Talk:Shamanism

message: The word Shaman is translated from it's root language as "one who contains fire" not "one who knows" as mentioned in the article. This is a serious error and should be changed as soon as possible.
:Rejected: the etymology section is extensive and well-cited.  Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit of serious error. 

message: Much of the information of what is vaguely called Shamanism do NOT apply to the 5000-year of Hmong traditional shamanic practice from which I am a practitioner. I am speaking based on my personal experience of being a two-decade practicing Hmong traditional shaman AS WELL as a Western trained Medical Doctor of 40 years standing in Australia. 
THis is incorrect.  Many people practice shamanism in their daily lives.  That does not necessarily make them shamans.  THere is an initiatory process that all shamans experience, and it is the spirits who select who a shaman will be. It is up to the one "called" to accept that role or deny it. It is not usually something one really desires, because being a shaman in the true sense is not an easy life to lead.
It is a misrepresentation to suggest that anyone who practices shamanism is an actual shaman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenfurr (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Shaman 

message: It might be worth someone adding something about the reasons behind shamanism - eg why do these people seem to communicate with a spirit world? Are there scientific explanations for this phenomenon?
Also, what about shamanism in popular culture, for example, in the tv series Twin Peaks. --Totorotroll (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons 

message: This has to do with the website, not the article per se.
The topic on page 21 is not completed and there are a couple of blank pages before the bibliography begins.
130.184.236.213 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several pages seem to be missing  

message: Another problem with the definition and charaterization of shamanism... animism/animatism is not an organized religion, as the 'animism' article itself clearly says. (I don't know if Eliade claims it is in the reference... if he did, he's not using animism in the way that is generally accepted today).
I think on a broader level, we just need to acknowledge that shamanism is fragmentary, somewhat vaguely defined, and has a lot of overlap with things like animism, some magical practices, etc. I think the article needs to do a better job of communicating this complexity and ambiguity. I suspect a 'history of the term' section would be really good. This would probably mostly involve building a backstory for the 'Criticism of the term' section.Genesiswinter (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animism 

message: I don't think the Wikipedia definition of shamanism is totally accurate or complete. I've lived on Native American reservations, in an Inuit village, and I'm a little familiar with TIbetan Buddhism.  Shamanism is still practiced.  And, it's truly powerful.  But, it's seldom used by harming anyone or to harm anyone.  Suggesting that it is, is derogatory and misleading.  Many shamans don't connect with spirits or even consider doing so worthwhile.  Other elements are involved. And, sacrifice in many traditions has nothing to do with killing of any kind. The most significant element involved is the mind and its power to influence circumstances.  Doing so is not usually evil or harmful.  I cannot provide verification of these claims.  Shamans are usually careful about whom they inform about their practice because of stigmas, etc.  Documentation is usually irrelevant and counterproductive.
: About the only case I have read of involving shamans' harming was the terminating of Stalin's life by two shamans : one shaman (in Siberia) who gave him his final illness, and other shaman (in Alaska) who gave the final death-blow which killed Stalin instantly.0XQ (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beneficial practices 

message: under the historical times section, it is said that Catholic priests ordered the executions of shamans. This is a rather serious thing to say, and it has no source listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.105.174 (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read virtually any contact period account from Mesoamerica, all indigenous religious were identified by The Catholic church as 'demonic' and many were tortured (waterboarding is tame by comparison) and/or executed as part of the church's program of 'extirpating idolatry'. (See, Diego de Landa, Diego Duran, Bernardino de Sahagun, Bartolome de las Casas, etc.). (James B Porter BA, MA, PhD)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.207.139 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for source 

message: The article is way too long now, says Wikipedia.  I have attempted to consolidate the regional variations toward creating separate and specific regional articles. Still requires work. Apologies for any disruptions. There are way too many non-specific "in some" statements that should be clarified. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Of the three sources being presented to justify claims of a Turkic origin, the third (Dioszegi) doesn't address the matter at all. The first, when fixed, is nothing more than an automated translation of a word, and proves nothing. The second is from a popular publisher, by a non-notable, non-academic author, and isn't utterly clear at that. These sources just aren't good enough. Mangoe (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The etymology references 

message: The current "5 Regional variations" section is confusing. To begin with, "5.1 Gender and sexuality" probably belongs elsewhere, "5.2 Siberia" belongs under "5.4 Asia", and the main article Shamanism among Eskimo peoples is listed for both "5.5 Inuit and Eskimo cultures" and "5.7 Meso-American shamanism". What would be the best rearrangement? Keahapana (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize section 5? 

