Talk:Hoodoo (spirituality)

Folkways

The repeated use of the term "folkway" (a coinage which never entered the popular lexicon) is both pretentious and deleterious to this article. 74.127.90.179 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "coinage" at random. It is a well-known and well-defined word in the lexicon of sociology. It has been in wide use in that field since 1907 when an entire book on the subject was published by an Ivy League professor, and there is an Encyclopaedia Brittanica article about both the word "folkway" and the book Folkways (1907). So what's the beef? Are we restricted to only the use of "coinage" which has "entered the popular lexicon"? I know of no such rule for Wikipedia articles, otherwise, the articles on Chemistry and Biology subjects would be scant and thin indeed. Moreover, the usage is not pretentious, it is accurate and precisely correct in the way in which it is used here IMO. And, in what way is it deleterious? Make your point, don't just let it dangle there unexpounded. How does the use of the term "folkway" cause "harm or damage" [definition of deleterious] to this article? JoGusto (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Archived Conversations

Conversations over one year old have been archived. To read these conversations, please see the archive box at the top of the page. Thanks. GooferMan 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Other Artists and Folk Humor

I deleted these sections because they do not contribute to our of blues singers in relation to Hoodoo. However, this section needs work as well it needs to be flushed out with more detail that will explain the relevance of the the Hoodoo/Blues connection. GooferMan 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted references to etymological origins of Hoodoo

I have seen different etymologies for the word. The most popular being it's either an Ewe influence related to Vodu, Voodoo, or it's a Hausa word related to hu'du'ba. I'm not an African linquist but I've studied linguistics long enough to know that the latter is a stronger argument. I don't mind seeing the reference to African etymology in the text but there needs to be some sort of documentation and references. I don't have the sources that make these arguments so I can't quote them here and thus removed the reference in the article in order to conform with NPOV. It's interesting to note that regarding the association of Hoodoo as linquistically related to Voodoo, Zora Neale Hurston contributed to this belief in her book Mules and Men by stating that Hoodoo was Voodoo according to white people. However, Just because some white folk don't always understand the practices of other cultures doesn't mean that their misunderstandings determine the the true history of the word.

In short, I'd like to recommend that we not refer to the etymology at all since it contributes little to the article. It doesn't reveal much about Hoodoo as a socio-cultural reality'. Even a linquist will admit that there is a lot of guess work in etymologies of this sort. GooferMan 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

--

"I don't have the sources ... and thus removed the reference ... in order to conform with NPOV."

Correct me if I am wrong, but that's not what NPOV is about. What you are describing is "unreferenced material", material without citations for their source. NPOV can occur even when the material is sourced, but does not overall accurately reflect a consensus view of the issues presented. JoGusto (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Reference to Hoodoo in Africa

In following with my point about the linquistic origins of Hoodoo, I deleted the sentence referring to Hoodoo being a well accepted and current practice in Africa. I am not arguing that this is not the case, but we have had no discussion or documentation of sources regarding origins. I think this would be an relevant, and interesting discussion to have. We will have to sort out what specifically in hoodoo is of African origin and what is of Native American and European origin. Too often I read people who write about the African origins without citation. It's as if they are saying, "if it's a predominantly black tradition, then it must come from Africa." Again, I'm not saying that it's not African origin, but asking what parts of it are African origin? Why is it not African American origin? Or, why is it specifically indigenous African origin and Muslim African origin? I certainly see a lot of similarities between hoodoo and Muslim magical practices from North Africa, and many of the slaves were Muslim, as well as indigenous. Point being, we need a discussion and documentation.GooferMan 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoodoo is a Natchez/Choctaw/Chickasaw word. maybe creek at this point. anyway, just to clarify for those who have seen "roots," Indians were slaves. not slave-owners, ever. the scene in roots with the creek dude buying someone at auction was probably the underground railroad at that time, seeing as how at that time there were hyanusee's or whatever the word is for free-towns in the southern Appalachians, where muskoki speaking people met haudenossee speaking people after their families had escaped northeast to the Appalachians going upriver from the plantations in Louisiana where Indians, Africans, and south-Indians were enslaved by a few wealthy families, who did not represent the status quo of the Louisiana purchase at the time. circa 1700's ad. yoruba African religion was similar to hoodoo. different, but similar. and later there was cultural conglomeration between hoodoo religion and yoruba belief systems/religion. maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.150.143 (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsections Television, Games, Sports, and Military History

