# Talk:Candomblé

Hi, people. I'm creating this discussion because I've noticed the page predominantly uses the English-language word "orisha" to refer to Candomblé's deities. Well, this is English Wikipedia so maybe it's expected and the guidelines say to use English preferably. However, it also says to mention native written forms. In Brazilian Portuguese, the correct form is "orixá", so the first sentence of the second paragrah ("Candomblé is monotheistic, involving the veneration of spirits known as orishas" [also not sure why it's in italic if it's English]), maybe should be written as something like "Candomblé is monotheistic, involving the veneration of spirits known as orixás (or orishas)" or "known as orishas (or orixás, in Portuguese)" or "spirtis natively known as orixás". I don't know either if there's an established form used in English-language sources. For this purpose, Midnightblueowl may be the person to contact since s/he did a great work here. I'd also like to notice that the article currently also uses "orichas", which probably is not correct unless it's also widely used by scholars. "Orichas" is probably derived from Spanish "orichás"—as a side note, Santería articles mostly use almost-native form "orichas", but also uses "orishas" regularly. I think a standard should be adopted both here and in Santería article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You make a very good point, Gabriel Yuji. I agree that we probably should stick with the Portuguese spelling orixás in this article, although I have seen different spellings used in the English-language academic publications on Candomblé. Causing a slight bit of confusion is the distinction between the orixás as the spirits of Candomblé and the orishas of Yoruba-derived religious traditions as a whole; both of which are mentioned in the article. For that reason, we may still need a combination of the two spellings, depending on which is being referred to (and perhaps an explanatory note to make clear the difference in spelling?). Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl, I haven't paid attention to the distinction between orixás and orishas. Good point. An explanatory note would be good to explain such a sudden change within the same article. (So this distinction explains the use of both "orichas" and "orishas" in the Santería article that initially confused me—a note there would be useful too.) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
In further support of the differentiation suggested above, please note specificity in the uses of the term. In Brazil, "orixá" has the straightforward meaning as defined above; in Benin however, "Orisha" is also the name of the religion, as practiced by the Yoruba – distinguishing it from "Vodou", as practiced by the Fon. Parzivalamfortas 01:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have undone an edit to the first paragraph which had suggested the primacy of Bantu speaking peoples in the origin of Candomblé. Bantu, as made clear further down in the text is only one of several that contributed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages. Parzivalamfortas 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I do feel some of the assertions need to be better authenticated... 
1) 'That Candomblé spread to other countries...'. I think most of the evidence is that the varieties of Afro religions in other countries arose directly from the diaspora rather than each other. This is not to say that Candomblé per se could not be practiced in other countries as well.
2) 'That practitioners are "disproportionately poor, female, and a great proportion of males homosexual' ... The veracity and relevance of this needs to be better authenticated unless good demographics are available? In which case they can be cited. That a higher proportion are women is a common enough observation, but I have also visited terreiros where the gender balance at a particular gathering was approximately equal. The poorer sector is a common assumption as well, though remember that the past two Presidents also had Candomblé connections in Benin and Salvador includes academics that I have met. Disproportionate to what? The general population of Brazil as a whole high a high proportion of poorer people, yet the main cities are modern and Sao Paulo, which has vibrant Candomblé communities, has many wealthy people. As with "poor" and "female" the tag "homosexual" seems to be making a slur, however unintentional, especially as there is no especial link with the religion itself. The one source quoted for this, from Queer Black Anthropology, is by an American author and her article focuses on black lesbians, not homosexual men, and only in Salvador. A more balanced demographic study can be found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6142372/. The author suggests that a higher female proportion might be due to women taking more interest in spirituality. Though there is much overlap as well as confusion generally between Candoble/Umbanda/Spiritism. With respect to the Wiki author's other work, I politely suggest that the statement is possibly irrelevant, misleading and should be removed.

3) One unique facet of Brazilian Candomble/Umbanda that differentiates it from its Afro-origins is the Pomba-Gira cult which is a considerable force for female empowerment (as is much of Candomblé, perhaps on account of its status as a non-patriarchal religion). If one must mention gender, then some positives might be in order. Categorizing (by implication) Candomblé practitioners as female/gay/lesbian is a little too close to the evangelical campaign to demonize the traditional religion.
Parzivalamfortas 13:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Parzivalamfortas. On your first point, the article is saying (or trying to say) that Candomblé itself has been transplanted to countries other than Brazil, i.e. you will find terreiros in Germany, for instance, largely established by Brazilian emigrants. It is not trying to say that, for example, Vodou or Santería are the same thing as Candomblé. If the current wording on this is unclear then we can certainly reword things.
