Talk:Neoshamanism

Massive Exploitation, Really!?!?

About the last sentence in the article... I haven't read Daniel C. Noel or Robert J. Wallis, or Harner for that matter. Maybe they really do say it's "massive exploitation," but imagine how this sounds to the skeptical audience. I think the vast majority of readers believe it is all superstitious nonsense (with maybe a fair number of Christians and others believing it is deceptions of the Devil, but definitely not legitimate religious worship). How does one "exploit" what the majority of indigenous people think superstitious imaginary nonsense of various peoples, especially when these indigenous people have already abandoned their own traditions, mainly in favor of Christianity? The definition of "exploit" means something of value, some resource that is worth something, is being taken away. "Misappropriated" is right terminology, and there might be some sense of dignity of indigenous cultures is violated, but no rights here are being denied here to indigenous people, some of their ideas are being "borrowed." The Neoshamans are basically rifling through indigenous peoples' intellectual trash. Note, I know this sounds disrespectful of many people's beliefs, but Wikipedia is encyclopedic, and not taking either side. It is also a large number of people's beliefs that this is either the work of the devil, and/ or is illegitimate religion for reasons other than it is offensive to "authentic" Western shamans. And please, before some critic (like the one below in the "Untitled" section) scolds me by making some provocative comparisons to Christianity or other major religion, I'm an atheist. But, I believe articles here should be encyclopedic and we should include other criticism, especially actual quotations from "aggrieved" indigenous people (there must be a lot to choose from, given the nature of the subject and core shamanism), and not narrow infighting between those that believe themselves to be respecting indigenous religious beliefs and those that are not. Or at least label it as "Controversy" instead of "Criticism". Actually I'm going to do just that in the last section. Tumacama (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Postscript I went back to read about Noel and Wallis, and they are both supporters of the neoshamanistic endeavor. It would seem that this last section was lifted outright from the article on "Core Shamanism" when the articles were combined. Therefore their criticism of Harner sounds like they are critical of the entire enterprise, because it is taken out of context. With their personal stakes in the matter, it is not surprising they would use hyperbole to describe the cultural appropriation. I hope someone can take the time to further delineate what are the critical voices from within the community, as opposed to those outside the community (of which there is apparently none in this article at all. Tumacama (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

putting NeoShamanism under the category "New Age" is like putting Islam under Category "Christianity." New Age by definition, in my opinion, is a series of simplifications and cultural and religious rip offs, from assorted systems, into a candied, psuedo-Christian amalgam. Yes, it is true that Islam was a reactionary movement to earlier patrifocal religions, no, Islam is not a type of Christianity. NeoShamanistic Movements are, for the most part, (other than "Core Shamanism," The New Age variant) Trying to reconstruct whole Shamanic systems. Shamanism is its own, independant item, under the taxonomic parent, "Types of World Religions." Prometheuspan 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"New age by definition, in my opinion, is a series of simplifications and cultural and religious rip offs, from assorted systems" I'm sorry but that's most people's view of neoshamanism too, as the article says.:) Sticky Parkin 02:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Core Shamanism is core shamanism

Dr. Harner was an anthropologist that studied among the native tribes in the Amazon in the 1950s. I'd credit him with a large portion of the current interest in Ayahausca. This article makes him sound like some guy who read about indians and wrote a book about shamanism. The guy was the real deal and taught in a university setting for decades. This article is a disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.229.23 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be a form of "Neo-Shaminism" [a term I am just learning about after knowing about Core Shamanism for 15 years] and some might see it as being "Pop-Shamanism [also a new term to me] but it is still a seperate entity and should have its own article. Carptrash 06:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup.Probably doesn't go under New Age. ----Wodensdy

I'd vote that "Core Shamanism" goes under the "Neoshamanism" heading. I applaud anybody who is sincere about their study, and who is trying to encourage people to at least look into "shamanism" (by whatever name); perhaps even to go farther than just looking into it... Michael Harner is authentic in that way of course. But in any case, there are so many people coming up with their own variations on the theme of "shamanism" that it seems to me that these should all go under one heading, perhaps "neoshamanism". It wouldn't bother me if my work was called that. ----samnotsam

