Talk:Umbanda

Revisions

Removing this sentence because it's POV (as well as hard to understand): Most of the appeal of Umbanda comes from its loose morality -- not very far from Crowleys "do what thou willst" -- and the shocking dissimilarity of its rituals. Mona-Lynn 09:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Umbanda has no loose morality, quite the opposite. The sentence meant that Umbanda is not dogmatic.Rirochi 12:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing this sentence because I don't understand it: It is not a "New Religion Movement", although it can be viewed as such when transplanted to a cultural context other than that of Brazil. There is an article on new religious movement but I still don't understand the sentence, and suspect it is not relevant anyway. Mona-Lynn 21:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not a single mention of Zé Pilintra

There's not a single mention on the myth of Zé Pilintra. I created the page on him and now I'm asking someone that link it with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Officer Boscorelli (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism

I removed the word "monotheistic". As a Brazilian, with some knowledge about Afrobrazilian religions (umbanda and candomble), I'm not sure whether we can call any of them "monotheistic". Yeah, there's a Supreme Deity, but Yabas/Orishas have their roles as deities, too. Joaomarinho 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Joao Marinho, 29 April 2006.

Umbanda is monotheistic religion. So it was not properly edited and I comment as Umbanda practioner! Orishas are indeed deities as you said but there is a difference between deity and God, so it is not a question of being brazilian or not but if you have knowledge or not of theology.Rirochi 12:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too different from Saints revered in Catholicism which is nonetheless widely considered to be a monotheistic cult. I'm afraid that whether a cult is to be considered monotheistic is POV-dependant --190.135.57.84 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Umbanda is falling for decades

All afro-brazilian religions are falling and for decades, in Brazil.The politicians and riches continuous to go to Umbanda centers, but among brazilian poors,Umbanda is falling and for decades.The article claims that as much as 30 million brazilian were umbandists(followers of Umbanda), but this is far from true.Today, Umbanda and spiritism are upper middle class religions in Brazil.Brazilian poors are going to pentecostalism and this is happening for decades ago.In Brazil, no other religious group is so poor as the protestants(pentecostals).The last census gave just 0.3% of brazilian population to be umbandists. Agre22 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

Wiki Education assignment: Black in Brazil - Afro-Brazilian Literature and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Scolopendra17 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Scolopendra17 (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Umbanda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl excited to review this! Fair warning, due to the size & breadth of the article, this review might be on the longer side, but I aim to be done with it by next weekend. It's a very interesting topic though, so I think it will be fun to review, and as a religion topic, it's up my alley. Thanks for your nomination! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking this review on, Sawyer, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Assessment

Well-written

• the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct  Passed
  •  Comment: Overall very well-written. I did some minor copyediting & added some wikilinks, but that's about it.
• it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation  Passed

Verifiable with no original research

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline  Passed
  •  Comment: There is a bare URL in paragraph 1 of the "definitions" section, after while others claim that it derive from Kimbundu language meaning “medicine” or “healing”.
    • That was added in the past few days by an unexperienced editor. The URL they added would not constitute a Reliable Source so I removed that addition altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)  Passed
  •  Comment: The sources themselves all look excellent. There is an unused source in the bibliography: Voeks 1997 (found via User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js) - this source could perhaps be moved to the "further reading" section, or cited inline.
    • Well spotted! I've removed the source for now, although I will probably check the book in future to see if it has relevant material in it that could be integrated into this article. I have already used it quite extensively while working on the Candomblé article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I don't have access to the Brown 1986 source unfortunately, but I got my hands on most of the other major sources, and text-source spotchecking on random sfns throughout the article produced nothing of concern; it all matches up.
• it contains no original research  Passed - these aren't necessarily violations of WP:OR per se, but I wasn't sure where else to put these comments.
  •  Comment: In Umbanda, it is usual for a medium to determine the identity of a person's spirit patrons. This is different from Candomblé, where the identity is more often ascertained through forms of divination; divination in general plays much less of a role in Umbanda than in Candomblé. (from section "relationships with the orixás") - this is confusing to me; what is the difference between a medium determining the patrons versus using divination to determine them? could use clarification here.
    • In Umbanda, the medium identifies the patron directly, rather than using divinatory methods (as in Candomblé). Would using the wording "a medium to personally determine" clarify things here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

      Yes, I think that would be helpful! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

      • I have now made that change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment: As spirits, they are considered to be "highly evolved". (from section "Caboclos") - the section about Caboclos is in the "lesser evolved spirits" section; does "lesser evolved" in this context mean "evolved spirits that are lesser" or "spirits that are less evolved" ?
    • As I understand it, the caboclos are "lesser" than the orixás, but at the same time are "highly evolved" in contrast to the exús and pomba giras. I think it best if I just remove this sentence so that it doesn't cause confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

      Sounds good! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism  Passed
  •  Comment: Earwig found a "violation possible" but I checked, and the only matching things are names of sources.

Broad in its coverage

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic  Passed
  •  Comment: with 8800 words, I think it'd be hard not to cover pretty much everything! Very comprehensive, from what I can tell.
• it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)  Passed
  •  Comment: and on the other hand, I found the writing to be engaging & not too detailed or confusing - there are a lot of non-English words used here, but that seems like it's a necessary part of covering this topic, where there aren't great English translations for the vast majority of the terms in use.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each  Passed

• •  Comment: religion can be challenging to cover in an encyclopedic manner, but I've found nothing that stands out as UNDUE or non-neutral.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute  Passed

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

• media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content  Passed
• media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions  Passed
  •  Comment: Glad to see we have so many good photos - they really help explain the topic.

Thanks, Sawyer-mcdonell. Did you have any other points that you wanted me to address? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I plan on doing some spot-checking of sources & maybe add some more prose suggestions/questions as I find them. As I said before, the article is pretty big, so I can't do it all in one day haha. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No rush! Take whatever time that you need. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Other comments

•  Question: The social activities common among Brazil's Christian churches are largely absent from Umbandist centros. What kinds of social activities?

• If I recall correctly (and I don't have the book immediately to hand), Brown was referring to church picnics, jumble sales, that sort of thing - events which bring the congregation together for socialisation (and maybe fundraising) rather than worship. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense - it might be good to add an example or two, just for clarity. sawyer * he/they * talk 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl I've completed my review, including source spotchecks, which all turned up well. Congrats! sawyer * he/they * talk 19:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.