Talk:Yoruba religion/Archive 1

Meaning of orisha
Just one thing- I was taught that "orisha" doesn't exaclty correspond to "god" in English, since there is a whole hierarchy of Orsishas in many shades of diminishment to humans- for example, Olorun is the most like the God (with a captial "G"), the ruler over all, and the most abstract (in that sometimes he is androgynous, like the Christian god technically is.) There are also orishas that are more like anamistic gods and have control over specific elements in nature, and finally there are orishas that are more like heros (like Odysseus or Achilles in Greek mythology).

I think it would be good if someone who knew more about this than me could make this point in the article (if I'm right.) --DGB

Why do people keep making the error of assuming Vodun must necessarily be Yorùbá-derived? Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Yorùbá language would recognize the absurdity of this claim; for one thing, the v-sound is absent from the language. As a factual matter, Vodun is actually of Éwé origin, and is still known and practiced under the name Vodun in Togo, the country of its birth. --User:Abiola Lapite (Talk) ü| â 12:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to clean up the Candomblé pages, the best I can. (I know very little of the subject but as a Brazilian I can at least read the relevant webpages in Portuguese). From what I read, it seems that Candomblé has three major "sects" created by slaves from different regions of Africa: roughly, Yoruba, Ewe-Fon, and Bantu(?). Each sect has its own liturgical language, and their spirit-gods are called Orishas, Voduns, and Inkices, respectively. However, it seems that, apart from names, the three sects have roughly similar beliefs, and there is a rough correspondence between the pantheons.

So the mistake that Abiola is pointing out probably was caused by this connection. Namely, Haiti's Vodun is probably derived from the Ewe religion, which the author of the page considered that it was "the same as" Yoruba religion, at some level. Is that view valid? What is the relationship between the Ewe and Yoruba religions? Jorge Stolfi 02:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oduduwa female?
Oduduwa was not the daughter of Olodumare. He was the son sent down to create the earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.3 (talk • contribs)
 * You're quite right. I have pulled the following paragraph out of the article, pending verification:
 * The primordial, first-existing, Orishas are called Obatala and Odùduwà, brother and sister respectively, and their father Olorun. Obatala created humanity and Olorun gave life to the hollow shells Obatala had made.  Obatala and Odùduwà later had a son, Aganyu, and a daughter, Yemaja, who was a mother goddess.  Her son, Ogun, raped her twice; the second time, her body exploded and fifteen Orishas came out.  They included Oshun, Olukun, Shakpana, Shango.
 * I agree with you that Oduduwa is most commonly thought of as male. The tradition you are referring to has it that Oduduwa is the son of Oludumare, the supreme god of the Yoruba, who let him down from heaven on a chain to create earth where there was previously only water; the spot where he first landed was Ile Ife (this version is found for example in Law, 'Traditional History', in Biobaku (ed.) Sources of Yoruba History, p32). Additionally, Johnson's collection of oral traditions, the best known and the most widely spread one, records Oduduwa as a son of Lamurudu (S. Johnson, The History of the Yorubas, p. 2f.). I have yet to come across a tradition which records Oduduwa as female; until then, I think it's best to leave these unsubstantiated statements out of the article.
 * On a related note, I suspect that this article thoroughly confuses proper Yoruba mythology (as it exists in Yorubaland, Nigeria) and the various derivates of this in the diaspora; I do not expect them to be identical so it would well be that some of the internal inconsistencies of this article are caused by this confusion. I'll add {{tl}cleanup}} or a similar tag and I hope someone will get to improving the article. I'm really more into the language, so I don't think I'll do it. &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
The Iya Nla section needs to be rewritten for NPOV (and some grammar). It currently reads more like a recruiting pamphlet than an encyclopedia. Here is the current version:

"Ìyá Nlá wise discipline teach us that if we transcends the consciousness of the physical form and allow ourselves to flow and be nurtures into the essence of Awon Iya Wa (Our Mothers) maternal caring we be able to access both form, the Forces in Nature and the wisdom of our first ancestors. If we learn how to develop an ongoing relationship within the harmony of creation to develop the sensitivity of these forces that, they assume the characteristic of a particular Imale or Irunmole or first African ancestors that they were elevated to the Òrìsà status.