Well the Neo-shamanism article is a fine place to put links to other articles - such as core shamanism. Like you, My work also falls easily and comfortably under Neo-S, but if i were to create something, such as Harner has done, that gets a life of its own, then i might feel that it deserves its own entry. I'm not thrilled about being an apologist for Harner, i definately am not a follower [and would be interested in your rants, but I am not a follewer of Carlos Castaneda either, but he has, and deserves his own place too. Carptrash 14:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider registering as a wikipedian so that we can carry these discussions out 1. on our talk pages, and 2. well, registered users are often [at least by me] trusted more than folks not registered. Your User Page is also a place to put your rants. Meanwhile, I think that putting Core Shamanism under Neo-Shamanism is fine, but I feel that it should also have its own article because it is something distinct from other types of Neo Shamanism. Like . . . Judaism, Christianity and Islam can all be included in a article Religions from the Middle East but should still have their own articles. Rant on. Carptrash 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re "Please consider registering", yes, I realized that that would be appropiate after writing those things. This was my first exposure to Wikipedia. Anyway I'm now registered, but what to do next??? Ranting on my "User Page" doesn't interest me--I don't have an ax to grind, just that I think Wikipedia is a good thing (wow) and it's worth contributing to. If that might help the overall effort. If you are an "experienced Wikipedian" then what's the custom in a situation like this? Should I delete what I wrote, then write something under my pen name?? I read the page on pros and cons of using real names. Now I'm confused. My idea was that using a real name would be the surest way to express trustworthyness. But as I say I'll gladly adapt to whatever the customary Wikipedia way is as soon as I understand what it is.

By the way, I said that "Core Shamanism" falls under "Neoshamanism" but I can clarify that and say that whatever the term, I think it is not a special case. It should receive exactly the same treatment as all the other New Age (so called) shamanisms. Why ever would it be different? Is it because Mr. Harner is more famous?? As we know from every field, fame and authenticity sometimes coincide and sometimes not. They are not related. So I vote that every shaman gets the same treatment, and the reader is not given the impression that one voice is more authentic than another. Better for the reader that way. ----Sam

First of all, try signing your postings with four of these fellows. ~ [top left of the keybord - for those of us who still hunt-&-peck]. That will get your name in blue here. I will then click on your name and write to you at your user page. Or, click on mine, go to my user page, click on DISCUSSION and write me there. Oh yes, don't delete what you've already written. It is now part of the bigger picture. Carptrash 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back to the point you make about Michael Harner. He does, in my opinion, rate somewhat special treatment because he is well known. Wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia for that matter, is about allowing folks to look up the famous. I know several people who might be as good or better at doing shamanic work as Harner, [i imagine that he does, of did do, some shamaninc work] but until they publish [most are not interested in doing so] and found [or "fund" as my first typo had it] a school, the Institute For Shamanic Studies, that goes world wide, they will not be included here, at least not by name. I look forward to hearing from you. Carptrash 14:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Core Shamanism belongs in the Neoshamanism article. Both are short, and once you look at the history of both phenomena, they cannot be separated from one another. Harner's work formed the foundations of the entire NeoShamanic phenomenon. It's only because Harner's misrepresentations have been exposed that those who are using his materials want to distance from his reputation (much as has been seen with Wiccans and Gerald B. Gardner). - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I just removed this

, sometimes as the result of genocide

from the article and put it here so that someone who think sit should remain can talk about it. Carptrash 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing controversial about the statement. Can you explain why you think it does not belong? I'm putting it back in. --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you have already put it back in my explanation seems somewhat superfluous, but . . ... back it is and back it will stay, at least as far as my actions go. My feeling is that shamanic cultures that no longer exist ceased to function for a bunch of reasons and picking out one sensational one is not particularly helpful. I agree that many cultures were systematically and intentionally destroyed and if you feel that calling attention to the genocidal aspects of it, okay. Carptrash 02:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should include some of those other reasons as well? --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Without giving it too much thought, I'm not clear on WHY the reasons that various cultures ceased to exist is important to a very short entry on neo-shamanism. Carptrash 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

" It's also relevant as we're generally talking about those of the oppressor culture now wanting to be "shamans".

