Talk:Benin ivory mask

Scope

I haven't found enough sourcing specific to the Met's mask (or even along with the British Museum's mask) to justify a separate article from the overall concept of either Idia masks or Benin hip masks. My recommendation would be to re-scope the article to be about the five ivory masks and their provenance, legacy, aesthetic and anthropological detail. From there it could possibly expand into an article about other forms of pendant masks (specific to the Bini people) but I have reasonable confidence based on my sourcing that the ivory masks can be enough of a topic in themselves. As for the title, I would recommend "Idia masks" as opposed to something lengthier "Idia ivory pendant masks" or some variation whereof. The Met calls its mask the Queen M/mother pendant mask or Benin pendant mask, but not as a proper noun, and more as as descriptive title. I don't think there is a clear common name, but sources most often refer to the masks (1) for their depiction of Idia, (2) as being made of ivory, and (3) less often, how they were worn on the hip as pendants. I think Idia masks is the best balance of the naming criteria (article titles policy): the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), but open to feedback. (Ping @Pharos, per your comment to merge the draft) czar 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that scope should be inclusive of the Met and British Museum masks (as well as the other examples, which are less well-documented). If we ever have a article on the larger genre, it should probably be called Pendant mask, since many objects of bronze or other materials are in the same style. As to the name of this article, I kind of like the current name, because it includes "pendant mask" and has the most likely search terms, since unfortunately Idia's name is not well-known globally.--Pharos (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources I've skimmed so far refer to the mask primarily by its relation to Idia and secondarily as an ivory pendant mask (which is to say that contemporary discussions are much more about the mask's current cultural importance than its retelling of the Edo/Bini people from whom it was taken. That Benin is a confusable term doesn't help either. I'll keep digging and see what I find, but for the time being, no source calls it "Benin Pendant Mask" with title case capitals so I'll lowercase those parts. czar 04:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For context, it appears "Benin Pendant Mask" is actually the former official title used by the Met, and is presumably where the original wiki-editor got the name. The Met now officially uses "Queen Mother Pendant Mask: Iyoba", though the old title is still on the physical label in the gallery (which is yet to be updated). But if we're going the lowercase route, Benin ivory mask may actually be the most popular from search results.--Pharos (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

But the title shouldn't lean to the Met's official title just because the Met has the most material online. (This is also why I was drafting a separate article on the masks as a group rather than focus on the Met's mask, as that's how I see the source material working.) In going through the offline material, it is best known as a mask of Idia in cultural sources and the Benin ivory masks in general interest sources. I'm slowly working these into the article. I still think "Idia masks" is the best match for the naming criteria (see above) but I agree that "Benin ivory masks" is better than "Benin pendant mask", at least for now. czar 17:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with making the title singular—the scope is the set, not any individual mask, so it's misleading to title the article in singular czar 17:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Translation

• FYI, the page was just translated into Yoruba by @Wikicology: yo:Benin pendant mask czar 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Duplicative sections

We have been duplicating some content (or scope of content) in different sections, particularly 'Context' and 'Description' have some of the same scope as 'Form and function'. My idea for 'Form and function' is that the intro subsection gives a general description and the mask's function, 'A powerful women' describes the aspects related to Idia personally (her unique historical rule, the headdress, the face, etc), and 'Trade symbolism' describes aspects related to the dualism and the maritime theme (ivory, Portuguese, mudfish, etc).--Pharos (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The sections will converge eventually. Other art/anthropological object articles follow an order of "Background" (context, historical use), "Description", before other details (provenance, contemporary use, legacy). "Form and function" is associated with architecture/design. I think the former puts the information in the order and place where readers would expect it. czar 16:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree they should converge, and your section headings are reasonable. However, I'd ask that we preserve 'A powerful women' and 'Trade symbolism', or something like those, as subsection headings of 'Description and interpretation', as it helps to organize the different symbolic features of the work thematically for the reader.--Pharos (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's overkill to have section headings every paragraph—the ideal is to use headings that can contain multiple paragraphs. The thoughts in "Origins" are not so disparate as to need separate headings, and the other headings are too narrow for the scope of the article. I wish you would have waited on merging the content—it's going to duplicate a lot of work on my end now. czar 17:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies if was stepping on toes, my intention was rather to reduce duplication by bringing similar content together. Also I agree with have multiple paragraphs per subsection, was just thinking that Benin Empire could be expanded with material from other areas. I have to disagree on section titles, though, I think it's quite valuable to have non-generic subsection headings that can draw a reader in.--Pharos (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Subsections can be valuable, but not when they visually clutters the content. They're better employed in other formats, I think. The article is long enough to lose the reader or warrant the subsections, especially when juxtaposed with the images, which are a sufficient draw on their own czar 18:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess we have artistic differences, but I feel the article is already getting pretty long, and it will be useful to the casual reader to be able to navigate to subsections that appeal to their own interests, for example if they are curious about a mother queen's regalia or trade-related symbolism.--Pharos (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Same artist

Re: no claim of same artist in source, in the the first paragraph of LaGamma 2011, p. 28,

While the nearly identical works are almost certainly by the same artist, subtle formal variations distinguish them.

czar 18:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, fixed.--Pharos (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Provenance

The Provenance section uses the terms "found" and "took", despite the fact that there's a source that calls at least one of them "looted" (albeit in quotes). Every source I've seen on what was done to Benin City by British soldiers in 1897 calls it "looting", even the second paragraph of this section. So why shy away from it when describing the way these objects were acquired? Guettarda (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)