Talk:Shaman

message: § One paragraph in the article says:
:The northen hemisphere shamans (from the viewpoint of noajddes in northen Scandinavia during the 17th century) resemble very much the sophists, e.g. the call of duty, vocabolary arguing, unjustified reputation from their opponents, etc. (Source: not the ones in the reference list below.)
§ As it stands, this paragraph needs revision on several points. For one thing, its author may not intend to do so, but in effect s/he says that during the 17th century some people called noajddes had a critique of shamans, and from the noajddes point of view the shamans resemble sophists.  I doubt that many people would be interested in what one ancient group thought about shamans unless they could be shown to have some special insight into the phenomenon. But the author probably means to say something to the effect that if we take the noajddes as examples or prototypes of shamans, then we will decide that shamans are like sophists because noajddes are like shamans.  Then the list of things, that is apparently meant to characterize sophists, is a jumble that leaves the reader with the burden of trying to decipher what the writer meant to convey. Does it mean that sophists made prominent in their discourses a call to civic duty? "Vocabulary arguing" literally means something like (1) "arguing about vocabulary" or (2) "arguing that relies on specialized vocabulary" -- or maybe it means something else.  "Unjustified reputation from their opponents" might mean that the sophists received unjustifiable characterizations (presumably of a negative nature) from their opponents. Or it might mean that the sophists were accused of giving their opponents unmerited censure. Syntactically, that is a stretch. However what I remember of the sophists was the accusation leveled against Socrates (as a supposed sophist) that he made the worse seem the better cause.  Then the author gives a totally unhelpful citation to back up what s/he has said.  Unless somebody can fix this paragraph so that it communicates a clear meaning, it should be deleted. P0M 04:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that many people would be interested in what one ancient group thought about shamans unless they could be shown to have some special insight into the phenomenon.
I think that it is a good idea to state what the modern viewpoint tells us about the "culture collision" with Western Cultures ("christianity") and the Circumpolar Cultures (shamanism). It simply allowed courts to argue that shamans was "in contact" with devils and therefore death penalty was "justified." There is also a statement that Romans killed a group of Druids, but I don't know if this is true and leave it out.
I can't understand why people categorize shamanism with magic, sorcery and New Age!? I think that this can be mentioned (and it should surely do) but it should be pointed out that it is a reputation made by others, not the shamans themself, i.e. the Druids, Noajddes, Shamans and the Northen American shamans (do anyone have a name for them?) 
// Rogper 13:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Rogper, do you have anything against the use of "shaman" as a generic term for the ancient role of healer and priest? If so your use of the word is quite different from the use of the word in anthropology. If you want to remove the mainstream definition of "shaman", I suggest you quote scholars who also do so.--Wiglaf 17:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiglaf, any scholar usually note that the Tungusian shaman, called saman, usually is the model for the world's concept of shamanism, but that their culture is completely different from those others. They don't share a thing except that they have two legs and two arms, and are quite aggressive in their role. Questions? No, I have nothing against using the term "shaman" as a generetic term for the "ancient role of healer and priest".  // Rogper 13:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry for sounding rude. I just think that "shaman" is a good term for this role, and I have tried to distinguish between the original sense in the paragraph beginning with specifically and the extended generic sense in the paragraph beginning with generically.--Wiglaf 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with one para 

message: I just reorganized this article. i added a sentence or two and reworded a couple sentences, aside from that and moving everything it still should all be here.  but reading over the entry, i'm really not sure why this should be a seperate article from shamanism.  although the analogy was drawn between this and redirecting pope to catholic, it really isn't the same thing at all- the shamanism entry is not about a religion, it is about shamans and what they do- their practices, techniques, roles in society, etc.  Its an entry on shaman-ism, not animism, or totemism, or paganism.  Much of the information here is duplicated in the shamanism entry, and when it comes to the few things that aren't, i can't find any reason they should be here as opposed to the shamanism entry.  Opinions??  --Heah 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged with shamanism.   --Heah 07:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: the vast majority of people that type in "shaman" are looking for shamanism not the band; regardless, shaman (band) is already an article about that band.  i'll put up a notice on the shamanism page for anyone looking for the band.   --Heah 21:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the band.