Is that what we are talking about? That neo-shamanism is made up of members of the "oppressor culture" who want to play at being shamans? Well it's the end of the discussion for me. Write the history any way that you wish. Carptrash 03:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fradulent Shamanism

Thanks for referencing the sentence:

Some believe neoshamanism is used as an excuse by fraudulent shamans to cover up inconsistencies in their ceremonies.

Even though it is backed up, I still think it doesn't quite fit, as the use of "some believe..." sounds an awful lot like weasel words. Maybe there's a better why to say this. I'm sure it's a completely valid point; I just think that it could be stated in a more encyclopedic way. Any thoughts? romarin [talk ] 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the weasel words. As I was putting it back in I sat here staring at it, but am too braindead at the moment to rewrite it. If I think of something I'll fix it. I might need sleep first, though ;-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the phrase " some believe " suggests, at least to me, that " some do not ", causing me to wonder why the some who do believe are getting the ink ? Perhaps Eric Hoffer already answered that question in his book, The True Beliver ? Carptrash 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on that point? Not being familiar with Eric Hoffer, I can't say I get the reference. I agree with you though, that it needs to be presented in a more balanced way. romarin [talk ] 16:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoffer is a fellow, a longshoreman as I recall, who wrote a book called the True Believer back in the 1940s or 50s. It's point, or the one that stuck with me for 40 years or so [so I could have it wrong] is that the True Believer [in anything] can always convince him or herself that "by any means necessary" or that the "end justifies the means" and that sort of thing is appropriate. What I am seeing here is a tendency to create victims of folks whose traditions are being begged, borrowed or stolen by Neo-Shamans by using language like genocide and quoting what "some people say" and focusing on the "fraudulent" side of neo-shamanism . I don't see this a being a good thing, spiritually or encyclopedically, but am not really inclined to fight it either, being content to carp about it instead. Carptrash 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, issues of cultural appropriation, invention of tradition, and the like, are incredibly complex; to state simply that someone is fraudulent, or someone appropriated someone else's religion, is oversimplifying the issue. Cultures all over the world engage in tradition invention, both within their own culture and on behalf of others. Discourses of authenticity need to be carried out with these complexities in mind.

While not the same thing as Shamanism, Neoshamanism is a spiritual system in its own right, and I don't believe that anyone has the authority to label one spiritual system as more or less "authentic" than another. It is important to be aware of the differences in the histories and applications of different "traditions," and of course it is important to realize when one is taking advantage of another, or masquerading as another, but again, these issues are incredibly complex in themselves and must be treated carefully. I don't see this article (or others referencing similarly contemporary spiritualities) doing so. I'll work on it if I get the chance, but I'm also afraid that I'm up against some opposition, as many people are content to see only one side of the issue. romarin [talk ] 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

it is interesting (opinion) to note that even the person writing the text admits it sounds weasely. Life. what a place to live. Carptrash 00:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you mean me, I didn't originate the section, I've only worked on it. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all with you romarin but I seem to go up against a wall because valid neoshamans seem to be more discrete than fraudulent ones so finding sources and verifiable information to counter the current perception of neoshamanism is a difficult task. As with most things spiritual, I guess it's more of an inner manifestation into trust rather than proving things on the physical dimension :) I believe that those who hold on to the past and refuse to look forward with the excuse that only what is traditional is authentic miss the whole point of these traditions, which is to adapt to the environment, to the times and to life itself as it evolves. Peace Sud Ram (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, 4 years later. But, never too late. Those with a spiritual bent , who feel that not everything can be explained and that intellectualizing everything is not the way to get to basic truths are at a disadvantage here. So the game must be played by their rules. That means sourcing and footnoting all postings and at least requiring "them" to do the same. Carptrash (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never! I sourced the edit as you requested. My only concern is that the focus tends to be more on the negative aspects of neoshamanism than on its positive ones. This happens for many other "new" concepts and all gets thrown into the now unmentionable "New Age", which in itself was a quite remarkable philosophy before it got connoted as something unworthy of looking at. Sud Ram (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting Split/Merge Issue