Iyá Nlá aspects, roads, paths, manifestations, roles, attributes, synonymous, concepts, or praise names are directly related to her ability and authority to heal strike or destroy at will. Ìyá Nlá the self-existent energy who gives life and harmony on earth, endowed by inherit attribute to her daughters the infinite and eternal gifts of working with Õrõ (Egungun), Eleiye (the force that gives the power and mystical abilities) in order to intensify cause, effect and changes. With these gifts an Ìyá Àjé is able to meld the terrestrial and astral power to cure, curse or to cause retributive justice on anyone who disrespects woman and motherhood. Ìyá Nlá is the sacred womb who gives life; she is the doorway to existence and the origin of the biological tools, manifested in every woman

From "The Source Iya Nla Primordial Yoruba Mother" Iyalaja Ileana Alcamo ISBN 1-890157-41-4" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.95.128.33 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

If this is the POV of notable practitioners of the Yoruba religion and is reliably sourced as such, it belongs, as long as it is characterized as such. The Yoruba are entitled to explain their own religion in their own words. Best --Shirahadasha 08:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is important to represent a religions beliefs fairly, and if by 'reliably sourced', you mean writing something like "followers of the Yoruba religion believe" before belief-based statements I agree--of course statements like the Iyá Nlá paragraph is 'reliably sourced' in the sense that it can proved it came from one of their religious texts. Based on WP rules, I think it is best to summarize their beliefs as objectively as possible and to use quotes from primary sources in small doses and with proper context. In my opinion the language in this section is flowery, jargon laden and confusing. Antonrojo 14:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree summarization can be useful, as long as the POV is fairly presented. I'm not familiar with Yoruba religious sources so I'm not expressing an opinion on whether this is a reliable representation of the Yoruba POV or not. Just pointing out that "inside" POVs deserve representation, in non-Western as well as Western religions, just as much as "outside" perspectives. --Shirahadasha 04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title
I believe, consistent with articles on Western religions and Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, that this article should be titled Yoruba religion rather than Yoruba mythology. --Shirahadasha 08:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have renamed the article for these reasons. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of undefined terms
The article includes the phrase "Eshu be propiated". A Google search for "define:propiate" doesn't return anything useful, nor do m-w.com or dictionary.com include definitions for propiate or propiated. Can someone either replace the term with a well defined term, rewrite the sentence, or link to a definition of the term? Please also remove this comment after that's done :-) BobbyDeanMartin (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs - grammar
This was the third paragraph of the Beliefs section


 * Some feel it also binding to make a petition or prayer to one's Orí Òrún as it is said to yield quick and decisive pockets of joy. Ẹlégbara (Eṣu, the divine messenger) who, without distortion or partiality for good or for bad, negotiates communication to Òrún and navigates them to Ayé; deliverer of àṣẹ. It is thought that Ifá is called upon whilst in times of major decision making; whatever the 'offering'; the line of advice is commonly used to draw conclusions that would not have been first thought. Call Orunmila,Ifa; or try vice-versa; it is said that all communication with Òrún is energized by invoking àṣẹ.

I tried to remove weasel words and clean up the grammar a bit. My first cut at its meaning follows:


 * Prayer to one's Orí Òrún is can yield quick and decisive pockets of joy. Ẹlégbara (Eṣu, the divine messenger) initiates contact with Òrún, and transmits to Ayé; deliverer of àṣẹ. Ẹlégbara transmits messages without distortion. Regardless of the form of prayer or offering, Ifá is called upon whilst in times of major decision making. Call Orunmila,Ifa; or vice-versa. All communication with Òrún is energized by invoking àṣẹ.

More cleanup is probably necessary.E A (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed Morales and crossroads
I've removed the following:

In addition, author Ed Morales has claimed that Yoruba religious beliefs and traditions played a part in early American blues music, citing blues guitarist Robert Johnson's Cross Road Blues as a "thinly veiled reference to Eleggua, the orisha in charge of the crossroads."