message: At lot of work has clearly gone into this page, but I'm afraid that it seems to be confused by a very broad definition of what shamanism is. I note that there is a page on Shamanism in Siberia, and I suggest that this page should possibly be deleted or retitled (Indigenous Religions?) and Shamanism should direct to the Siberian page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism_in_Siberia
The problem is, this page defines Shamanism so broadly that everything from necromancy to Papuan religions to Australian indigenous Dreamtime beliefs are deemed 'Shamanistic'. As one person has pointed out, according to the definition here, an Anglican priest is a Shaman.
: Some differences between ordinary Anglican (or Catholic) priest and the typical shaman : The local term translated ‘shaman’ / ‘shamaness’ is usually defined (in the local dialect) as (1) a public religious practitioner who would become sick if he / she were temporarily to cease from such public practice; and moreover (2) who initially became a shaman / shamaness in order to recover from such a sickness. Such sickness is usually described as entailing dreams of one’s being instructed by a deity that the sickness has been divinely produced in order to compell the dreamer to continue (or commence) public religious practice.0XQ (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article requires rework, however the dictionary term can be shown to be too narrow by all the sources.  Source attribution is the answer. We would not throw out wiki because of its definition. The sources define the article and place its anthropological context within religion.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the idea of of retitling the article to "Indigenous Religions" since this is what the final product is talking about.  The problem is that there are already "Indigenous Religions" that call them selves shamanic, such as the Hmong for example.  I also agree that the article needs a rewrite, since a 'shaman' has been linked from here to a cartoon charactor some time before and has become very broad based, but it was worse before... Dinkytown (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Redefine/Rework 

message: In the following quote from the current article, I believe the correct term is "intersex" (i.e. biologically "inbetween" male and female) instead of "transgendered" (i.e. socially and physically transitioning from one gender to another). Since I don't know the cited book I have no idea if this confusion of terms originates there. Therefore I didn't just change the term in the article but wanted to put it up for other opinions first.
This is the quote: "Such two-spirit shamans are thought to be especially powerful, and Shamanism so important to ancestral populations that it may have contributed to the maintenance of genes for transgendered individuals in breeding populations over evolutionary time through the mechanism of 'kin selection.' [see final chapter of E.O. Wilson's "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis]"  85.177.253.77 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional variations : Gender and sexuality 

message: In the "Shamanism and New Age movement" section it says "legitimate cultural traditions".  The use of the word "legitimate" is not NPOV Sheherazahde (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be [WP:BOLD]. I concur with your observation, and have attempted to remove the disparaging tone. The section has other problems, in that it was making broad, generalised claims based on primary sources, which is not an appropriate editorial style for an encyclopedia. Davémon (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV problems 

message: In favor of keeping it with the text. There could be a whole article just on variations in shaman drums. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drum image 

message: what was unclear here? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: This article is very short. Look up the german version at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schamanismus .
That's a REAL article!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritik020194 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article 

message: Is there but one source for this table Shamanism#Shamanic_rituals_pharmacy?  Additionally, would like edit it and move lower, becasue "pharmacy" may not be a prevalent or significant as the contributor would like. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shamanic_rituals_pharmacy]] 

message: Almost all the the content of this section relates a certain Kohe's critic the work of M. Eliade on S.
I find this  inappropriate as the article never mentions Eliade beforehand. Moreover Kohe apparently did not read Eliade's work at all other he would know that E. defines S. very precisely, i.e. a religious complex that entails exctasis, i.e. the flight of the shaman to heaven or the underworld in order to cure or solve a problem, originally with the body itself and later only with the soul (and originally obtained only through spiritual powers, i.e. without the use of any psychoactive substance). This is the essential, the initiatic malady is almost always present but it is not defining of S. since E. states there are cases of individulas who have initiatic maladies but are not shamans under the above criterion.
As things stand clear I find this part out of touch and shall proceed to delete it within two days if there are no objections.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the section is good enough to keep; however, I removed the criticism on Eliade so as to highly the criticism related to the term Shamanism.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section critic of the term shaman