See above: Talk:Neoshamanism#Core Shamanism is core shamanism - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sorry for the lack of edit summary. I forgot rollback didn't let me add one. What I added on the IP's page: "You deleted sources critical of the subject, and altered sourced text to introduce inaccuracies, thus misrepresenting the sources. Please read up on WP:RS. To be stated as fact, Harner's claims have to be sourced to someone other than Harner. They also have to be true and verifiable. - CorbieV^☊ 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I find this phrase

"However, the peoples of these tribes assert that Harner's creation is not in any way an accurate reproduction of their ceremonies, beliefs or practices,[2][3] nor do they call their spiritual leaders "shamans".[2][12]"

difficult to accept because, well Shaman is a word of Russian derivation so naturally native people would not use it and also am a bit perturbed that reference 2 seems to have been published 2 years before Harner published "The Way of the Shaman" so . . ... is that source really talking about Harner as the article seems to suggest? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am finding the criticism of Harner in here to be not supported by the references, who largely do not mention him. Also having just learned from the article that native people "do not call their spiritual leaders "shamans". I then discover "use of the term "shamanism" as a cultural appropriation of Native American culture." How are these two statements reconcilable? Carptrash (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a graduate of the foundation and I have studied with other shamanic elders in south american and china

I am a graduate of the foundation and I have studied with other shamans in South American and China. I also have a doctorates in Chinese medicine. The foundation first of all NEVER encourages anyone to call themselves a shaman and tells us from day one that real shamans don't call themselves shamans. Whoever wrote this is really using words and saying things in light that just aren't true and negative about Harner's work. I am extremely suspect over who wrote this article and what the objectives are.

Harner made it his life's work to understand these miracle healers around the globe. He came up with the best terms he could to explain this phenomena. His work has done allot in creating a portal to open many peoples minds and understanding in the need to be apart of a shamanic indigenous culture once more.

He has worked with many indigenous tribes all across the states and he has worked with many around the world. He has read allot 

of studies also, but he has also personally worked with these people as have his students. His effort was to create a global academia understanding of indigenous knowledge as a body of knowledge in order to reconnect western society to their roots. He has done wonderful things. In chinese medicine and most all medicines dreamwork is the most powerful way to shift consciousness. This is why he chose what he did to work with from personal experience with a variety of shamanic elders he sought out.

For many westerners, who are completely disconnected from their roots, journeywork is wonderful. It reconnects them to their inner knowledge so they can even realize where their roots are. It also opens their mind and hearts to indigenous ways all over the globe. Stop cutting him down. He never claimed to be creating shamans. But what he has done is help empower people and reconnect them to appreciating their indigenous roots.

We all need to work together and support one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.223.128 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you register as an editor (I suggest that you don't use anything shamanic in your user name) and get in here and start editing the article and get it right. Carptrash (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neoshamanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155048/http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html to http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155048/http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html to http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neoshamanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120013711/http://www.ull.es/congresos/conmirel/YORK.html to http://www.ull.es/congresos/conmirel/YORK.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What a biased mess!

I'm pretty shocked that this article has stayed as biased as it is for so long—in many cases, the material in the article doesn't come close to matching what's in the reference. It looks like this has been noticed before, but hasn't been addressed. I've started making some improvements, but certainly welcome help from other editors in getting the page up to stuff in terms of having a neutral perspective and accurately presenting the source material. Suomichris (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I've undone some of your edits. You clearly haven't looked at the sources that I've included (for example, you've reintroduced the idea that "sweatlodges" are derived from Plains Indian culture, but the source I cited is about neoshamanism in New Zealand and makes no such claim), and you're reintroducing biased material without appropriate sourcing. I'm happy to discuss things here if you aren't happy with my changes, but please stop just changing the article back to a biased and unsourced state. Suomichris (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The sweats imitated by adherents of neoshamanism are appropriated from their ideas of Plains inipi. Harner grossly misrepresented the Indigenous cultures he claimed to have "studied with" to get his theories of "core shamanism". We have only his word that he had any contact. His sources were inaccurate anthro books. No one besides Harner himself ever confirmed his claims to have learned directly from anyone from those cultures, and it's clear from what he cobbled together that he had no idea. Harner speaking about himself is a WP:PRIMARY source. We would need a solid, third party source from the cultures in question to say such a thing in WP's voice, otherwise, we are perpetuating his false claims. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

We need no such thing. WP:PRIMARYCARE says, and I will quote at length (boldface mine):

Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.

