Talk:Brujería

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Etymology

I updated the etymology section with more accurate information on the word. Robskin (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions and remarks

Brujería per the standard rules of Spanish seplling has always "tilde" (stress mark) on the "i", I believe - else (brujeria) it makes a diphtong, transfers the stress to the -je- syllabe and sounds really odd. I have standarized the spellings along the article but even the title should carry it.

"Brujaría" may exist in some dialect but it is the first time I ever read it.

The article claims:

Although bruja/o is used by Spanish-speakers to refer to a witch from any culture, to call onself a brujo/a to non-Spanish speakers is to indicate that you are of Spanish descent. Brujaria is therefore a Spanish witchcraft.

Is it really that way? The article states that Native Americans are also called brujos/as. How "Spanish" are they? Is their witchcraft really "Spanish"? Or is it Native American (or hybrid)? What is "Spanish"? Does it mean loosely "Hispanic" or it means strictly "Spaniard"? The article seems to point to the first sense but it's quite confuse.

The article says:

The word bruja is believed to derive from bruxa, which is from the Celto-Iberian dialect in Spain evolving to what is known today as Gallego. It shares its roots with Portuguese. The present day Portuguese use the term bruxsa.

What about the meigas? It's widely know that Galicians call witches that way (they surely use bruxas too). Not a single mention is made about that.

The article says:

The female witch is considered the most powerful, and traditional brujos believe that the female passes down the sacred bloodline or spiritual bloodline (matriarchal lineage). This means that the line is inherited from a female but ends with a male.

Sources? I doubt there's such a well estabilished "doctrine" and much less that it is universal for all regions of Spain and all countries and ethnicities of Latin America.

Enjoy, --Sugaar 09:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More remarks

The article starts with incorrects ideas, and follow with the same and a lack of sources of any kind.

First, "Brujería" is the spanish word for Witchcraft. It does nothing to do with a kind of "spanish witchcraft". In traslated terms, Witchcraft = Brujería. Witch = brujo (male witch) / bruja (female witch). I changed the initial phrase.

Second, the roots of this word are still difficult from a scholar point of view. The bruj- root is supposed to be descendant from a pre-roman word (maybe an indigenous language). The -ería suffix means Craft in general. Example: panadería (bakery), herrería (iron-works), fontanería (plumbing). Also, "brujaria" is the first time I read. The article say no word about other terms: meiga (Galician), bruxa (Catalan) and sorgin (Basque).

Third, there is a huge difference between the traditions of witchcraft in the Iberian Peninsula (similars to other branches of Traditional European Witchcraft) and Center-South American witchcraft (american shamans, nahuals) though the word used is sometimes the same (brujería).

Too superficial, without any sources or serious research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.72.164 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this page even really necessary?

It's rather poorly written, and I see no reason for it to be separate from witchcraft since it's just the Spanish word for the same thing. I'm pretty sure this warrants a nomination for deletion, especially since both of the other items on the talk page seem to express dissatisfaction with the article. I'm a new user though, so if I'm being over-zealous, feel free to reject my nomination. Namaps (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Wellllllll.... I can see your concerns, but this does look at some more specific regional facets of the whole idea, as well as etymology (though the latter isn't as important, since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary). I'd be more tentatively inclined toward keeping this, but not passionately. - Vianello (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)