Talk:Mana (Oceanian cultures)

Starting point

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)

Removed from article

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)

By coincidence, in the unrelated Uralic languages, such as Finnish, Enets and Mari, mana- means "to say", or in Finnish, "to curse", "to exorcise" or "to magically invoke", from the Proto-Uralic root *mënᴈ- "to say". In Finnish, mana by itself is a poetic word for death, and manala is a synonym for Tuonela, the land of the dead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Simplistic views

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)

removed passage

"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)

Etymology section too long

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)

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)

Serious problems

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)

I do not understand the reference that appears below the present comment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs654654 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More on primitivity

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor H. (talk • contribs)

"Supernatural" is not the right way to begin this entry

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)

Requested move 26 February 2020

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: withdrawn. Fair enough; perhaps this article and other articles using the term "Mana" in this context don't do enough justice to the significance of this topic. feminist (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Mana → Mana (concept of power)
• Mana (disambiguation) → Mana

– Nowhere close to being the WP:PTOPIC. Maná and Mana (series) both receive higher page views. I am also open to other suggestions for disambiguators. feminist (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as this topic is the root meaning when inspired the names of the topics mentioned above and many others. This is evidence of this topic having long-term significance to a level which supersedes fleeting page view numbers. The proposed disambiguation "(concept of power)" is unappealing and awkward, and that often hints that the topic is meant to be primary. -- Netoholic @ 10:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see any evidence that the Mexican band or the Japanese video game series are named after the religious concept. Maná could as well be named after manna. feminist (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Feminist: From the Spanish-language article: El nombre del grupo fue elegido por el significado que tiene la palabra en polinesio: «energía positiva». -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the root meaning; see this article, "The History of Mana: How an Austronesian Concept Became a Video Game Mechanic". SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose There is no way that the Mana series is more primary than the term it is based on. A Mexican rock band does not have longterm significance and fails that criterion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Mana (Anglo-Saxon)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Requested move 21 April 2023

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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• Mana → Mana (Oceanian culture)
• Mana (disambiguation) → Mana

– I'm not convinced that the average English reader recognizes this term as synonymous with this topic to the extent required by the disambiguation guidelines. This seems to be evidenced by the existence and usage of two hatnotes, both of which are in fact on top of the list of the most clicked links in the article at the WikiNav clickstream data for Mana, which is indicative of a problem with navigation. In March 2023 data, of the 17.1k incoming views, there were 839 outgoing views to Mana (disambiguation), 531 outgoing views to Manna and then 389 to Orenda which is an italicized term in the lead section, etc. 1370 out of ~17000 is ~8%, which isn't nominally a lot per se, but it has previously been indicative of navigation issues. This is because we can't really be sure that this statistic translates into ~92% readers actually ending up in the right place, as some readers might find it interesting to read about something that they weren't looking for, which is fine, but some might just give up and not read much more, which is not.
Mass views statistics for all Mana topics indicates that there's a wide smattering of largely homonymous topics that have larger or comparable readership. Some were already mentioned, also in the previous MR shown above, and apparently there's also a Japanese musician who became prominent.
I also tried to verify what happens in other similar sources of information. At a Google Books search for Mana and while this topic is the most common one, there's a fair bit of other stuff in there in the first couple of pages as well. At e.g. Britannica when one searches for 'mana', it prominently displays their article about this concept, but doesn't short-circuit readers, and instead shows a list in which the next item is the homonymous South American geography topic. At encyclopedia.com, they also show a list of topics when searching for the term, and happen to show Mana-Zucca and Maná before this concept.
I think we should give full disambiguation a try and see how it affects reader behavior, obviously keeping the link to this topic on top, collate the data over a period of a couple of months (until the various search engine patterns settle, from previous experience it takes a while), and then proceed accordingly based on that.
Obviously, "Oceanian culture" is just one very generic possible disambiguation marker, please feel free to propose a better alternative. --Joy (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. I've seen Manna spelled as "mana" many a time. I think the disambiguator could use work, perhaps Mana (Melanesia and Polynesia) instead -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. There are 43 entries listed upon the Mana (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the Oceanian culture topic overwhelms the combined prominence of the remaining 42 entries. As for the choice of parenthetical qualifier, per final sentence of the nomination and alternative proposal by 64.229.90.172, if consensus skews towards any other reasonable suggestion, I would join in supporting it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. I agree that this does not appear to be the primary topic. --Spekkios (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support the Oceanian culture could be the origin of most of the other meaning but group has more views (12,882) than the Oceanian culture (10,802)[[1]] and SMALLDETAILS doesn't work as most people won't know to type the diacritic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment if it does get moved, I'm not sure that "Oceanian culture" is the best way to disambiguate this page. I'm also not entirely sure what would be, which I know isn't helpful. I'm also wondering whether it would be worth merging MANA and MaNa into the Mana disambiguation page, regardless of the outcome? Turnagra (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd generally advise against merging lists of visibly different words because we have no real proof it makes it easier for readers to find what they're looking for faster in a 50+ item list. --Joy (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  It can also make it more difficult to find stuff, though - the Mana Movement, for example, was almost exclusively styled in all capital letters (as in their logo) but shows up on the Mana disambiguation, not the MANA one. Turnagra (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support I have to agree here. This page has been confusing people for a long time. I would suggest "Mana (spiritual concept)" following the example of Livity (spiritual concept). JTdale 🗩 05:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is that sufficiently unambiguous, though? No point putting it in parenthesis if it's still going to be ambiguous even so. Red Slash 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support A pageview check demonstrates there is almost certainly no primary topic. Mana (mythology) would be my vote, or Mana (Oceanian mythology) if that would be too easily confused with manna. I also agree that MANA and MaNa should be merged into the disambiguation page - people may still type in lowercase to search for an acronym. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer Mana (Oceanian mythology). No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Mythology"