Before I get to cut-happy with deleted irrelevant sections, I propose that we eliminate the subsections Military history and Sports. Neither of these sections contribute to our understanding of hoodoo. If someone has information on the use of hoodoo on the battlefield by soldiers, that would be an great thing to include under the section. Same with sports. However, again these sections as they stand now are documentations of the use of the word and not a documentation of the tradition or its influence in history. GooferMan 19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard any responses to the contrary, so until we can connect these sections to how they are important to our understanding of hoodoo, I've deleted them. here they are in case we want to replace them:

Television Supernatural, a television series on the CW network, has referred to the practice of hoodoo in a few episodes during its second season. "Playthings" refers to the use of a five-spot symbol as protection, and "Crossroad Blues" contains references to goofer dust and using a hoodoo-like ritual to summon a demon to a crossroads to make a pact.

Games Hoodoo (and Voodoo) are a central part of the plot to Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Father, an adventure game released in 1993. A hoodoo stick, hoodoo bow and jinxed hoodoo skin are all items in World of Warcraft. Also, in Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc there is an enemy named a hoodoo, and has the ability to go invisible and cast forcefields at will. In the Global version of MapleStory, there is also a Monster named Hoodoo in the Halloween Town. In the latest Nancy Drew video game, "The Legend of the Crystal Skull", Hoodoo is one of the central themes.

Sports In English, Australian, and New Zealand sports journalism, the word hoodoo is sometimes used to refer to a team's inability to achieve a certain goal - such as beating a particular opponent or winning a certain trophy. This usage jokingly implies that there is some supernatural force preventing the team from doing so and derives from the false notion that hoodoo magic consists only, or primarily, of curses. For example, the Gloucester Rugby Club is said to have a hoodoo against Bath Rugby Club, having failed in to beat Bath RFU in the English league at the Rec (Bath RFC Home Ground) in their 134 year history.

Military history The first battleship of the United States Navy, the USS Texas, commissioned in 1895, was referred to by nickname as the "Old Hoodoo" due to a series of incidents that occurred after she was commissioned that gave her a reputation as an unlucky ship. The code letter "H" that was assigned to the Texas at that time may have also contributed to the inspiration. At the battle of Santiago, Cuba, on July 3, 1898, the "Old Hoodoo", in the words of a contemporary New York Sun article published shortly after the battle, became the "Old Hero".

GooferMan 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Before I get to cut-happy with deleted irrelevant sections, I propose that we eliminate the subsections Military history and Sports. Neither of these sections contribute to our understanding of hoodoo. If someone has information on the use of hoodoo on the battlefield by Bath RFU in the English league at the Rec (Bath RFC Home Ground) in their 134 year history.

Military history The first battleship of the United States Navy, the USS Texas, commissioned in 1895, was referred to by nickname as the "Old Hoodoo" due to a series of incidents that occurred after she was commissioned that gave her a reputation as an unlucky ship. The code letter "H" that was assigned to the Texas at that time may have also contributed to the inspiration. At the battle of Santiago, Cuba, on July 3, 1898, the "Old Hoodoo", in the words of a contemporary New York Sun article published shortly after the battle, became the "Old Hero".

GooferMan 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Books section revised -- and why i did it

I have taken the liberty of breaking the books section into non-fiction and fiction.

I have also deleted the reference to "Mama Zogbe" as an author, since i can find no books by her -- or, indeed, any mention of her outside of this wikipedia article and its various internet clones.

A google search on the terms

• < "mama zogbe" hoodoo > turns up only 25 pages

-- and all of them are clones of this article. Just as a reality-check for notability, a google search on

• < "emma bull" hoodoo > turns up 250 pages,
• < "harry middleton hyatt" hoodoo > turns up 425 pages
• < "newbell niles puckett" hoodoo > turns up 450 pages
• < "jim haskins" hoodoo > turns up 1,150 pages,
• < "ishmael reed" hoodoo > turns up 3,380 pages,
• < "zora neale hurston" hoodoo > turns up 5,350 pages,
• < "catherine yronwode" hoodoo > turns up 6,380 pages.

