Talk:Shamanism during the Qing dynasty/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: Per request of the author, Madalibi, I will be doing the GA review for this. Please give me a few days. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work - I'm just going to throw everything I find down here, and we'll see what sticks

• I performed several small copyedits, each with the summary "ce", and each with its own edit (for ease of revert, if you disagree with one change but not others. Please make sure I didn't screw anything up.

• They're all very good, thank you! Madalibi (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead: "As soon as the Qing seized Beijing to begin their conquest of China in 1644, they erected an official shamanic shrine in that city, which they took as their new capital." - this reads awkwardly. Perhaps "In 1644, near the beginning of their conquest of China, the Qing seized Beijing and named it their new capital. They immediately erected an official shamanic shrine in the city." I didn't make this change myself because I'm not sure if 1644 was when the conquest began and when the Beijing was taken, or just the latter.

• True, that wasn't very clear. :) I changed it to "In 1644, as soon as the Qing seized Beijing to begin their conquest of China, they took the city as their new capital and erected an official shamanic shrine there." Let me know if this sounds better. Madalibi (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the 'The Beijing tangse' section: "There, the emperor made offerings to Heaven, the horse spirit, the Manchu progenitor, and various other deities." - Is the horse spirit the Manchu progenitor, or are they two separate entities. If it's the former, consider "to Heaven, the horse spirit (the Manchu progenitor), and various other deities" for clarity.

• Changed to "made offerings to Heaven and various other deities, including the horse spirit and the Manchu progenitor". Madalibi (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the 'The "Shamanic Code" of 1747' section: "that would explain the meaning of Manchu ritual incantations (many of which had become mumbo-jumbo) and the use of shaman's implements." - While the definition at Mumbo jumbo (phrase) indicates that your usage of the term is correct, I think it may be too unprofessional for use in an article. Is there another wording that could be used instead of "mumbo-jumbo"?

• Checking out my source, I found this sentence from Crossley's book Orphan Warriors: But as decreasing numbers of young bannermen were familiar with the language, the liturgies had declined to a level of mumbo-jumbo that made those who understood the language wince. Princes were ordered to commit the utterances used in their own lineage to paper, and to bring them to Hongli's personal inspection. Those that were "nonsensical, incorrect, or unorthodox" would be edited, corrected or expunged, as necessary. They would be incorporated into the text, along with pictorial representations and explanations of the shaman's implements. So at the very least I'm missing quotation marks around "mumbo-jumbo" to make it clear that these were Crossley's words. I also see that Crossley's meaning is subtly different from what I said: the incantations were not just nonsensical to people who didn't understand Manchu: they made little sense to Manchu speakers themselves! I rephrased to: "To fight this trend, in 1741 he commissioned a "Shamanic Code", based on the rites of the imperial clan, that would explain the use of shamanic instruments and the meaning of Manchu ritual incantations, many of which had been transmitted by officiants who were not fluent in Manchu, to the point of becoming nonsensical." Feel free to improve on this as well if you find it awkward or too long. Madalibi (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Question

• I am a tad wary of the caption of the fourth image, where it describes the Yongzheng Emperor as "fond of portraying himself in various religious roles". Is this something that, if you asked, you would be able to cite?

• Hmmm, you're right. I think this is actually a case of synthesis more than original research. I could find references for YZ's fondness for religious role playing, but I couldn't find any that makes the contrast between that and his criticism of Manchus who worship Heaven in the wrong form. Just rephrased to the more neutral "The Yongzheng Emperor (r. 1722–1735), here portrayed as a Daoist adept..." Madalibi (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Needs work

• In the 'The "Shamanic Code" of 1747' section: "During his fieldwork among Tungusic populations of "Manchuria" in the early twentieth century, Russian anthropologist S. M. Shirokogoroff found enough surviving practices to build a theory of shamanism that shaped theoretical debates about shamanism for decades after that." - If the existence of the theory is worth including in the article, the theory itself is probably also worth including.

• Let me think about this... Shirokogoroff did his fieldwork from 1912 to 1918 (after the fall of the Qing dynasty), and among Tungusic populations that were not all Manchu. He wrote his most important work in the 1920s, and he was a major influence on Mircea Eliade's writings about shamanism. Recently scholars have been emphasizing that shamanism, far from being a marginal kind of spiritual practice, was also used by centralized states. I think this is all worth mentioning. But let me take care of your second question first (on interactions between religions), and I think I can find a good reason to mention Shirokogoroff's work without having to veer too far off topic.