I have used Harner only to report what he says—where he says he studied, and why he decided to use terms. That falls well within the guidelines of using a primary source. By way of compromise, I'm willing to add something like "Harner reports that core shamanism was developed based on his..." I will make this change now. If you have sources that indicate there's a reason to believe that he lied, we can include that as well, but you can't simply say "but he lied because things are different." That's original research and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.

And regarding sweatlodges, the source I have included says nothing about Plains Indians. It is about practices in New Zealand. Stop making this change unless you have a source. Suomichris (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are not allowed in the encyclopedia for anything other than biographical purposes such as discographies in the case of a musician. If this was an article on Harner and you were putting together a bibliography of his works then it would be okay from a biographical sense. Including something he said as factual within the article will require a secondary source to verify his statements or else they can not be included (WP:PRIMARY). --ARoseWolf 20:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." In no way is what I have added an interpretation, it is simply stating what he says, and falls within these guidelines. Suomichris (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Right. No one from the cultures Harner claimed to represent backs him up. Ergo, all Harner can be used for is that he made these claims about himself. We cannot use his wording to assert in WP's voice that his claims are true. Too many people know his claims were not true. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Great, pull those sources that indicate he didn't do the things he said, and we'll include them. "Too many people" is not an argument. Suomichris (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Harner did exactly what tons of anthros before and after him have done - exploited insular, largely oral cultures, assuming no one would speak out. There's a lack of RS sourcing either way on this. Doesn't mean we default to bias in his favor. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fine—if we have sources that say that. It is not at all unreasonable to think that a Wikipedia article should be structured "Person A claims X. However, Person B and C have discovered Y." You can't say we can't include the X because of the Y, but not provide any link or indication that Y is true. If this is the case, then let's put in (a) what Harner said and (b) what others have discovered/what is true. Suomichris (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Read the sources about the fake sweats. The ones where they serve wine and cheese, for instance. Go to the sweat lodge page and read about the new age people who've killed people in these imitation debacles. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making this change—it is supported by the material. My previous objection was to your assertion that these are derived from Plains Indian culture, which is nowhere claimed in the sources (and you'll note that even the Wikipedia page describes it as a cultural phenomenon over a wide area, not specific to one culture). Suomichris (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Suomichris, You linked sweat lodges in this article to the Wikipedia article on sweat lodges. If the sweat lodges you are talking about have no connection to those used by Native American cultures and only those used in some other culture, as you claim above, then this link should be removed. In the article on sweat lodges there is no mention of New Zealand or the use of sweat lodges in that country. --ARoseWolf 21:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I did no such thing. That link was added by CorbieVreccan. Further, I made no claim that they were not related, I simply noted that the source I references was not about North America. Suomichris (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]Yes, I wikified sweat lodges. It's important that people be able to read that article, especially to see the differences between traditional ceremonies, and the new age rituals loosely inspired by them, and then erroneously called by the same name. When someone involved in neoshamanism refers to a "sweat" or "sweat lodge", there's really no telling what they're talking about. There's the infamous James Ray case, and some have done things where people are inside a house with their heads in boxes and dirt piled on them. Seriously. That was yet another case where people were harmed by newagers claiming what they did was a sweat (but it had nothing to do with the Indigenous ceremony). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. I see why you did it. --ARoseWolf 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that I am asking here is that the article (a) accurately represent the subject and that (b) the claims included in the article are supported by appropriate sources. There is no "well everyone knows" or "too many people think" on Wikipedia. If you have sources, great, let's include that information. If you do not, then those claims are not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I've spent a bunch of time over the last day or so trying to dig up new sources, and find the material that's already cited in the article to get a picture of what is happening. I'm not trying to be difficult, but this article as it stands it biased, and most of the biased claims are not backed up by the sources. That's all I'm trying to fix here. Suomichris (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