I therefore have decided that either the Mama Zogbe reference was a spoof or Mama Zogbe is not a notable writer on hoodoo.

Sorry for interfering, but it was bugging me.

cat yronwode (yes, me) Catherineyronwode 07:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

added section "Hoodoo Conceptual System"

I added the above section and two subsections "Moses-as conjuror" and "bible-as-talisman". My goal was to add some more description to what hoodoo is by discussing some of the underlying symbolism and worldview. I'm missing a quote that I haven't been able to track down, in Hyatt's book vol 1 Hoodoo-Conjuration and soforth, there is an informant who says something along the lines of, "if I cross someone, and it works, then it happened with God's permission." This isn't exact but just an approximation. If any of you have access to this book and find it before I do, can you add it and the citation in the sentence marked (citation)? I think Hyatt even mentions this quote in his introduction if I remember correctly.GooferMan 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gypsies and hoodoo??

Until we get some documentation, I've deleted the reference to Gypsies practicing hoodoo. I don't think that there is an historical record of this. However, recently there are a number of sources that pretty much anyone can use to learn these practices. Therefore, if there are a number of gypsies that use hoodoo (and not just the individual who added the word), then we should perhaps deal with it in a new section . . . something like "Prevalence in Contemporary Culture". GooferMan 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

please refrain from using racial slurs. Stregamama (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Romani people: "The word Gypsy in English has become so pervasive that many Romani organizations use it in their own organizational names." and "However, the word is often considered derogatory because of its negative and stereotypical associations."

It's seems pretty clear from this, when taken at face value, that the usage of the word "Gypsy" doesn't necessary carry connotations of racism or disrespect, but the point is taken. However, the term "Gypsy" is widely recognized as an exonym for Romani peoples, and in a way that is self-claimed [by Romani people in sufficiently numerous instances] not to be an offensive slur, so it still seems appropriate to use it as a link between the people being discussed and the hoodoo subject of the article. Agree? Disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoGusto (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New Section, "Cultural Influences"

I added a new section on cultural influences. My thinking is that we need three sections to discuss each of the three regions that the article claims had an influence on Hoodoo: Africa, Europe, and Native America. I am not versed enough in African or Native American influences to write those sections, so I just included Europe. I have two other grimoires to talk about, I'll add them when I've finished them.GooferMan 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Differences between Hoodoo and Voodoo

I propose that we deleted this section. Though the words sound the same, we all know that they are very different. I think that the article is developed enough that a reader will be able to tell the difference by reading it, then reading the article on Voodoo. I think part of the reason people always confuse them is that they are always spoken of in tandem. If we stop this now, we will reinforce their independence from each other. Does the article on Christianity have to have a section called "Differences Between Christianity and Judaism"? That's why there are separate articles for each topic. GooferMan 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that you leave the "Differences" section in place, revising it as you see fit. See the very first scomment on this talk page. It's an ongoing prolem, and ignoring it will not change the need for disussing it.

By the way, thanks for the splendid job you are doing on the article. I noticed that you need a cite for the Pow Wows refernce. If you want, you can cite my online book "Hoodoo in Theory and Practice." Wikipedia allows citations from web books published by people who are already recognized and print-published authors in the field.

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I can't find where it is explained in the article the exact etymology of "hoodoo." Badagnani 02:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagani . . . First, my apologies for the late reply on your comment. Please see the explanation above on why the etymology of the word 'hoodoo' is absent. In short, it is difficult to establish an exact etymology. I think the old etymology deriving it from the word 'voodoo' has come into disfavor. Instead, the view that it is from the Hausa word related to hu'du'ba - "to arouse resentment, produce retribution" - has become more prominent. However, if you search the terms 'hoodoo', 'etymology', and 'Irish' you'll find an interesting argument for the Irish origins of the word. There's too much guess work in etymology for my skills. However, it would be nice to get some documentation and references on the subject. As yet, no one has stepped up to provide a thorough case for the etymology.GooferMan (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

Are the quotations in this article word for word from their references? And how valid are the references? Quoting African Americans in this way seems pretty racist to me. If you were quoting a mexican american, you wouldn't write the quote with a mexican accent. These quotations do not fit within an educational article and should be replaced with something else. Meskarune10:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.211.91 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GooferMan (talk • contribs)