• I ended up adding a whole new section ("Scholarly interpretations") on Shirokogoroff. It starts with Shirokogoroff's fieldwork and concepts, presents other social scientists' interpretations of shamanism, and ends with Qing historians' critiques of traditional conceptions of shamanism, so I think everything is relevant and enhances the article. Thanks for the suggestion! Madalibi (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am surprised that there is not a discussion of the interaction between Qing shamanistic practices and other religious customs. Although there are tidbits, such as the absorption of two Chinese gods into Qing practices and the line in the 'Shamanism and Manchu identity' section, there isn't any discussion in depth of the relationship between shamanism and traditional Chinese religious practices, Islam (I am assuming that there was Islam in the western portions of the dynasty, where there is Islam today), or Christianity (aside from the one line in the 'Shamanism and Manchu identity' section). Was religion a source of tension between Qing and Han subjects? Was shamanism changed by exposure to these other practices, and vice versa? How effective were Christian efforts to convert people from Shamanism to Christianity, and what impact did that have?

• Excellent point, yes. Let me add more on the absorption of other gods, especially Buddhist ones but also Guandi, into shamanistic rituals, on the links between Tibetan Buddhism and shamanism, and on the various religious roles that Qing emperors took on for their various constituencies. The only thing I have ever read about the relations between Christianity and shamanism during the Qing is what I wrote about the Yongzheng emperor. Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• To answer your request, I created a section called "Diversity of practices" and a subsection on Role in Qing rulership within the section on "State shamanism after 1644". I also added info on the first western study of the Shamanic Code, a text published by a Jesuit missionary in 1773. My goal in adopting a vague title like "Diversity of practices" is to keep this section flexible. Eventually, I'd like to enhance it with more info on ordinary shamanic cults (when they took place, what were the offerings, who were the most commonly worshipped spirits, how these common rites differed from those of the court, etc.). I can actually do this right away if you want. Otherwise I will do it later in preparation for an eventual FA review. I don't know of any scholarship on the interactions between shamanic practices and Islam, if such interactions ever took place. Qing emperors tried to patronize Islam as they did other religions, but they were not very successful, probably because Islamic leaders were not willing to be protected by a non-Islamic sovereign. There is scholarship on Jesuit efforts to convert people at the Qing court (including Manchus) to Christianity, but I don't know of any study explaining how these efforts related to shamanism. This is probably worth looking into, but more as a scholarly pursuit than for Wikipedia. Anyway let me know if this satisfies your request, which as usual resulted in an improvement to the article! Madalibi (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Needs work - If everything else is fixed and this isn't, I'll still pass this as a GA, but I do believe that we should be using alt text whenever applicable.

• I completely agree. Done. Madalibi (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable - I'm generally not a fan of left-aligned images, but it works well enough in this case.

Comments after the initial review: This is well written and superbly cited, but I do feel as though there's a section missing (see 3a). Other than that, and some grammatical/wording changes, this seems good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Second pass

Three things to address:

• "Nicola di Cosmo of the Institute for Advanced Studies comments that once Manchu rituals were codified into formal regulations, they became "mere simulacra of the ancestral cults" and lost their place at the center of the spiritual life of Manchu clans.[74] He also" - he also what?

• Oops. :) I added the sentence Nonetheless the persistence of shamanistic practices at the Qing court into the twentieth century suggests that the Manchus were not automatically "sinicized" by the sole fact that they ruled over China. Madalibi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Despite his warnings that shamanism only existed among the Tungus and the Manchus, that Tungus shamanism could only be understood in relation to all other elements of Tungus culture, and that his findings should therefore not serve to develop a general interpretation of shamanism, Shirokogoroff's ideas have shaped theoretical debates about shamanism." - I'm not sure what you mean with the first part, "shamanism only existed among the Tungus and the Manchus". Did he really assert that there wasn't shamanism in any other cultures?

• Yes this is what he meant. He said "this is shamanism" and then he appropriated the definition of that term for the Tungus and Manchus only. I have rephrased to Shirokogoroff claimed that true shamanism only existed among the Tungus and the Manchus, but despite his warnings...
• I also added a short paragraph to the lede to match the content of the section on "Scholarly interpretations". Let me know if it reads clearly or if it goes further than what the referenced content of that section allow for. Madalibi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the picture of the cover of the book adds enough to the understanding of the article to meet the standard for use of non-free images (specifically, point 8 on the linked page). Do you think it meets that standard?

• Good point. Omission would not be detrimental to understanding, so I guess it should be deleted. Too bad, because the caption was a quick way to introduce readers to the content of that section... I'd also considered adding File:Shirokogoroff_s_m_1929.jpg or File:Mircea.eliade.jpg, but I don't think either would pass the same test. Could you take a quick look at the two pictures and let me know if either one of them could be used here? I'll trust your judgment on that Madalibi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• File:Shirokogoroff s m 1929.jpg is freely licensed, so it certainly can be used. The policy I linked to is only for images that are not under free licenses, so it doesn't apply to File:Shirokogoroff s m 1929.jpg. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, this is ready for GA. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time and your help, Sven! Madalibi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Right then. I'll get to the promoting part right away. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)