As for "Membership is disproportionately poor and female; among its male practitioners, a high proportion are homosexual", it is not essential to the lead so could be removed, although perhaps we might be better seeking to rephrase it? Giving some demographic information about practitioners is useful; we do so at the FA-rated Santería and Rastafari articles, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Midnightblueowl. I agree with your statement on transplanted terreiros now you have explained it to me. I am less comfortable with the "poor, female, male homosexual" part but would agree that it could be removed. I include some further references to clarify some of the issues involved. I do think a large proportion tend to be female, though as that seems to be the case for many religions I'd question its relevance unless we express it more clearly. To clarify the homosexuality issue (which I thnk is misleading) a technical Candomblé dynamic and the necessary language used in the research by Professor Johnson (further down, below) is necessary but might not be suitable for a general Wiki page. If however we are in agreement about removing the reference to homosexuality it becomes academic. 
On gender and gender orientation, Hayes for instance (https://www.academia.edu/47783693/Women_and_Religion_in_Contemporary_Brazil) mentions that “Candomblé and other Afro-Brazilian religions… recognise women’s sacerdotal authority” although this does not automatically translate into the numbers of worshippers; it may well do, but in making such a statement we would perhaps need to say “in comparison to what?” Hayes  notes that there is greater involvement of women also in Brazilian Pentecostalism and (ibid. p.396) and one can find figures to say that for many religions (e.g. Hayes p.400-1 & refs). She adds (p.412) : “Men play critical roles in the ritual life of any Candomblé terreiro and the division of labor within the community reproduces conventional gendered norms in many ways.” And also (p.412) “Female mediums also outnumber their male counterparts in Umbanda, although the gendered division of spiritual labor that structures Candomblé terreiros generally is less apparent.” That Candomblé is disproportionately dominated by a majority of women is perhaps too strong a statement and open to misinterpretation. 
Certainly we could say that “women seem to outnumber men significantly” (Hayes p.409, even though her refs are rather old); yet one must be cautious to avoid characterizing a religion in such a way.
On poverty again we come across evidence of numbers. Hayes notes that “Brazil’s rural poor continue to be predominately Catholic” and that “Pentecostal women thus are far more likely to be suffering from the effects of poverty than women involved in Spiritist or alternative religious communities, which attract better educated and more affluent Brazilians” (p.399). This goes some way against the idea that Candomblé adherents are predominately poor. (I could add that those known to me personally are certainly not poor, and include businesswomen and professors). Hayes (p.411) says “Some of these women [of Candomblé], like Mãe Menininha of Gantois, have become figures of national and even international renown, acclaimed as spiritual exemplars and sought out by politicians, writers, artists, musicians, and other culture brokers”.
I wouldn’t press any remarks of Pomba Gira, which is by definition female-orientated, but technically associated with Quimbanda (or Umbanda in the wider sense) rather than Candomblé.
There is indeed some support for the idea of homosexuals with Candomblé in the literature but it is equivocal (de Port, Ecstatic Encounters, AUP 2011 chapter 4) and may probably be an over-willingness of the western Gay Pride movement and traditional psychoanalysis to translate a symbolic (spiritual) gender-exchange into a physical reality. 
Paul Johnson clearly examines and explains the limits of such an idea:
“The drummer’s discourse equated such cool containment with a feminized body. A macho body in repose, he implied, is cock up and ass down. lt does not passively recline, however, but is rather open and cruising the street. lt is not worried about penetration; rather, it penetrates. If this were a strict logic of practice in Candomblé, then the only men in the terreiro would be bichas, gay men who assume a “female” role in intercourse. But this is hardly the case. Straight men are drummers and song leaders, are sacrificers (axogun) and ogans, select honored men who act as patrons and mediators between the terreiro and the public domain. The drummers and ogans bring the heat of the street to the cool house to fertilize the reproduction of children and axé.” (Johnson P. The Transformation of Brazilian Candomblé, Secrets, Gossips and Gods, Oxford University Press 2002, page 45  	DOI:10.1093/0195150589.001.0001). Also pp.48.
I hope this helps!
