The Obeah article now begins with this: "This article is about West Indian religion and magic. For obeah within the context of Thelema, see Obeah and Wanga." And it ends with "See also . . . Obeah and Wanga - the phrase 'Obeah and Wanga' as interpreted in [[Thelema]." These articles are now clearly distinct. Every book that mentions Obeah cannot be included here. Hundreds of books, perhaps thousands, discuss Obeah, and we should not lead readers astray by giving a special section to one of those books, which mentions Obeah in one of its passages. See the newly renovated section on Obeah in fiction and poetry for a more appropriate approach.
What follows below is the previous debate of this issue. Josh a brewer 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I am going to remove the section about Thelema from the Obeah page, replacing it with a short mention. I am also going to remove the book ref to Crowley. My reasoning is as follows:
Obeah is Jamaican folk magic. Thelema has nothing to do with Obeah. Aleister Crowley mentioned both Obeah (Jamaican folk magic derived from the Congo) and wanga (the latter a term most often found in Haitian Voodoo, meaning a magical charm packet derived from West Africa) in one sentence in one book. The fact that he threw Jamaican and Haitian terms -- or, if you will Congo and Benin -- terms together indiscriminately indicates his level of outsidership and non-practitioner status with respect to Obeah.
It's nice that Thelemites are somewhat interested in Congo magic, but since Crowley really knew nothing about it himself, having this lengthy Thelemitic tail wagging the Obeah dog here is a mistake.
However, the text is well enough written that i would not wish to lose it -- so i am carrying it to the Thelema talk page, where the Thelema people can decide what to do with it. Just please, do not bring it back to the Obeah page; it is not relevant here beyond the brief mention i will give to Crowley.
This message is duplicated at the Thelema talk page.
Thanks.
Catherineyronwode 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frater5"
I see no real reason why it was moved. I'm about to suggest it be moved back. Catherines POV is apparent here.
Zos 08:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also I'd like to point out that it doesnt matter if Crowley understood the word or not. What matters is that he gave usage of it.
1. A form of religious belief of African origin, practiced in some parts of the West Indies, Jamaica, and nearby tropical America, involving sorcery.
Crowley uses this similarly to mean "acts", and also magick in the secret light of acts. Its irrelevant whether or not you agree with it. The usage is simular, and is written by a published author.
I'm also going to add some citations needed notes to some of this, as well as take "comments" off.
Zos 09:08, 19 May 2006 (UT)
don't they call ghosts duppies in Jamaican obeah? (eleanor johnson)