having a similar response to wood. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Was divination in the context of healing mentioned earlier?
 * I don't believe so (although I could be wrong). In these contexts, divination is often used to ascertain the cause of the ailment and the appropriate course of action to alleviate it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If so, it might be better to mention divination somewhere earlier in the paragraph. Since the first half of the paragraph directly addresses the use of herbs in divination, suggests to the reader that divination in healing rituals was also mentioned earlier, which could be a bit confusing as the reader thinks that they've missed something in the text.
 * For now, I've taken "and divination" out of this paragraph. However, I'm currently reading Wedel's book on Santería Healing and there should be some useful stuff in there on the use of divination in Santería, so once I've identified the appropriate pages I'll add a sentence or two on the subject to this section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added the appropriate sentences to this section, discussing the role of divination in healing (citing Wedel). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

History, demographics, reception

 * The final paragraph on Spanish Cuba regarding eventual emancipation might belong further up in the section, and in a more abbreviated form, e.g. "Enslaved Africans first arrived in Cuba in 1511, and Cuba continued to receive new slaves until at least 1860. Full emancipation of the slaves only occurred on the island in 1886."
 * I'm not sure on this one. I tried to keep this section roughly chronological, although it does jump back and forth a bit on thematic grounds. I'm hoping to alter this section with more specific, historical sourcing in the next few months so it may undergo some further alterations at that point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My suggestion here was really largely informed by WP:SIZE—it's the one paragraph that's only tangentially connected to the religion, so I thought it would be worth trimming and merging with the first paragraph for the sake of reducing article length.
 * I've gone back and merged the last paragraph into the first, as you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is the "Abakwá group" a casa de santo?
 * It's more a secret society. I see that I've spelt it differently at different points of the article so I'll make sure that I standardise it as "Abakuá" (our article on the topic needs some work). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The impact of Spiritism on Santeria should be explicitly mentioned here.
 * A very good point. I've now added a sentence that does so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why the past tense here?
 * No particular reason; I suppose because the cited source was published in 2007 and the information in it may not be current. Nevertheless I've changed this to "have tried" here, which I think improves the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Reception: Nothing to say here, all good.

Criteria 2: Verifiable

 * The article is impressively well referenced in all respects. I've cross-checked two of the very many source—Ayerinde 2007 and Holbraad 2005—and all instances were accurately cited.

Criteria 3: Broad

 * The article is a on the long side per WP:SIZE. Eventually I think it could use trimming. With just a bit more meat, Toque de santo and Santería initiation could each be forked to their own articles and the "practices" section could be trimmed down accordingly. But it's not a block to GA status, mind.
 * At the same time, I think Santeria's position among other religions could be better contextualized if there was a paragraph in the "Definition" section with a few examples of how Santeria differs from other Yoruba-based diaspora religions, as well as specific examples of differences between Santeria practice and current Yoruba practice in Nigeria, or perhaps if contrasts between conventional Santeria and Yoruba practices were mentioned more frequently in passing. While reading, at times I had the impression that Santeria is effectively Yoruba religion just transplanted across the Atlantic, which I assume is wrong.
 * Additionally, I would prefer it if there was maybe a sentence or two on how Santería interacts with race in Cuba. Quite far into the article I thought that it was an African-exclusive religion, which isn't the case—given the salience of race in the Anglosphere I think it's important noting explicitly relatively early on.
 * I see your point. This is something that I have already tried to facilitate; the fourth paragraph of the lede for instance mentions that people of various ethnicities practice Santería and I tried to highlight race and ethnicity-based issues at several points in the article (notably "Morality, ethics, and gender roles", "History" and "Demographics") although I can appreciate that we could have more on this issue at certain points. (I think we could certainly have a bit more on the crossover of Santería and black nationalism, especially in the U.S.). A lot of this depends on the Reliable Sources, however, and what they choose to discuss. I think it highly likely, given the current socio-political climate in the Anglosphere, that we will see more academic research appear on race and Santería in the next decade or so. Once that is published, we could certainly bring any findings from that work into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Other criteria and conclusion

 * Neutral.
 * Stable.
 * No image problems.

So once my concerns above are addressed, this should be an easy pass.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try and deal with the last few points in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that I've dealt with every point you made Karaeng Matoaya, but let me know if anything else comes to mind. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on this article; I hope that you felt that it was worthwhile! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a pass. Congratulations, and thank you—as mentioned, this is a fascinating article on a fascinating subject.
 * Just for further reference, I think the article as it stands might focus a bit too much on descriptions of Santeria practices and maybe needs more info on contextualization (with the African Yoruba religion and with other Afro-Caribbean religions especially). Again, I'd counsel forking some of the material in "Practices" and maybe even "Beliefs" into new articles and trimming down this one in line with summary style; the article is currently longer than the Christianity and Islam articles!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The article seems ridden with spelling errors, starting by the shocking "oricha" instead of "Orisha" (which is the title of the article on the subject in Wikipedia), continuing with "Chango" instead of "Changó", "Yemaja" instead of "Yemayá", "Lucumi" instead of "Lucumí" (which is a very common last name where I live) and "Ochun" instead of "Ochún" or "Oxum".

All those names are stressed in the last syllable, the digrams "sh" and "ch" have a very different pronunciation in Spanish with "ch" being noticeably harder, and, to add insult to injury, the letter "j" in "Yemaja" is pronounced like Spanish "y" but only in English because in Spanish those are two very different sounds.

Sometimes it says "Santería" and in other occasions it says "Santeria".

It hurts my Spanish eyes and it goes against the pronunciation in Spanish and the lore around the subject which includes a myriad of salsa songs I am used to sing since I was a kid.

A native speaker could correct this but it requires copy/paste through a word processor to correct the many errors ("guerror" instead of "guerrero" in this talk being egregious).Ciroa (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)