Parzivalamfortas 20:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl Undid some changes I made, and I am going to clarify why I made them
There is a misunderstanding on this page regarding what is Candomblé. I am writer with experience on the field, as well as a Lessé orixá = meaning from yoruba, someone who bows to orixá, a Ogan (the Atabaque player and Singer in the Xirê, the Cults), and a researcher on different nations(The portuguese term used for the main branches Ketu, Jeje and Angola) and varieties of candomblé cult. For more information please read this  (Guide in Candomble written an actual Candomblé Practioner) and/or this (peer-reviewed article)
The religion which has syncretism in the form of using catholic Saints as analogies for Orixás is Called Umbanda. You'll not come to any Candomblé and face Catholic Saints, or even hear their names. The cult of Candomblé is done majorly in Yoruban, Fon or Bantu Terms, while Umbanda uses predominantly portuguese terms, and includes the names of Catholic Saints. For Sources please see the above.
I also added the official Governmental site on the Protection of Afro-Brazilian Heritage, as well english written Guides on Candomblé from Credible sources.
I removed Broken links, which is self-explanatory. RodolfoVisconde (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello RodolfoVisconde. I appreciate that you are new to Wikipedia but please be aware of our WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You were bold with your additions and changes (and that's fine), but they were reverted due to concerns about them, and the next stage would be to discuss it here at the Talk Page. You should not WP:Edit war to try and push your controversial changes on the article. Edit warring can result in sanctions.
It is important that everything cited at Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable Sources. At present, we use those reliable sources in the main body of the article, while summarising this information in the opening lead. You added several website citations to the lead but these are all run by practitioners of Candomblé (and advertise services to potential clients), and would not count as Reliable Sources for Wikipedia's purposes. We need to rely on the academic, peer-reviewed literature. In your above comment you make reference to what you describe as a "peer-reviewed article" - the link is actually to part of Paul Johnson's 2002 book Secrets, Gossip, and Gods: The Transformation of Brazilian Candomblé, which is already heavily cited throughout this Wikipedia article.
With regard to the Catholic influence on Candomblé, we have multiple Reliable Sources cited in the article that highlight instances where orixás have been conflated with particular saints. I have no doubt that some terreiros and traditions have tried to get rid of these Catholic influences, particularly in an attempt to re-Africanize Candomblé, but this represents only one tendency within the religion, and not the religion as a whole. While true that Umbanda certainly displays greater European influences than Candbomblé, this article would be misleading readers if it concealed the impact that Catholicism has exerted on it throughout its development. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey there @Midnightblueowl
I apologize for any undue behavior. I am an academic and quite new to wikipedia. Please note that some of my edits were quite valuable, if I might say so, and I suggest that some of them be returned ( I see some parts were added, but other parts of big importance were erased) . I will explain why in longer format below, and would like to know what is the preferred format for republishing the changes, adding additional sources of peer-reviewed articles if need be.
I would like first to point out that the links added were in the sense of providing better information for readers. If you click the actual links that are available right now as it is (reverted) they are extremely outdated and/or provide only commerical advertisment, general information which is not informative to the user (random pieces of information), and broken links, [1] while the link I added provide factual and contemporary information, even if one source might sell services (the article added was informative in its essence- and provides the best current information in english language, as well as photos and other important informations to the user). According to the reliable sources page article you posted, it can be seen as a neutral standpoint(presents different aspects and varieties of candomble without attributing value or hierarchy), and while commercial, it cannot be substituted in the moment for a non-commercial standpoint.
I will link to more peer-reviewed articles when making next changes and I thank you for the information. However, you must observe that while catholic saints have been used in instances to represent orixás, the significance behind these orixás is made up of african values, histories and characteristics. What the orixás represent is african culture, not Christian culture, differently from Umbanda, where there is christian values and significances for the saints used. [2] [3]. Particular interesting is how in Candomblé the Exu entity is a messenger and in Umbanda it has apprehended aspects of a diabolical nature.  Moreover, the rituals inside candomblé houses don't use catholic saints, this is a consensus in several authors [4], [5], [6]: Citing one Of the most famous Yalorixás (head priestess): “Durante a escravidão, o sincretismo foi necessário para a nossa sobrevivência (…)” - During Slavery, syncretism was necessary for our survival. "mas dentro dos cultos, se fala e cultua deuses yorubas" - But inside the rituals, the language and cult is of the Yoruban Gods. This is also supported by other sources studying syncretism, [7] (Peer-reviewed).
Moreover, as we are speaking of a type of oral culture, I see the importance of Candomblé Practioners writing about Candomblé, since the information might not be readily accessible elsewhere. Especially in the english language the amount of misinformation is astounding, contradicting academic and popular consensus, even in published books and peer-reviewed articles. However please do not think I write only as at a partial standpoint. I'm an anthropologist, with published works (did not cite my own work, as I know the rules about self-promotion), and can understand neutral and unbiased perspectives, however Anthropology and Cultural Studies as a science are moving towards accepting the voices of the actor of communities. That I believe, is a bigger discussion tho
I'm not denying the influence on my edits, I'm correcting the factual impacts of the catholic faith inside Candomblé, and how it exists as a whole. Umbanda has very different practices, and incorporates elements of candomblé faith, but they cannot speak as a Candomblé house, according to the brazilian African-Root religious federation [8] RodolfoVisconde (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi RodolfoVisconde and thanks for your message. It's always valuable to have multiple perspectives on a Wikipedia article.
