Talk:Shamanism in Europe

[Untitled]

The Witch-cult hypothesis is a valid topic, but it is a topic falling under WP:FRINGE. There is a handful of bona fide academic authors who propose this, apparently all of them influenced in some way by neopaganism. It is fair enough to give their views fair hearing in a dedicated article. But a line must be drawn at a point where the notability of these views is inflated by artificially creating more stub articles for no other purpose than rehashing the content already treated under "witch-cult hypothesis". At such a point we leave the bona fide realm of covering your pet theory in an encyclopedic manner, and we enter the field of agenda-driven touting of a fringe idea by deliberate cherry-picking and distortion. Just because this witchcraft/shamanism topic appeals to you, doesn't mean it is either true or notable. It is neither. It is still interesting, but on Wikipedia it must be treated within the strict bounds of WP:DUE. Anything beyond this belongs on websites or blogs explicitly dedicated to advocating this topic. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Declaring that Ginzburg, Pocs, and Willby are advocating for the much-ballyhooed "witch-cult hypothesis" is more than a bit of a stretch of the imagination and serves only to inflame readers against these particular authors (and anyone who follows their scholastic lead!) who happens to click the hyperlink via an a priori assumption! Also, it is dubious to assert that Ginzburg was the first scholar to advocate for a form of European shamanism without any evidence to substantiate such an allegation. Other scholars happen to support the views of Ginzburg, Pocs, et. al., including Anne Llewellyn Barstow, Tekla Domotor, Gustav Henningsen, Gabor Klaniczay, Claude Lecouteaux, Katherine A. Edwards, David Lederer, and historian John Martin (Trinity University) who published his support of Ginzburg in his article, "Journeys to the World of the Dead: The Work of Carlo Ginzburg", among others, each of whom is a respected scholar in their own right and are deserving of much more respect than is given them by the editors of this Wiki piece! Another author who writes at length about European shamanism includes Miranda Green (who wrote an entire book on the subject titled, "The Quest for the Shaman"!), as well as a slew of Norse scholars. It is patently unfair to decry their views as "fringe," which, according to friends within the academic community, is what led Carlo Ginzburg to leave the U.S. where he taught at University due to how poorly he was treated by scholars from both the U.S. and the UK! Robin Briggs, for instance, told me that he thinks that Ginzburg ought to subjugate himself to his far more conservative academic peers before publishing a single word since he (Briggs) is personally opposed to such views, even though Briggs' psycho-analytical views are far more spurious! It's also unfair to denounce these scholars as being either "a handful" in number, and as being "influenced in some way by neopaganism" (even though there's no evidence to support this ridiculous notion other than wishful thinking)! What would also improve this page are examples of how the shamanic thesis fits within examples of European folk-lore and mythology (such as mountains, hills, the hearth-fire, and trees being an evident axis mundi!), as well as examples of helper-spirits, etc. A sub-heading within this entry should be titled "Elements of Shamanism in European folk-lore and Mythology". Furthermore, I would also decry the tone of this piece as intentionally misrepresenting academia as a whole by portraying such views as those held by Ginzburg and his coevals as unsupported by *particular* mainstream (i.e. approved American and British) scholars! Instead, the tone should strive to place the European view, which is a noted consensus, on equal footing with Witchcraft Scholars from the US and the UK. To do anything less smacks of racism and the Logical Fallacy of Illusory Superiority or Leniency Bias, as well as the Argumentum ad popular fallacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.40.226.236 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)