But you are using a biased source that Wikipedia deems inappropriate to use to fix it? I don't really understand the rationale. It's better for it to be unsourced than use a Primary Source to give it validity. --ARoseWolf 21:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen a Wikipedia editor claim that unsourced information is preferable to what's found in a published book! I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY in toto. It says nothing like you've asserted it says. In fact, it specifically says that you can quote pieces of books, without interpretation, which is exactly what I'm doing when I say "Harner wrote X". Look, none of the claims of "this guy isn't legit" mean anything if there's no information about what he actually asserts. Suomichris (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

[Edit conflict again] And I'm honestly, kindly, and humbly asking you, Suomichris, in a good way, to please understand the frustration and fatigue we deal with around misrepresentation of Indigenous cultures and ceremonies on Wikipedia. Many, actually most, traditional people are actually prohibited from talking publicly about sacred ceremonies. This has left our communities open to exploitation by people like Harner. Not just him, of course, but many like him.

As a both a Wikipedia admin, and someone who listens to the requests of Elders to handle the offensive, even racist, misinformation that winds up out in public, I can find myself in a tough spot when it comes to juggling closed traditions and standards for sourcing. Sometimes there are reliable, published sources we can use. I rejoice when that happens because, of course I know which sources we can and can't use here. BUT... it's also true that there are things that are common knowledge in our communities, but there is no way I can cite to WP standards, because it's prohibited to publish on some topics. Please understand. This is life for some of us. We're all doing our best here. I'm sorry if this does not make sense to you, but I hope it does. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've actually worked with Indigenous communities in North America, and am sympathetic to the concerns. Nonetheless, we can't simply assert things here without sources. I don't think we need a takedown of every single thing he's ever said; there's plenty of criticism. But we should still aay what Harner said. Then say what the criticism of him is, based on the sources available. I don't think we need to get into every single detail of what he says to show that he's misrepresented things—but we do need sources, even if it's just anthropological literature that's critical of him.

Look, I recently spent some time working on the Roswell incident article, and although I realize they're not equivalent and don't mean to say they are, it feels like what you're saying is "well, it wasn't a UFO after all, so we shouldn't mention a UFO, because all those people were wrong." But the wrong claims are part of the history, regardless of where they come from. That's the same here. What Harner says is part of the story, for better or for worse, and should be included. Suomichris (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

[quick edit to add] I just did a bit of poking around about Michael Harner to see what I could find about his academic background, and it's pretty clear that he did in fact travel to South America at least once to conduct anthropological fieldwork, and that others have researched the same group of people and come away with a similar picture of their culture. I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject, but you're essentially calling the man a liar and academic fraud with no evidence, and it's not reasonable to expect that a Wikipedia article would also reflect that view without sources to back it up. Suomichris (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I understood, only in a microcosm, the depth of which Native Cultures are exploited and treated but the full breadth was lost on me until I had a little run-in with Corbie, myself. My mother was a registered Cherokee, as am I, but I don't claim to be Cherokee as I do not live on the Reservation and have only fairly recently reconnected with my family living in Oklahoma. It's a long story and not for Wikipedia. I do claim to be Native on government documents and I do accept that Cherokee blood is in my veins but I do not accept government assistance or any money that should rightfully go to those who have lived under this exploitation. I only claim it in so much as it is a part of my song and I genuinely want to honor my mother and her family. It also affords me the opportunity to continue to fight for the recognition that every Native Culture deserves. My family and I live on wild lands in Alaska, lands that ancestrally belonged to the Athabascan people and they are permitted, rather we are permitted to maintain this land and keep it wild, they hunt this land just as their ancestors did and I will never limit that. I admit that my time among the Crow in Montana, Blackfoot in Idaho/Montana and the Lakota have affected my philosophical beliefs. Likewise, I admit that my time in Nepal has also influenced my beliefs. My life is complex as is many, I am sure. I would never claim that my personal beliefs are those of any specific group of people. They are my own. After my past discussions with Corbie, and my own reflections I went to my family in Oklahoma, and as a result of my talk with them I had to apologize to them. Now I see why sacred things and ceremonies can never be shared. It is already distorted by pretenders and even those who mean well but can never really understand. They couldn't understand even as they watched. I am not sure that I will ever fully understand but it is part of me and I will strive to for the rest of my life. All that to say this, there are things that should be omitted and never mentioned even though they may be written about because they were actually said. That is what my part about being unsourced can be better than sourced sometimes, especially when the source is a distorted viewpoint that has caused and continues to cause harm. --ARoseWolf 14:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Three types of Neoshamanism