It doesn't tell us why we should care about Mr. Morales opinion, and is a rather dubious claim at best. Legends of the Devil and the crossroads occur in European folklore as well (and probably occur in folklore of all cultures). Ekwos (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Expert needed
Now that I've seen the above comments. I'm convinced the article really needs some straightening out. Perhaps whoever wrote the article on Orishas would care to try their hand at this one.WQUlrich (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

History

 * Yoruba religion around the world

Otelemuyen (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, since you've asked what is wrong with the article. Statements like "Yorùbá engage in a robust philosophy" and "The Yorùbá(s), refered to as being highly cultured and exquisite statesmen are spread across the globe in an unprecedented fashion" are totally biased and not encyclopaedic language (as well as being completely uncited opinion). Now do you understand why you can't have statements like that in the article? --Hibernian (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As you are probably already aware that the issues you are raising about specific content on the article being a mere opinion or not being cited is (as i respond) unfounded. Maybe you would like to take the pain of actually checking the article in question for verification. Otelemuyen (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hibernian.

The tone of much of this article is more like an promotional essay than an encyclopaedia entry. In addition "robust philosophy" and "highly cultured and exquisite statesmen", sounds awkward and jingoistic, like a bad google translation of some old Maoist propaganda.

Perhaps clarifying the fact that the statements are quoted opinion where given, and replacing some of the more effusive quotes with ones of a more relevant and scholarly tone, will help to improve the article. Philip72 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2012

Overall, this is an article on a religion and this type of subject matter is largely defined by the religion itself, which arbuably makes it on its face questionable and untrustworthy. But, the only way to present a contrary view is with cited information from trusted sources. Absence any sources that substantially disagree with the points in the article now written, I see no reason to change much in this article - except of course to make clear what is obviously opinion by attributing the opinions to those who hold them. Write on my talk page if you are interested in further thoughts or disagree. Good luck. Leidseplein (talk)}}