The quotations are indeed word for word from their references. Moreover, the references are entirely valid and arguably the most authoritative sources on the subject (Hyatt and Huston are at any rate). These are direct quotes from a folklorists trying to document both the beliefs and the dialect of their informants. Because of this, the quote as written is acceptable in an educational article. GooferMan (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

quote from hoodoo practitioner

While I have no evidence as to whether or not the whole thing is a joke, I think this should be written in proper English, rather than how it might have sounded due to the persons accent. It's demeaning and simply not accurate. We know they would have been saying "that you" and not "da' chew". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.146.124 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---separate two cents: I agree. my great great grandpa was a hoodoo man of creek-Chickasaw-Choctaw-natchez run-away from Louisiana to the hills in Tennessee where he took on a nativized English street name as a last name with his bro-han. the most annoying thing about this whole article is the misinfo propagated, and the fact that hoodoo is of swamp indian origin, while voodoo is a hybrid word of vodun and hoodoo as far as I've been able to deduce. I mean it all makes sense, hoodoo was in Louisiana before the French claimed it, and then later runaways and people were brought there bringing buju and vodun. hoodoo+vodun might = voodoo. i'd say that the quote may or may not be a joke, keep in mind in the era when this quote was collected, there was often literal 'as-heard-scripting-of-writing' albeit, somewhat non-accurate, I think both parties were trying to be good people, as is usually the case everywhere in everything. I mean, I know if you've ever been to anywhere where there are alligators, there are sometimes just people I can't even understand. but i'm a youngster, too. do know of hoodoo tho. that's a plus....

No, the quote is not a joke. And if you follow the reference you can see that there is a significant scholarly work dedicated to hoodoo and the people who practice it. While Hyatt may have been an amateur folklorist, he worked hard to document these practices and beliefs AS WELL AS the manner in which his informants spoke. Many of these interviews were recorded and then later transcribed and he did a fairly good job at capturing the dialect of his informants. He was no professional linguist, so the methodology of his transcriptions can be criticized, but NOT the fact that he chose to capture their dialects as honestly as he could. To do otherwise, to give his informants perfect English, would have been dishonest. And what, by the way, is demeaning about capturing the way someone speaks? As someone raised in an area where people speak in a similar fashion, and as someone who speaks similarly with some family members, I find this direct quote neither personally nor academically demeaning. The only argument to be made is that those who look upon others who speak this way with scorn are the ones who most often feel that a direct quote of this type is demeaning.

There is no argument to be made in favor of FALSIFYING the manner in which this informant speaks by transforming it into 'proper' English! GooferMan (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. A lot of us don't speak Ebonics, or Afro-English, or whatever it is. The dude, while it may sound like "chew" clearly means the second person pronoun and not the action of mastication. There's a difference between having an accent and mangling the language. Presenting the quotation in deliberately incorrect phonetics is insulting to both the source, and the language, and, like the above mentioned, the mark of an amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.217.25 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from an historically significant book. That is the way the author presented the material he collected, which is here being quoted. Do you propose to regularize the usage and style of, say, Robert Burns' deeply dialectic poetry as well? 74.83.14.59 (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What on earth does this mean?

"Hoodoo shows obvious and evident links to the practices and beliefs of African folk magico-religious culture. The Hoodoo practiced in the U.S. by the enslaved Africans was brought from West and Central Africa, specifically, the area that is now known as the Congo and Angola, Togo, Nigeria and other West African regions."

OK, first of all - African folk magico-religious culture? What, pray tell, is this? Is there some kind of unitary religious/magical perspective which comes from being African? Also, the claim that Hoodoo comes from "specific" parts of "West and Central Africa" - not backed up with a citation, by the by - undermines itself by describing a vast stretch of the African coastline as being the "home" of Hoodoo, from the far southeast past the Bight of Benin, an area comprising a large number of cultures, languages, religious traditions, etc. This is a paragraph with pretensions to precision, but under the bluster it's pretty well devoid of content. So I'm deleting it. 99.245.254.91 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding My Post Addition Attempts and Their Subsequent Reversions

Hello everyone,

I am trying to post this addition. If there are any objections, please voice your concerns or any areas in which there are factual problems. Otherwise, please do not remove my additions. Here is the addition as I would like to add it:

Moses & The Old Testament on Conjuring/Witchcraft/Wizards/Mediums

Although hoodoo draws on the Old Testament for many of its ideas, in many places the text of the Old Testament itself explicitly condemns use of some methods that hoodoo employs. Take, for example, these excerpts from the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (two of the five Biblical books received by Moses himself on Mount Sinai:

"...You shall not practice augury or witchcraft" (Leviticus 19:26).

"Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:31).

"If a person turns to mediums and wizards, playing the harlot after them, I will set my face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people" (Leviticus 20:6).

"When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you so to do" (Deuteronomy 18:9-14).

These are only some of the places in which hoodoo practices are Biblically condemned; in fact, these citations are all from books that Moses is believed to have written down himself. Considering the weight that hoodoo believers give to Moses-as-conjuror, this is an important point to recognize. These views are based on an ancient Jewish understanding of the laws that the Jews (then Israelites) believe were given to them by God through Moses. If the Israelites believed that God gave them these laws through Moses and the laws contradict some aspects of hoodoo belief, it is therefore necessary that the hoodoo belief that Moses (and, by logical extension, God) is a conjuror (in the hoodoo sense) should be called into question as a Biblically supported idea. This is even more necessary considering the explicit condemnation present in the Bible, the same source from which hoodoo believers draw their ideas of God- and Moses-as-conjuror. Such a contradictory set of viewpoints stemming from the same source must be carefully scrutinized.

---END OF ADDITION---

Once again, please let me know what the issue(s) is/are... if there are no posts within 12 hours, I will re-post my addition.

Divineofficer (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Divineofficer, the works of Hoodoo involving Bibliomancy and Bible-as-Talisman are different from traditional definitions of 'mediums, wizards, augurs, sorcerers, witchcraft, divination, etc.' (I am trying to work out Leviticus 20:6 from the Ancient Hebrew to a better English understanding. The verse speaks of 'prostitution' towards mediums, etc. in the ancient Hebrew text which is a turn away from God. In Hoodoo reading, their is guidance asked from God himself for knowledge and clarity into a situation.) I state this because in these types of works, as stated in the original article, God is always in control. The 'black arts' or 'black magic' that is spoken of refers to attempting to summon demonic forces or false gods for power whereas Hoodoo, at least in all of the works I have studied, is sort of a physical representation of prayer. To state that these works in their entirety is considered an abomination would conflict with ideas such as holy water and annointing oils used in the Church to this day. These are actually practices used in Hoodoo as a petition to God and His angels who protect us. Do not confuse Hoodoo with the forms of witchcraft and sorcery that were used during the timeframe in which Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written (approx. 1450-1400 BC).128.221.224.57 (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

To summarize my reasoning for the above response, the addition of the section regarding "Moses & The Old Testament on Conjuring/Witchcraft/Wizards/Mediums" is:

(1)Not relative to the subject of Hoodoo as an academic article towards the subject, and; (2)Biased based on perspective of the translation of the terms "wizard", "medium", "sorcerer", "divination", "soothsayer", "augur", "conjurer", etc. The definition of these terms, originally written in Hebrew from the timeframe of 1450-1400 BC, must not be skewed to represent a generalized idea of what the English language interprets the definition to mean almost three and a half millenia later.128.221.224.57 (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Divineofficer. Please read WP:OR and then see if you can find a secondary source on Catholic/Hoodoo interelationship. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Explanation

OK Fainites, here's the thing: Wikipedia's WP:OR section says (and I quote), "...primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Here are some quotes directly from the current wiki article:

"The goal of hoodoo is to allow people access to supernatural forces to improve their daily lives by gaining power in many areas of life, including luck, money, love, divination, revenge, health, employment, and necromancy."

"Contact with ancestors or other spirits of the dead is an important practice within the conjure tradition..."

Here's the definition of necromancy according to dictionary.reference.com/browse/necromancy: "1. a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art; 2. magic in general, esp. that practiced by a witch or sorcerer; sorcery; witchcraft; conjuration.

Now, after that small bit of critical thinking, here is a direct quote from a primary resource in its original context with no interpretation:

"There shall not be found among you any one who... practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you" (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

Isn't that pretty cut and dry? It doesn't seem that there is any need for a secondary resource.