The current disambiguator "Oceanic mythology" (product of an exceptionally brief move discussion) was not really discussed. It's not really appropriate, since "mythology" indicates something that pertains to "myths" (i.e. old stories, usually considered to be untrue or only metaphorically true), while "mana" is very much a living concept, relevant to everyday life in Oceanic cultures. Furius (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Furius, I'm not sure I agree with your take on "mythology". In anthropology, "myths" are considered to be true (in spite of the word's popular use in vernacular English); see work by Mircea Eliade, Lévi-Strauss, among others. Oceanic cultures consider mana to be equally true (and equally metaphorical) as, say, the origin myth of the coconut tree, or Maui's myth in Aotearoa. They could all be assigned to Oceanic mythology, I think.

Besides (but this is another debate), it could be up for debate whether mana is a "living concept" still today, in modern (Christian / secular) societies of the Pacific. I think it is indeed, in some areas, but "relevant to everyday life in Oceanic cultures" as a whole would be exaggerated.

Third question: "Oceanian"? or "Oceanic"? I'm not sure which one is better. (Linguists use "Oceanic", but I don't know about other domains.) -- Womtelo (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC).

In New Zealand, in secular contexts, people regularly talk about, for example, the mana of, for example, current members of parliament ([2]) and complainants in court cases ([3]). Whether a tribe has mana whenua is the subject of legal rulings ([4]). It's not really a "metaphor" any more than "ownership" or "authority" are in English. All are cultural concepts. The comparison with origin myths and myths of Maui also brings out the difference - there's no "myth of mana". Furius (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I would describe mana, in the New Zealand context, as "moral authority". Schwede66 18:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Furius. Myths are narratives. Mana is a concept, not a narrative. I suggest renaming to Mana (Oceanian culture), similar to the use of "culture" in article titles Tapu (Polynesian culture), Kapu (Hawaiian culture) and Ghosts and spirits in Māori culture, and its use in section headings in this article. Nurg (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm 100% with User:Schwede66 on this. There are certainly enough contemporary English-language secondary sources from within the New Zealand for a Mana (moral authority) article about the concept in contemporary New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)