I wrote a comment like this earlier and decided not to post it, but given the current friction on the page, perhaps it would be helpful to step aside for a minute and discuss another issue to come to consensus on that and build some good will.

So. In researching this topic, I've found "Neoshamanism" used to refer to three different things.

1. What amounts to shamanic tourism—people from societies with shamanic traditions, who now engage in exhibitions, like performances or ayahuasca ceremonies, for tourists.

2. Westerns who have taken New Age shamanic training programs like core shamanism and view themselves as working shamans, but without a connection to a traditional knowledge.

3. Hucksters who claim to have been trained as shamans, received secret initiations, etc., etc., but are charlatans. These seem to be mostly authors, as far as I can tell, but maybe they offer workshops as well?

The third one is, I think, covered by plastic shaman, but I'm struggling to reconcile how to address the New Age neoshamanism with shamanic tourism in the same article. Do people have thoughts about this? Maybe this article is only about the New Age stuff, and there's a separate article for shamanic tourism? (FYI, I have not done enough research to know if there's enough about this topic to warrant its own article.) I note that there is a short article on religious tourism, but I'm not sure that's the right place for the shamanic tourism info to be included. Suomichris (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

An alternative might be to move core shamanism (back?) to its own article, and make this article focused solely on the touristic practices. Suomichris (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Core shamanism is essential to Neoshamanism and should stay here. All of these overlap too much for three clean categories, and deciding which category each belongs in would potentially involve too much WP:OR. Please also bear in mind in and mention of Native cultures that there is not just one "Native American culture". There are over 500 federally recognized tribes, all with their own cultures. That's just in the US. And again, Harner was the only one to make many of his claims; they were not backed up by either evidence or other authors. We can't state in WP's voice that he definitely "studied with" people who have never confirmed this. We can say that he has written that he did so, is all. Edit: The many edits (39?) made the diff a bit confusing. Looking again, I'm pretty sure the wording on this is actually OK now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Very well stated. Also like how you altered the "notes" and "noted" to more appropriate words. --ARoseWolf 20:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We can leave thing as they are for now, although please bear in mind that what you "think" is not the criteria for what we do; it's what outside, reliable sources say, many of which document modern practices by indigenous groups which have no relation to Harner, and others of which clearly articulate that, even in the West, not all neoshamanism relies on or is derivative of Harner.

And yes, I am aware that there is more than one "Native American" group. In fact, there are literally thousands of indigenous communities around the globe. You do not speak for all of them, which is why I take issue when you want to include unsourced claims that Harner's system "doesn't resemble any native tradition" and the like. You don't have any idea if that's true or not. Suomichris (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If you understand there is more than one "Native American culture" please remember to use the plural, "cultures" when making edits here on WP, so one of us doesn't have to do cleanup after your edits, then. :)

About this edit I was trying to add some kind of context, and extrapolated based on your later comments from that author. Please add some explanation as to why the author thinks these people are "off the hook" as right now it's not clear why. The later text seems to indicate that he believes the practices can be stripped of all cultural context this way. Please make this make sense if you want to include it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. And I'm going to give myself the benefit of the doubt and say that "Native American culture" was a typo. Also, I removed one of your other changes. Please stop including the presumed ethnicity of scholars you disagree with. Suomichris (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:CorbieVreccan, I think I've made it clear that I'm ready to include criticism of these practices where appropriate, but you can't keep changing the wording of what I've written to what you think, without either (a) checking the sources already mentioned to see if they clarify or (b) finding new sources to support your claims.