message: "some" means being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked>.  I removed this misleading word from the article as unspecified original research.  If the materiel comes from a reliable source then if can specify which people display the attributed elements.  Otherwise, it reads like article is overgeneralizing, which should be avoided in anthropology.  Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some removal 

message: "Because a portion of the soul is free to leave the body it will do so when dreaming, or it will leave the body to protect itself from potentially damaging situations, be they emotional or physical"
These are not facts and are not supported by any objective evidence.
They are supernatural/spiritual/religious beliefs or superstitions depending on your point of view. No point of view is provable when it comes to the supernatural. 
This article is filled with non-neutral statements like the above. Wikipedia is not a religious manual. If these statements are to stand, then they need to be prefaced with "Adherents of Shamanism believe..." ... otherwise this article really needs to be flagged for non-neutral point of view. 
In other words, as it is, this article is garbage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.146.59 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point; however, "your point of view" is largely irrelevant in Wikipedia per WP:OR. Let's just assume, all the facts come from reliable sources and all the beliefs come from unsupported statements in the context of working to improve the article. Additionally, Shamanism is is an anthropological term for a range of beliefs and practices and by definition as a range there is no one factual viewpoint.  The key is to best attribute what the sources say about a general group of folks who share a belief and practice. WP:NPOV has to do with balancing the sources, this is in regards to how the sources present multiple POVs on a subject. I wouldn't support changing sourced material just because it's subjective; only where there are multiple sources with a POV, should we have to balance it with due weight to each source. For example, if you have a relevant and reliable source that said, "this article is garbage" then we could address that. Would not be good to make a general point about the facts vs believes argument in this article, except where the sources talk about the issue.  For now we have to work in good faith to improve the article to Wikipedia standards. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary - the article should clearly not describe Shamanistic belief systems as "fact" anymore than we should describe the  transubstantiation or creationism as such - they should be described as part of a belief system. The article should make very clear that beliefs are beliefs and whose beliefs it is.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean that subjective Shamistic beliefs are in themselves objective facts.  For the purpose of Wikipedia, objective contributions come from reliable sources, somewhat akin to factual reporting, even if it is about a subjective point of view or attributed belief. Yes, the beliefs should be attributed to the group and/or sometimes the author, who may generalize. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that a few things are being put forth as fact when they are just unsupported beliefs. The sources might reliably state what the beliefs are, but the article implies those beliefs are true. Most of the statements are qualified by something along the lines of "it is believed that", as they should be. But a few statements lack any direct qualification, so on their face they seem like staggering, unsupported statements. One example: "This happens for two reasons: 1.The shaman crosses over to the under world...". Another example: "The shaman also enters supernatural realms or dimensions to obtain solutions to problems". There is some qualification *near* those statements, but a simple reading leaves me wondering if the author or source is stating these things actually happen or they are just part of the belief system. Or does everything in the article get an implied "according to this belief system..."? (That seems problematic to me, but if those are the rules then so be it.) 173.172.95.186 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts vs. Beliefs 

message: A very good article on the Turkish root of the word "Shaman"
Laufer, B. (1917). Origin of the word shaman. American Anthropologist, 19(3), 361–371. doi: 10.1525/aa.1917.19.3.02a00020
web source on Wiley
Apiece of text from this source:
At  any  rate it is obvious that the word  Saman has  now  legiti mately secured  an absolute and irrevocable decree of divorce from its  pseudo-mate  gamapa, samana,  or  Sa-men,  and  that  this  mismated couple  cannot live  together  any longer.  Tungusian  saman, Saman,  xaman,  etc.,  Mongol  Saman, Turkish  kam  and  xam,  are close  and  inseparable  allies  grown  and  nourished  on  the  soil  of northern Asia,-live  witnesses for the great antiquity of  the shamanistic form of  religion.
The source and the text should be addedd to the article.--98.196.232.128 (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The African sections says the following on sangomas :
"The term sangoma, as employed in Zulu and congeneric languages, is effectively equivalent to shaman. Historically, the sangoma role was the preserve of the black, indigenous ethnicities of Africa, but post-Apartheid white people have also trained as sangomas. John Lockley is reputedly one of the first white men in recent history to become a fully initiated sangoma is the Xhosa lineage of South Africa."
Given that white sangomas make up an insignificant proportion of sangomas, the discussion of white sangomas at this overview level of description of a sangoma is redundant.  I am replacing the references to John Lockley & white sangomas on this page as it already has a section for discussion on the article on sangomas.  I am replacing the reference to white sangomas with a general sangoma belief in the ancestors and overview of a sangoma. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Africa */ African Section 