As for your removal of various external links at the bottom of the article, I don't object to that at all. Please feel free to remove those as you see fit. I don't object to adding practitioner websites in the "External Links" section either - however I don't think that we should be using them as sources in the text. When it comes to Candomblé, we have more than enough high quality, peer-reviewed academic sources available that we don't have to start using practitioner websites.
That is not to say that practitioners' writings must not be used. However, wherever possible, we should use the work of academic-practitioners. For example, if you look at the Santería article, which I brought up to Featured Article quality, as well as the Haitian Vodou and Palo (religion) articles, which I have also worked extensively on, we cite plenty of academics who are also initiates in the tradition in question. There may be certain high quality writings by practitioners who are not academics, but I do think considerable caution is required when using sources of that nature.
The question of Catholicism's role in Candomblé is a tricky one. I agree that the way Catholic saints are used in many Candomblé terreiros is not necessarily the same as the way in which they are used in Umbanda. However, Catholicism has clearly influenced the formation of Candomblé to a certain extent. Even if the Catholic saints are only 'shells' to conceal African orixas, that is still a Catholic influence. Moreover (and this is an issue that we also find in other African diasporic religions like Vodou and Santería/Lucumí), different practitioners may take different stances on this issue. Some may insist that the Catholic saints are just there to conceal the African reality; others may genuinely feel that the creolization is an important part of their religious practice. For these reasons I don't think it is appropriate to remove reference to Catholicism from the opening paragraph. I don't see any Reliable Sources from academics that unambiguously state that Catholicism was not a formative element in the emergence of Candomblé. Conversely, there are sources cited in this article which suggest that it was.
I was also confused as to why your edits removed much of the information about Candomblé's history from the lead, while instead adding information about Samba, which did not seem totally relevant. However, there are other elements of your edits, such as adding the name of the eguns to the lead, which seem like a good idea. I'm certainly open to discussing other proposed changes to the text as it stands. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello there @Midnightblueowl! Thanks for your input, I can see you clearly have done your studies on Afro-Diasporic Religions!
One of the most foundational aspects which I could argue, in my experience both as academic as much as practitioner is that while you say that :
"There may be certain high quality writings by practitioners who are not academics, but I do think considerable caution is required when using sources of that nature."
Is true, as there could be misinformation caused of the lack of proper reviewing of information, also some of the best  content is written by practitioners, who have a degree and depth of understanding deeper than individuals who spent several months or even years doing ethnography (the most common form of research as I see it), as opposed to those who were born inside this cosmology.
Pierre Verger, the French Anthropologist, and one of the leading experts of Candomblé, has spent decades in Candomblé, and went to the corresponding communities in Africa, where he even changed his name , and recognized that the Bahian Faiths remained truthful to the African sources. However,  my professional opinion as an Anthropologist is that we as intellectual communities should give at least equal standpoints of those who were born and nurtured inside this oral communities, in order to diminish the impact of the hierarchy of knowledge which is pervasive toward oral cultures. Therefore, longstanding practitioners should have a similar degree of recognition as those  who are in academic circles.
Many are the authors which criticize how neutral can Anthropologists and ethnographers can be, and this is one of the debates that caused the substitution of the Anthropology field for Cultural Studies field, in order to lessen the Imperialistic tendencies of such action. This are many actors on both sides of this debate, and I for one stand with the indigenous people in their right to self-determination. (I'm biased because I'm one of the Indigenous/I am neutral because I'm an Anthropologist - Take your pick).
As for the Catholic parts of Candomblé, I agree on what you say, it is definitely sure that there is a Catholic Influence in Candomblé- But what should be clear, and perhaps re-wording would be a better case- that this influence, as far as internal rituals, practices, chants, rhythms, and dances are in question - is several degrees of magnitude lesser than the African Influence - As Pierre Fatumbi Verger or Mãe Stella de Oxóssi, one on each side of the debate (Although if he was still alive, I imagine Verger would defend he was in Mãe Stella Side), so often said.
