The article says it's from Ghana in the second sentence and other places throughout. Is that not enough?

To be fair, it would be rather odd to use Asia in the title only for the article to refer more oe less exclusively to China or Vietnam.

Good comparison, thanks, helps put it into perspective.

Either of these better titles or no?

“…from Ghana, Africa…”

“…from Africa’s Ghana…”

(China, Asia & Asia’s China don’t really fit so probably not?)

Or how about just “from Ghana”?

My guess is the editor is banking on people not knowing where Ghana is. Hence the "Africa".

The Asia comparison would work better if instead of talking about China we were talking about Laos.

Really? I don't think that's the real reason why.

Definitely not. Ghana, Africa is phrased as though Ghana were a city in the country of Africa.

True, although Asia is also nearly twice the size of Africa, which might have something to do with that.

And Africa is more than twice the size of Europe, it is fair to complain that they don’t just put Ghana in the title. It is not that the title is unacceptable but it is just wrong and weird

Africa's GDP is also 1/10th of Europe's...

And Canada's population is 1/20th that of Europe, yet we all know where that is.

No need to cherry-pick some random metric and try and justify a point that's not worth justifying.

Maybe the English-speaking world. I think most people couldn't place Canada on a map. More people than Ghana or any African country, certainly, but that's because it's more famous. GDP is more correlated to this than population or landmass.

I'm not justifying anything. I also think it's more polite to say "Ghana" rather than "Africa". I just don't agree with the arguments.

Canada is the second-largest country in the world, so if you know that it's in the north and, um, not Russia, you stand a pretty good chance at picking it out. (Doubly so if you just know it's in the Americas.)

Now, if you asked the same about Pakistan or Nigeria (#5 and #6 in terms of population, but far smaller and with far shorter sea borders), I'd bet that far fewer people would be able to pinpoint those with the same accuracy (whether in the English-speaking world or not).

> if you know that it's in the north and, um, not Russia

You still need to know that it's the second-largest country in the world though

I am fairly certain that most people in the non-English speaking world will also be able to place Canada on the map - I'd assume the French know exactly where Canada is. But I digress; it's not about placing a country on a map. It's more about we know that Canada is a separate country, and it has an identity distinct from other countries in its continent.

This goes beyond mere politeness; that you used this word is a bit suggestive. Refusing to acknowledge an identity is far more than just a lack of politeness.

Do not use the Mercator for area comparison. You are off by 15 million square kilometers.

Asia is only ~50% larger than Africa.

You only see that after the click.

I expected different posters for the same movie from different African countries.

Imagine buying a cook book of European cuisine only listing UK dishes.

I can appreciate where you're coming from in general, but this article isn't that. All Headlines suck, by their nature they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in who they assume their audience is, so we're using the headline to place an unfamiliar country in a continent that is familiar enough, at least in name.

That's not an excuse.

A sample from the website's About page:

> this site is my attempt at creating something that’s dedicated to discovering the hidden gems of the online realm (whether they be in the form of academic discourse, cutting-edge technology, cultural commentary, or artistic expression) and sharing them with care and consideration.

How is treating a country in the second largest continent in the world - which contains more than 50 countries, most of which have very distinct cultures - as representative of that continent showing care and consideration? Ghana is not an unfamiliar country, and most people, at the very least, know it's in Africa. If I confused Mexico with Canada, or Germany with Albania, I'd be treated as a dimwit, but somehow it's totally fine if I don't know the difference between Ghana and Kenya.

I agree with the parent comment; this "unfamiliar country" business needs to stop.

This is spot on. The real reasons the headline is "Africa" and not "Ghana" are:

- To sensationalize the story by positioning it as a another manifestation of a supposed "African" nature/character.

- The idea that African countries by themselves are too insignificant to seek/need to know about, but an entire continents? OK, maybe. Many people are comfortable in ignorance, real or feigned.

Putting Ghana on the title would have been just fine. I'm Ghanaian btw.

That is not an acceptable reason for clickbait.

It's not clickbait. The article provides exactly what it says.

The only debatable part is that it's not all of Africa. But otherwise it's a very accurate description of the whole article.

Clickbait is "You won't believe the art that came out of this continent!" or "Look at the wild things artists did to attract an audience!".

> So Bad, They’re Good

Are you claiming that's not clickbait?

How exactly is that clickbait? You might not like it, but that doesn't make it clickbait. That's like saying it's clickbait to say Europe in a headline instead of Austria.

If you claim to show the art of a continent but only show art from one country it’s misleading.

Like a tour guide for the US and you only list places in Texas.

A tour guide for the U.S. definitely implies that you are going to see a variety of places in the U.S. That's implied by the word "tour" which means something roughly akin to "a journey through several different places".

This is merely an example where the writer of the headline believes that the average reader may not be familiar with the country of Ghana. If the demographics include Americans, I'd have to guess they were spot on. (I'm American, I know how Americans are.)

Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana? Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra? None of these headlines are inaccurate. They're just not specific.

I can obviously see why this is frustrating but to me it's a complete misunderstanding to blame the person writing the headline.

> Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana?

Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website. Would a Texan like being stereotyped by a tourist who thinks all of America is just like New York City?

> Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra?

What many people here are trying to point out is that the chances of seeing such a line about a European country (even a relatively unknown one) is waaaay less than the chances of seeing such a line about African/South American countries.

> Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website. Would a Texan like being stereotyped by a tourist who thinks all of America is just like New York City?

That does happen, and I don't think very many people consider it grossly offensive, the vast majority of people would probably find it mildly amusing at worst. (It is not lost on me that people feel this way partly because American culture is well-known around the world, so people are less defensive of it.)

On the other hand though, I don't think that the headline being less specific means that the article is making generalizations about Africa. The article itself is pretty immediately clear on that matter.

A lot of people say America as if it was a country and not a whole continent or two.

And Canadians tend to get upset if you refer to them as an American, though technically they are.

are you lost? tumblr is down the hall and to the left.

The original commenters critique is valid, as the discussion illustrates and ultimately vindicates. This comment you have left in response is dismissive, childish, and lacking of any meaningful contribution. Although, I suppose with a username like yours it should be of no surprise this is all you could meet them with. It is nevertheless disappointing to see such low-brow low-effort commentary on HN, and it is ironically your comment that is misplaced rather than the original commenter.

words, words, words.

a shit stirrer shows up and now 2/3 of the comments in the thread are offtopic. is that the kind of commentary you seek?

Editorial decisions and biases are relevant discussion points in writing. Subtext may be elusive amongst words, words, and words. You would benefit from embracing maturity and critical thought, as your contributions are a disservice to the community in present form, fart-fart-FART.

words, words, words.

Wait till you hear about Asian people!