message: I recently wrote an article on the kaco, a frame drum used by the shamans of the Sakhalin Ainu people. There appeared to be no clear cat in which to put ritual musical instruments used in shamanism so I created :Category:Shamanistic music. Thanks for any help in refining and/or populating this cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help populate new cat: [[:Category:Shamanistic music]] 

message: This needs references before it can be restored. I'm particularly sceptical about the "genes for transgendered (sic) individuals" sentence given the current lack of knowledge about the causes of transsexualism. Also, I'm concerned about the relationship implied between two-spirit people and shamanism. Note that the Two-Spirit article doesn't mention shamanism at all. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted paragraph re two-spirit people

message: The following sentence was inappropriately removed in    this edit:
* Robert Sapolsky has theorized that shamanism is practiced by schizotypal individuals."Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lecture about Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity" 
I suggest the following points should be considered in rewriting the above inappropriately removed sentence.
1) Robert Sapolsky is a respected source for the origins of shamanism.
2) We might refer to Robert Sapolsky's book The Trouble with Testosterone, pp. 248-255, for a useful and accurate summary of anthropological data and hypotheses on the origins of shamanism.
3) On-line excerpts of Robert Sapolsky's book The Trouble with Testosterone can be found at this link.
4) Schizotypal is the appropriate neuroscience label for the gene trait that is the most likely origin of the shaman's power.
5)  I copy for you the following quote from Robert Sapolsky's book The Trouble with Testosterone . . . at page 250.
* (at 250).  Rather, there are rules as to how shamans go about being psychiatrically unruly.  Kroeber discussed how in endless cultures, young individuals are recognized by the established shamans as showing the first signs of the hallucinations and psychoses and are thereafter trained in the particular patterns of shamanistic experience in that culture.  Thus, the schizotypal traits are channeled and standardized.
Feel free to put back in the inappropriately removed sentence if you see a graceful way to do it.  I will get back to this when I have more time.  Thanks.
--- Rednblu (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrewaskew (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriately removed sentence.  The sentence should be rewritten to represent faithfully the reputable sources. 

message: A source points at "Hutton 2001", but none of the references or "Further reading" (which are incorrectly named, by the way) are even from Hutton. Just how are we supposed to verify that? By looking up what books Hutton wrote in 2001 ourselves? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shamanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106035207/http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/bender4/eall131/EAHReadings/module03/local_beliefs.html to http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/bender4/eall131/EAHReadings/module03/local_beliefs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the source that claims "Native American Shamans" could be trained in days, as well as the claim. Anything that says that is not WP:RS for the cultures it claims to describe. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Native American Shamans" 

message: There are a number of substances listed in the entheogens section that are listed without citations or evidence to support their use. While I do not doubt these are used, I also cannot find anything that meets the needs for verifiability and goes beyond original research. Does anybody know of any? Otherwise, I suggest we remove the unsourced ones. FULBERT (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  as having done recent edits in case they know of some. FULBERT (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  : I am aware of reliable sources for most if not all of the substances listed. I will work on adding citations. I will remove any I am unable to source. Infomuse (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entheogens section 

message: Why isn't there a section for shamanism in China?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_(shaman)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.215.252 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this comment to the bottom to maintain chronological order. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Shamans 