About Samba, there is a great relation on how Samba and Candomblé developed together. For example, Tia Ciata perhaps one of the most important figures in the translation of Samba from Bahia to Rio, was also a Candomblé Practicioner, and players and singers which pioneered the form of Samba that became popular nation-wide met on her terreiro, and participated in her Candomblé.  There are many other conections, of Candomblé of Angola nation, the Caboclos, Cabila or Cabula and the elemental musical figure of Samba.[9]
Withouth Candomblé, there would be no Samba as we know it, since their origins are intertwined, as also explained on the practitioner website site I cited originally [10]  RodolfoVisconde (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey! Was going to edit the sources and just saw another example of my earlier comment!
Just the majority of the peer-reviewed article citations are clearly done by non-brazilians. Eyeballing by name similarity to brazilian and especially bahian names, most are definitely very not brazilians.
So while I am in academics and I see many academics engaging in indigenous culture, they still so very rarely belong to the communities.
We should use more citations to oral culture repositories, because what I see is people from different societal standards writing about the equivalence of cultural values, but not of production of knowledge. This is precisely why I advocate for the voice of those who belong be heard, because there's no neutrality in the hierarchization of knowledge.
I understand you have vastly more experience at the platform, but I can also see that from a perspective of keeping up the lore to the world, we should be able to get varied forms of knowledge to cooperate, and recognize that many non-western peoples have their own sciences, and are experts on their own fields. I know people who live and breath candomblé everyday since they were children, and I believe that we should incentive these people to produce knowledge, especially the oldest members of the community... RodolfoVisconde (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi RodolfoVisconde. Wikipedia is not really the best place to have a debate on the epistemologies and hierarchies of knowledge and of insider versus outsider perspectives, as interesting and valuable as that may be! (I would agree with you on the value of insider perspectives and on the fact that no one is neutral). Arguments that are useful and important within academic discourses are not necessarily relevant for Wikipedia, a website which relies (in quite a traditional fashion) on published WP:Reliable Sources. Oral testimonies would not be considered valid for Wikipedia's purpose, unless they were published in what Wikipedia regards as Reliable Sources. Wikipedia has its rules and regulations, and we have to abide by them. Changing those rules would require a general consensus among editors at the site as a whole. We cannot just do things differently on a particular article because we do not like those rules.
Regarding samba, I would have no objection to mentioning historical connections between it and Candomblé in the article at some point so long as Reliable Sources can be used to support these statements. However, I don't see it as being crucial to the lead, which exists to summarise the most important facts about the subject (see WP:LEAD).
I hope you don't mind, but I made some changes to your recent additions to the lead. Mostly, I was trying to edit things back for concision and in keeping with WP:LEAD. I did not think that drawing comparisons with Umbanda in the opening paragraph was appropriate, although there are plenty of other places in the article where it would be. As far as I understand, caboclos are not only indigenous spirits, they can also be spirits of the forests. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

hi! Tuning in as a person who is from both Candomblé and Umbanda: Candomblé doesn't have any syncretism with Catholicism or any other religion whatsoever, as described multiple times in the article-- that's Umbanda. The cultivation of caboclos are also from Umbanda. Also, both religions originate way earlier than the 19th-20th c, it's only then when names were "officially coined" but they existed way before that. Macumba also isn't a religion-- it's actually an instrument-- but is also used as a general term to refer to our religions. Again, any mention of syncretism is branching into Umbanda. Please don't get your information online, even Portuguese language sources will have misinformation which has lead to this article being full of it! 208.64.158.243 (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources for statements; do you have some for these claims?  They can be print books or academic journal articles Erp (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
By citing many peer-reviewed academic sources written by experts in the field, this article makes clear that Candomblé is undoubtedly syncretic, having absorbed various elements from Roman Catholicism; it probably took shape in Brazil around the 1830s; and some groups incorporate the use of caboclo spirits. Why then would the anonymous editor think differently? I suspect it is down to the form of Candomblé that they have been initiated into. As the article also discusses, since at least the 1980s there has been a movement within the religion which has tried to re-Africanize and, by extension, de-syncretize it. Proponents of this movement have tried to strip out references to Roman Catholic saints, rejected the caboclos as not being African, and emphasised long-term continuity with African traditional religions. If the editor is involved in one of these re-Africanized, de-syncretized lineages, and has had very little experience with other forms of Candomblé (perhaps likely given that they seem to be based in the U.S., not Brazil), then it is not surprising that these revelations may seem surprising to them. It would be akin to a Mormon being exposed to the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren or the Greek Orthodox Church and finding that the interpretation of Christianity that they have embraced is far from being the only one, or even the most common. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)