P.S. I didn't mention Catholic teaching in this post at all because it is not called for. I merely cited a primary resource and directly quoted from it to show a bit of ideological conflict (namely that Moses, the man who wrote Deuteronomy, from which this direct quote is taken, and who hoodoo teaches is a conjuror, explicitly condemns the very practices that hoodoo employs). I'd say that's a pretty serious factual flaw in this article.

Divineofficer (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah but the article shouldn't argue with itself! The bit you quote describes Hoodoo. Hopefully that bit is properly sourced as a description of Hoodoo. The next point is - what if any is the relationship with Catholicism? There is material, apparently sourced, which claims Hoodoo borrowed a great deal from Catholicism and that many people comfortably practice Hoodoo and Catholicism side by side. The point I am making is - if you say the Catholic Church teaches differently - you need a secondary source about this subject - not quotes from the bible. There should be some sources as I believe the Catholic Church has spoken out on these matters and there have been issues about the state recognition of Vodou, for example, in Haiti. What you really can't do though is take bits of a primary religious text and use it to illustrate a current church's views on another religion.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Fainites, if the beliefs of hoodoo and those presented in the Bible are at odds, it is inevitable that the article will argue with itself! On the other hand, one can take it as a balanced representation of hoodoo beliefs and the weak points of their belief system. If they use the Bible as a source of teaching, they should understand what it actually says about their practices!

This is even more dire when one considers that Moses, who they present as a conjuror, wrote down the first five books of the Bible (commonly called the Pentateuch). Leviticus and Deuteronomy are two of those first five books. If the content of those books condemns hoodoo practices (by name, no less!!!), then that must be made known as part of a balanced approach! If this is done with direct quotes and without any interpretation necessary, then there is no reason to exclude it from the article... indeed, no interpretation is needed! It is explicitly stated in the primary resource (which hoodoo believers themselves use today)!

Furthermore, in this hoodoo article, there is no previous mention of Catholicism anywhere that I could find. If this is not present, I find it unnecessary and inappropriate to introduce the Catholic view on hoodoo.

However, in the voodoo article, which infers strong connections between Catholicism and voodoo and additionally implies an acceptance of voodoo practices by the Catholic Church, there is a basis for speaking about Catholic teaching. These are separate articles.

For this separate article on hoodoo, in which no mention of Catholicism is previously made, I cannot justify a mention of Catholic teaching or, therefore, any citation of Catholic thoughts. This is about the primary resource. They are citing it from ancient times, and so am I. I'm doing no different than they are.

Do you see what I'm saying yet? It's not about interpretation. They say Moses is a conjuror. Moses says not to conjure. They are necromancers. Moses wrote down that his people are not to allow necromancy. It's right there in the same source they use... fair is fair!

Divineofficer (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

But this article is about Hoodoo. It's not about what the Bible says that can be interpreted as contrary to the practices of Hoodoo. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Reply

So Fainites, you're saying that, if the Bible says "necromancy is an abomination" in a few Biblical books that Moses wrote down (I can easily find a reliable source that proves he did) and hoodoo says "we practice necromancy," then it's OK to keep that as an entry in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia?

If hoodoo believers say "Moses is a great conjuror" and Moses (in his writings, in the Bible) says to his people (essentially), "don't conjure" and "worship God alone" (not some snake or your ancestors), then we should take hoodoo believers at their word and ignore what Moses told his people about God's laws?

That's akin to your father telling you not to smoke or roll cigarettes, and then later in life someone telling you that your own father was a great smoker and cigarette roller! Shouldn't we take Moses, the very man himself, at his word?

If, as you seem to think, this is not the place to make a correction to the reality of the situation, then where is a good place? Should I create a new Wikipedia page devoted to the Biblical stance on conjuring, necromancy, divining, charm-making and usage, and the like? If the answer is that simple, please let me know ASAP!!!

Even if that's the case, both sides of the issue should be represented in this article.

Divineofficer (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of "sides". It's a question of sources. There will undoubtedly be an article on Moses already. Certainly you may create a page on the Biblical stance on these matters but not sourced from your interpretation of the Bible! Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what Divine, we could ask the reliable source noticeboard or the no original research noticeboard.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Film

What about Angel Heart? --BjKa (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)