Accent marks (diacritics)
Why is this page full of diacritics that are not part of standard English language? All or most of the terms have articles of their own or are widely cited elsewhere and this practice is not followed. Could we have some consistency? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whereas these accent marks are correct in the Yoruba language, they are not necessary - in fact make no sense in English, as no English speaker will be guided by them as a pronunciation tool. These words are now already part of the English language, dictionarised in many dictionaries, therefore English spelling should apply. I could understand if there were 100% foreign words, unknown to English speakers. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I’ve just flagged it as needing copy-editing. If I have the time and no one else does it, I’ll try and fix all the spellings. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I’ve done this. Please do fix it if I’ve over-anglicized any words (I know we keep “Ayé,” for example). The page still needs a lot of work, in my opinion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Accent marks (diacritics) — The work of a sock
I first saw these accent marks true of Yuroba spelling in the corresponding Portuguese article and so decided to track down how this practice was introduced into the WP. Looks like the introduction took place since the appearance of User:Latin Wolf, who made the first of these changes on June 10 2013here. Incidentally, the introduction of these accent marks in the Portuguese WP predate these here by more than a year. Strangely enough, Latin Wolf disappeared forever at 03:53, 15 August 2013, to be replaced 16 minutes later by User:Afro-Eurasian at 04:09, 15 August 2013. The latter user has since been blocked as one of numerous socks investigated here. Both edit the same pages. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If this offends you
Just in case there’s any defensive blowback: Removing diacritics from these names and words is not an ethnocentric attack on other cultures, or anything like that. These non-English words and names are used in English. We are the English Wikipedia. We use words and names the way they are used in English. If you can show that reliable English-language sources tend to preserve the original orthography, then I will thank you for pointing out some of them here and correcting those instances. Otherwise, there is presently a relevant discussion at Talk:Yorùbáland, and I urge you to make your voice heard there. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
The cleanup tag should be removed. There is nothing wrong with the lead of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's see: We start out by saying Yoruba religion is the religion of the Yoruba, which it tautological gibberish. We then say that its homeland is in Togo, but the Yoruba do not live in Togo. Also that Yoruba religious beliefs are part of part of the songs etc. that make up society. I think it would be difficult to support the claim that beliefs are part of song, or that songs are cultural concepts, or that songs make up society. Are any of those supported in the text? How are any of those changes improvements? — kwami (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine - thank you for explaining yourself. I'll make some changes, based on those of your comments that are reasonable. That does not include your complaint about the opening sentence ("The Yoruba religion comprises the traditional religious and spiritual concepts and practices of the Yoruba people"). There is no harm in spelling out that Yoruba religion involves their religious and spiritual concepts and practices. Perhaps you're forgetting Wikipedia is written for the general reader? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is bad editing practice that should be cleaned up when encountered. It comes from the false idea that all articles must begin with a definition of the topic. That is not the case with articles that have self-defining titles: "Yoruba religion" is clearly the religion of the Yoruba, and defining a definition is an insult to the intelligence of our audience. Anyone who does not know what the word "religion" means can look it up; that line will not clarify it for them. As our guidelines state, articles should in general begin with useful definitions, and tautologies are not useful. Also, the definition is difficult to defend: Does religion include things that are not religion? How do religious concepts and spiritual concepts differ? If spiritual concepts and practices are distinct from religious concepts and practices, as we claim, how is it that religion includes both the religious and the spiritual, as we also claim? That line would appear to be an example of bullshit, essentially meaningless words strung together because they sound good. At best, it is arguing a subtle theological point that belongs in the general religion article, not as a summary of the text: I see nowhere in the article where we discuss the distinction and unity of religion vs spirituality among the Yoruba. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in general, I think articles should begin with a definition of the topic. There's certainly no harm doing that here. I agree to the removal of the religious/spiritual distinction from the lead, as you've presented a good case for that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in general. But not when the title is already a definition. We don't start an article title "list of X" with "List of X is a list of things X". Anyway, is "traditional religious concepts and practices" an adequate definition of religion? And does it even say anything? If you don't know what "religion" is, will telling you that it's things religious do any good? It's like saying "the United States is a unity of states". It's just gobbledegook. Not a good way to start an article. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is no harm in spelling things out and giving readers more information than what they can get from the title of the article. "Traditional religious concepts and practices" is not meant to be a definition of religion - it is only meant to give information over and above the article's name. I have requested a third opinion; I suggest you wait for the result. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether intended or not, it's presented as a definition: Yoruba religion is the religion of the Yoruba. Maybe we should change the lead of 'Nigeria' to 'Nigeria is the country called Nigeria'. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag. The word "gibberish" is harsh, even if the lede is not ideal.  I would suggest that other editors be invited to help improve the article, possibly via a WikiProject.  Saying that a religion is a religion is not redundant, just like saying that Nigeria is a country is not redundant.  It is useful to put something in its proper category.  That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course saying a religion is a religion is redundant. We're not saying Nigeria is a country, we're saying the country of Nigeria is a country. That's redundant. Restoring the tag: this needs to be cleaned up. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kwami, that's not a fair comparison. "The Yoruba religion comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of the Yoruba people" conveys more information than "Yoruba religion is the religion of the Yoruba". You may not feel that the additional information is helpful, but it definitely does mean that the statement is not simply equivalent to "the country of Nigeria is a country." Now just how long do you want to go on fighting over this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As long as you insist on a shitty lead. Compare the opening of Christianity:
 * Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.

Now, what do you think would happen if you tried changing that to
 * The Christian religion comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of Christians

or
 * Christianity comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of the Christian religion

or
 * Christianity comprises traditional Christian concepts and practices.

That's essentially what we have here. Now, I don't mind people writing shitty leads. They're not easy to write. But why in the world would anyone insist on keeping them shitty? — kwami (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest that the lead is perfect as it stands, and I am open to considering reasonable proposals to improve it. So far you have offered none. You have also consistently avoided responding to the points I have made, and in fact have provided no evidence that you even understand them. Your comparisons above are worthless, since they (wrongly) assume that Yoruba religion is comparable to Christianity. Your assumption that "Yoruba religion comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of the Yoruba people" is equivalent to "Christianity comprises traditional Christian concepts and practices" assumes an equivalence between the two that does not exist. Christianity has been reinvented so many times in its history that it would be fatuous to say that Christianity consists of traditional Christian concepts and practices. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is fatuous, just as the current wording is fatuous, and that's precisely my point. If you want my suggestion for improvement, read what you've edit-warred to remove. It's quite silly of you to delete my improvements and then accuse me of not suggesting any. I take it you're speaking to an audience you hope hasn't checked the article history rather than to me.
 * What points have I not responded to? I suppose you'll have to spell it out for me. — kwami (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Kwami's tone is not helpful here. But having read a bit about this argument, Kwami is making more sense to me than the others, on the issue of the first sentence at least, which is what I investigated. At first I assumed that 'Yoruba religion' was the name of the religion. After reading the 'Yoruba' article, I'm still not sure. (The same sentence occurs there too.) But it sounds like a description, not a name, like if it had said "The Icelandic religion comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of the Icelandic people" on the "Icelandic religion" page. Which does sound awfully close to tautological, and more an illustration of the word 'religion' than anything to do with the specific religion it should be describing. I guess linking the word 'religion' to the 'religion' page, which presumably explains what religion is, is the usual practice on here. I found Robert and FKC's views on this matter puzzling, e.g. 'Saying that a religion is a religion is not redundant'. But both of you (kwami and FKC) seem to be mostly arguing past each other, perhaps caught up in the squabble.

