Talk:Mana (Oceanian cultures)

message: Hi guys, I see some pretty high-flown theory in here. Maybe someday it will heve a place, but not right now. First things first. Here is the starting point. What is the topic of this article? It cannot be all the things mentioned in the article. One article, one topic. I just put the disambig straight (for the most part). It gives a large choice of articles. Big chunks of material need to be hacked out of here and moved to the right article, or the disambig page itsefl. Then we can see what we have. I presume thie topic would be the Polynesian "power" meaning and its study in cultural anthropology. What do you say we stick to that. The Hebrew Manna and the Uralic manas are unrelated. The archetype business is very interesting, but archtype of what? It it is some sort of Jungian thing then we need an article Mana (Jungian). That can wait. a, b, c comes before the rest of the alphabet, and that is what we need here. Get your red marker out, let's get down to basic text. I may elect to start this, but on a back-burner basis. You need to use some courage. Sure, there are nasty people on WP. Bow, wow, wow. If no one stands up tp them this article will stay just exactly as it is, tags and all, and be of no use to anyone.Botteville (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting point

message: I removed this as essentially irrelevant. This is an encyclopedic article, not one of interesting coincidences and conjectures. No doubt it is interesting, but I think it will have to be that somewhere else.Botteville (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article

message: Basically one of the reasons the article is not satisfactory to WP is the non-NOPV (neutral point of view) approach. We can't take any point of view not already taken by the experts. Thus we cannot say that Morgan or some of the other scholars in cultural anthropology are wrong or simplistic. That would be what WP is calling "original research."  The whole sentence about what is or is not accepted today is the wrong turf on which to fight. What we do is present the views of the experts. We are, so to speak, the servants and not the masters of the house. This cast is often hard to take, I do not deny. At first sight it seems as though you are going to get a chance to give YOUR opinion. You aren't. A lot of experts who try to write on here fall into the trap, so to speak. If you're an expert, better keep it a secret, at least as far as tone is concerned.  In a nutshell, it is NOT up to you to decide whether these views are held in good repute today. You can't just up and attack cultural evolutionism, even in another article. A published author can do it all right. But, you must present that as his view, not yours. No one cares what YOU think. The other article, in which the editor has turf problems, does not fare any better than this one. It has tags all over it. So,  this is why I am lending a hand in this article and on that section. It isn't because I just stubbornly want it "my way" as opposed to "your way." I don't especially care whose way it is, except that it can't be yours or mine. I would suggest, first get that other article acceptable. Fight the battle over there. If that flies, then there is not much to do over here. I got here through the article on numen, which has similar problems. Can numen be identified with mana? Some say yes, some no. But first, can mana be identified with mana? First we need the original definitions. I will be doing a little more here. Then if there are other and later views, fine. But, we don't use the experts to confirm our own points of view, we rather present those points of view without taking any stand. That is NPOV. Tough standard no doubt. ciao.Botteville (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplistic views

message: "During this period, many scholars subscribed to a theory of cultural evolutionism which held that all societies evolved from simple to advanced, and that indigenous people were historical fossils of unevolved societies. However, this simplistic form of cultural evolutionism is no longer accepted by scholars, and Marrett's position is considered incorrect. Marrett assumed all cultures have a concept similar to mana, but in fact they do not."
This passage is too imprecise to be of much use, and can't be corrected. It has no refs anyway.
1. all societies evolved from simple to advanced. That's not the theory. Society advanced, no doubt by many paths. Individual societies might have declined. They all don't have to advance. In these days when a common ancestry of man and the great apes has been proved by chemical analysis, you aren't going to find any supporters of the view that culture did not advance from simple to complex.
2. indigenous people were historical fossils of unevolved societies. No one said or implied that at all. People are not fossils. We are speaking of folkways here. Moreover the theory is not of the whole society, if that is what is meant, but only of memes and memeplexes within it. Today a chief might be driving around in a Rolls-Royce but in other situatons might be honoring customs that originated beyond the reach of history. There are no unevolved societies. You sound like you're trying to misunderstand Sir John Lubbock or else be a writer for "White Power."
3. simplistic ... no longer accepted ... considered incorrect. I'm getting bored with this. I don't see any evidence that the editor even knew what Marret's position was. I can't understand why this has been here for so long, unless the editor attacks more viciously than anyone else. Time for a change.Botteville (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: removed passage

message: Why on earth does the etymology section spend two paragraphs talking about methods of linguistic analysis without mentioning the word in question until the third paragraph. This needs to be readable, not just an exercise in information dumping (even if comparative linguistics is a cool topic).Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agreed. The first two paragraphs about comparative linguistics should probably be moved to a more suitable article. Neptilo (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section too long 

message: Large portions of this article are off the topic of mana. The opening section fails to to convey what mana is.--Ekplatonos (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems 

message: I insert this here because it related to the previous comment. The use of "primitive" in Victorian anthropology was undoubtedly Eurocentric, i.e. a culture was often seen as being relatively retrograde or advanced in comparison with post-Enlightenment thinking and the effects of the industrial revolution. Alongside words like heathen and pagan, such comparisons muddy the water and devalue non-European cultures in our age. I am a British European, by the way, but this critique should be self evident; it has no place in comparative studies of cultural evolution today, though, of course, it is of historic significance. I have insinuated this change in perspectives in my amendment to the article. Trevor H. (UK) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on primitivity 

message: Mana is a Loanword that has become part of mainstream New Zealand English. To begin the encyclopedic description with " In most cases, this power is understood to be supernatural..." is to limit the article to an anthropological treatise that may have been appropriate in 1840 when the English showed up and examined the Maori as if they were a primitive species who held beliefs that the scholars viewed as unenlightened. A google search for "mana" restricted to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ will generate 11,000 hits. Excluding references to political parties in Parliament (the Mana Party), a search still generates over 7,000 NZ HErald articles with quotes like this one "Rodney Gallen is a man of great mana who has made a huge contribution not only as a judge, but as a member of society," said a former colleague, Justice Goddard. "He has enormous faith in human nature and always sees the potential in people irrespective of the surrounding circumstances."
This article should begin with the general understanding of the word, as representative in NZ English. The supernatural is subsidiary. Akonga (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Supernatural" is not the right way to begin this entry

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Mana (Anglo-Saxon) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Mana (Anglo-Saxon) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mana (Anglo-Saxon)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move both pages, and that this is not the primary topic of "Mana". There is no clear consensus on what the article title of the Oceanian topic should be, but I am provisionally moving the page to "Mana (Oceanian mythology)" without prejudice to another move request.   (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 April 2023