message: The WP:POVFORK at History of Shamanism is mostly a pile of original research in mangled English, based about 50% on unreliable blogs and newage books, and about 50% of personal WP:AEIS of the few reliable sources used.  I started working it over, and then realized it simply isn't a viable article.  The genesis of this page (on 31 August 2018‎) seems to have been a pre-emptive reaction to the 22 August thread here, which expressed an explicit intent to create an anti-Western and totally Mongolia-centric piece, by someone who refused to listen to anyone else and was sorely confused about many thing.  I think the page actually created in response to this was done in haste and poorly.  Since then, it's also been taken over by neo-pagans and injected full of further misleading blather. The result really has very little to do with the declared scope of a history of shamanism.  I think the material can be compressed to about 1/5 its current length after denuded of OR and poorly sourced claims, and much of that will be redundant with material already in the main Shamanism article, which could do with a "History" section (or a section that focuses on the history, whatever its heading is) put together from material we already have and what little can be salvaged from the forked-off page (i.e. somewhere for "History of Shamanism" to redirect to, though just redirecting to the top of Shamanism would be a better results than continuing with the PoV fork).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BB – do it!  – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Merge what can be salvaged. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Merge - looks like pure POV fork. PepperBeast (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in what is salvageable from bogus "history" article 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Shamanism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "mccoy":
From Babaylan: 
From Anito: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Shamanism]] 

message: I have edited the lead and placed a large chunk of information there under the Definitions subheading. The introduction is supposed to summarize the body. Along this line, additional info that represents the main points of the body can be included in the lead. Let me know if you have questions. Feel free to improve the edits made as well. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the lead summarizes what is in the entire article, not just the precise wording of one source in the section (which may in itself affirm a particular POV). It is not the place of WP to affirm whether or not a practitioner's beliefs or abilities or spirit realms exist. The caveats in the wording are there for the purpose of neutrality and encyclopedic voice, as opposed to advocacy. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: – if there is a reliable source that says explicitly, "what they believe to be a spirit world" then please provide it – otherwise we must go with cited sources – Epinoia (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: – as no source has been provided to support the addition of "what they believe to be a spirit world", I have removed the unnecessary qualifier from the lead – cited source Manvir Singh says, "contacting the spirit world to help members of their communities" and "serve community needs by procuring information and blessings from the spirit world", not "what they believe to be a spirit world" - otherworldly experiences are generally regarded as true for the experiencer – see for example Julian of Norwich: "she had a series of fifteen visions of Jesus", not "she had a series of what she believed to be visions of Jesus"; or Paul the Apostle: "he reported having experienced a vision of the resurrected Jesus", not "he reported having experienced what he believed to be a vision of the resurrected Jesus" – this can be found across all reports of otherworldly experiences – see Mysticism, which includes "indigenous religions and folk religions like shamanism" – in the absence of a source to support "what they believe to be a spirit world", we go with what the cited sources say (see WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources") – Epinoia (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

text: – also, see Revelation: "In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities", not "...communication with what is believed to be a deity or other supernatural entity or entities." - Epinoia (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: – none of the references in the article support "what they believe to be a spirit world" – to say "interact with a spirit world" is in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV – as no source can be presented to support "what they believe to be a spirit world", we must go with what the reliable sources say per WP:RS – WP:WIKIVOICE says that neutrality is based on reliable sources – to say "what they believe" falls under Unsupported attributions at WP:WEASEL – there is no justification other than personal opinion for adding "what they believe to be a spirit world" to the article, and Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal opinions – Epinoia (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: — I edited to opening sentence of the lead to clarify that Shamanism is a religious belief system practiced by a shaman, who is believed to interact with a spirit world, citing Encyclopædia Britannica as a source — Epinoia (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead edit 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Baksı and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 30#Baksı until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baksı" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Mistapeo and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Mistapeo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MB 00:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mistapeo" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: It comes across as white man interacting with culture means it's diluting culture, what is wrong with acceptance? 
Those very same people let them succumb to pneumonia, when they were forced into Catholic schools and separated from their families and told to use toxic substances as part of religious sacraments and unwanted relations with people who force surgical operations on people that can't defend themselves.
67.80.64.41 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the line about cultural appropriation be removed? 

message: not much is covered in history 
what,where,when,How? 41.121.13.106 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolution of shamanism