The decisive factor in the lead sentence issue, which doesn't seem to have been much touched on at all, seems to be whether 'Yoruba religion' is a name (i.e. 'Yoruba' is the name of the religion, as it appeared to me at first) or whether it's just a descriptive term. There's a lot of irrelevant and inapt comparisons, heated language, palpable falsehoods. When I started, Kwami seemed unhinged, intriguingly loopy. Having read more, I think he is basically in the right on the 'lead sentence' issue, but like I said, his tone and use of abusive language should have been avoided, although I can sympathize with the frustration. But neither of you are advancing helpful or relevant arguments in this matter, and arguing past each other. I hope this was helpful. Yesenadam (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's simply a descriptive title. It could just as easily have been "the religion of the Yoruba people". And the first line is saying "the religion of the Yoruba people comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of the Yoruba people". For that to be an adequate summary of the article, the article would have no content. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With all respect, Yesenadam, I do not think your comments are especially helpful, though it is true that Kwamikagami has the unfortunate habit of ignoring my arguments and making irrelevant responses whenever he replies to me (which strangely enough he never seems to tire of). Kwamikagami's comment above is simply one more example of this: note how he totally ignores my explanation of why he is wrong. Hopefully Kwami will eventually get bored with this entire subject, and the tag can then be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. :-) Your tone is also unhelpful, FKC, and not appropriate for wikipedia. Your accusations are perhaps true, but they are also true of yourself, every one of them. (as is usual in e.g. politics) Your 'I'm totally right, reasonable and to the point; he's unreasonable, ignores everything I say, and wrong' attitude is, as far as I can see, unjustified. I shall leave you to it, best wishes, and sorry to butt in. (After first changing the sentence myself to something I think is marginally better..) But gee, that tag is utterly silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesenadam (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe only marginally better, but you've removed the tautology. Let's see if it sticks. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your complaint about the tone of my comments might be more credible if you had not described Kwamikagami as seeming "unhinged, intriguingly loopy", as you did above. Since you used such language, what makes you think you are in a position to object to mine? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FKC, I can't answer an argument you didn't make, no matter how many times you claim you've made it. Magical thinking won't improve the article. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You assumed an equivalence between Yoruba religion and Christianity, asserting that because "Christianity comprises traditional Christian concepts and practices" is fatuous, "Yoruba religion comprises the traditional religious concepts and practices of the Yoruba people" is equally fatuous. I explained to you that you are wrong about that, since Yoruba religion and Christianity are very different from each other. Too bad if you didn't understand the explanation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So some trivial example isn't the perfect analogy? For that you insist on an idiotic lead? I expect you to edit in good faith. If you can't do that, you don't belong on WP.
 * Regardless of the analogy, saying that the Yoruba religion is the religion of the Yoruba is practically tautologous, and an insult to our readers, as is saying that religion is religious beliefs. Such statements have no place in an encyclopedia article. — kwami (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with your analogy (which you now oddly call trivial - in that case why did you make it?) isn't that it's not perfect. The problem is that it was simply wrong. There's little point in in my making further responses to you, as you are just make the same claims over and over and failing to respond to my arguments. If you think I don't belong on Wikipedia, take it up on ANI, Kwami. I don't think I'll be banned for some petty disagreement with you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does Iyami Aje fit into this?
I see no mention of the concept of "aje" in this article. can you help me with this? I've suggested a rename of the article also (and it would be nice if someone else could take a look at the whole article. Please?). Doug Weller talk 08:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)