Talk:Chinese shamanism

Move to "Chinese shamanism" or "Shamanism in China"?

"Wuism" is not a good title for an article in the English Wikipedia -- see WP:English -- nor is it a WP:Common Name. The main source for the term is a translation of a single work, that is, Libbrecht. Although there are several examples in reliable sources for the earliest period, the term is not in general use in other places or in surveys. The Google search here turns up almost no uses in this sense, while a Google Scholar search here finds 23 hits, only a few of which are to English language uses in this sense.

Chinese shamanism: A Google search here got 431,000 hits, and a Google Scholar search here] got 17,300 hits, many to English language works in this sense.

I suggest that we should rename the article "Chinese shamanism" or "Shamanism in China," or some such, and expand it. How does this sound?

Other editors who have worked on Chinese shamanism or shamanism and who are more knowledgeable than I might like to put in a word. They include Aethelwolf Emsworth, who did much editing on this article, Madalibi, who did much work on Shamanism in the Qing dynasty and Kanguole, Keahapana, and Dcattell who have made recent edits at Wu (shaman).

Cheers ch (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If consensus will form to move it, I suggest "Chinese shamanism", and to move the current disambiguation page "Chinese shamanism" (which covers also other forms of shamanism practiced in China) to "Shamanism in China".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to be problematic, but technically words in English ending in "-ism" and "-ist" are marginally pejorative (although I have never heard a Buddhist complain; but, certainly there are some economists whom rather vigorously reject "Marxist", in favor of "Marxian"). How about "Wu Tradition in Chinese Culture" or "Shamanic Tradition in Chinese Culture". Other than that, I would just note that there is some controversy about the historical identity of Wu and Shaman belief and practice. In any case, I will not stand in the way of any consensus, in this matter. Dcattell (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The negative connotation of the suffix -ism is a rather recent development (abstract, in my opinion, not faithful to the etymology), and in such a negative connotation it is mostly used within the field of politics or social politics. Greek -ισμός has, etymologically, the positive meaning of "the way/mode of... action/formation of [a thing]", "doctrine", and it's not a case that it is translated as Chinese 教 jiao (which has the same meaning of "action of teaching") in religions' names. However, "Wu tradition(s)" would be a good alternative title for the article. It would be better than "Chinese shamanism", because, as you noticed, there is controversy over the historical origins of this type of shamanism.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This also leads to the point that "Wu jiao" might be entered into consideration as the main article title. In any case, I think having proper redirect pages, disambiguation pages, and other appropriate linking for likely user search terms is more important than the actual main article name. Dcattell (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like "Wuism" is unknown and meaningless to most English speakers. The same applies to "Jitongism", "Shenism", "Xuanyuanism", "Zaliism", and misspelled "Tiandism", none of which meet the WP:COMMON standard. Keahapana (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that (Wu jiao as the main title) would contradict WP:English. It would be like having the "Taoism" article titled "Daojiao". Furthermore, there are also other translations of the term, such as Vietnamese Vu giao, and the many Chinese dialectal forms. However, I am going to move the page to "Chinese shamanism", as I recognise that "Wuism" isn't widely used and sounds technical, and most people looking for information about Han Chinese shamanism would search "Chinese shamanism".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with using "Chinese shamanism". That's much more natural to the average Wikipedia reader. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Aethelwolf Emsworth. Moving the page will make your work available to many more readers!

I still have worries about the articles mentioned by Keahapana, which also seem to have the same problem, that is, of not being understandable to readers. I've been studying Chinese history for decades, and I have no idea what these mean:

• Tiandism

• Zailiism

• Xuanyuanism

• Shenism (which is no now moved)

• Jitongism

Would you consider moving those that have not been moved as well?

Cheers ch (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

These are individual folk religious sects, with specific doctrines and institutions (with the exception of Jitongism which is a redirect to the tongji gods' medium). So I think that in their case a single name is more appropriate. Furthermore, they have received attention in the study of religion in China only in recent times, so I think that using these names or extended translations (ex. Tiandi religions / teachings, see for example Sanyi religion or De religion) would make little difference as they are mostly unknown to the Western reader. I have rendered the Chinese names in English following the pattern that is used for the translation of Chinese names of religions, that is the translation of "-jiao" with "-ism". In the case of Zailiism (I have fixed your wikilink) or Liism, it is found as such in sources (ex. 1, 2). --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also consider that these religions usually translate their names with -ism through their official websites in English. For example this is the case of Weixinism (心聖教 Wéixīnjiào), although this one doesn't have an article on Wikipedia.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that the WP naming conventions for Chinese culture-related terms still doesn't have a policy for the names of religious groups. I think that it would be useful to write one.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to split

"Chinese shamanism" was not a well informed choice. It is always a mistake to come up with terms based on "That's much more natural to the average Wikipedia reader" as opposed to asking, where is the expert literature, and what is its established terminology. Often, it turns out that the supposed article topic is nebulous, not understood or ill defined. Looking at actual terminology helps. I believe there is no actual topic here. The following topics are being conflated:

• Wu (shaman) (prehistory / pre-imperial)
• Chinese folk religion
  • Chinese ritual mastery traditions (= "Folk Taoism")
• Shamanism in the Qing dynasty (i.e. Tungusic, non-Han, tradition)

--dab (𒁳) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that it would be best to split Chinese shamanism between the more precise and accurate articles listed above, which are better written than Chinese shamanism and would be a better place for the material in said article. Scyrme (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)