Also, please stop putting (neo)shamanism is inherently a very large, messy field, capturing information from hundreds of cultures and across thousands of years. If you want to start including things like "some people claim but not really" for things you disagree with, we need to put that kind of waffling in for every claim in the article. Suomichris (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop simply reverting when you don't like the changes. Address the issues raised in the edit summary, like I asked you to. You are overly-relying on hardcopy texts we don't all have access to, to make sweeping statements in WP's voice. I am reinstating my edits unless and until you come up with something better. You cannot word it to sound like these ceremony-sellers, whatever it is they sell, are serving communities in the same way traditional people do. I know you put "some" in there, but it's not clear enough. Improve, don't just revert. You're being quite WP:OWNy with this article and you need to chill. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You also need to cite page numbers. You have a massive numbers of cites to these books, but no page numbers so people can check your citations. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is a preview of Wallis' book for context: [1]. I'm not saying we can't use it, but he's a participant-observer in the Neopagan / Newage / Neoshamanism scene himself. He can't be considered objective. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I've replied in length on my Talk page. In short: literally everything I have used is available online, which means you can search them for the information. And of course we can use people who are participant-observers and neoshamans, for the same reason that we can site Native community voices in the shamanism article. Suomichris (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Europe's Indians, Indians in Europe

User:CorbieVreccan, you've now done the thing that you accused me of doing, even though I didn't actually do it—using a hard-copy source that no one else has access to without including a page number. I searched the book on Amazon, but can find nothing about paying clients or people practicing in isolation. Can you clarify?

I've put the rest of that sentence back the way it was, as your rewrite did not accurately match the sources—the scholars writing have said this, not the practitioners themselves. Suomichris (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I cited the page number. The source is used in other WP articles. I'm not reverting your hard copy sources and it's bad faith of you to do so. Hagan also was added, and she also mentions the financial motivations and differences. You're trying to use a Neopagan/Newage source to say, in WP's voice, that a significant number of "scholars" believe Indigenous and Neopagan/Newage communities are similar enough that these self-invented neoshamans, are serving the same function as traditional ceremonial people. That's not only wrong, but these sources wouldn't even know. I don't think they know how offensive those statements are. We can only say what I've rephrased it to say - that they believe this is the case. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I did not revert any hard-copy sources or information from said. I literally said that I was leaving it in in the comment that you're replying to. Also, I'm done with this article, and probably Wikipedia in general. People like you are the reason that the community of volunteer editors is dwindling and why they have such a bad rep.

I found an article that was extremely biased and poorly sourced, and decided to be WP:BOLD and work to fix it, asking for help and input from other editors on the Talk page. But I received none. The only thing you have contributed to this process is friction and flack.

I've asked for help, I've asked for sources, I've asked for input. I've specifically attempted to make peace with you both by coming to consensus on this Talk page about another issue, and flagging you in article delete requests that seemed relevant and of interest to you. But what I have gotten back from you is accusation after accusation: that I am misrepresenting sources, that I am trying to pass off "a few scholars voices" as Wikipedia's, that I am using some sort of secret horde of materials for citations in this article, that I'm somehow trying to silence Native perspectives or expose secret knowledge.

All the while, in all this discussion, you have failed to provide any sources to support your view. And yet, you show up and tell me what I'm allow to do and think, and what the article can say and can't say. As I mentioned in my reply to you on my Talk page, I even went out of my way to try and find something that actually quoted a Native community to include their voice, per your request, since you couldn't or wouldn't provide anything. But nothing—no thank you, no acknowledgment, just more hacking and slashing of what I've written to make it untrue to the sources.

You get upset with me because I revert your edits—but you've done the same thing to me, coming in and changing what I've added to make it not true. You could have just as easily brought those issues to Talk, but didn't bother. Instead somehow that impetus is on me, even though I'm the one that's being trying to find more sources to flesh out the article, ensure that it takes a neutral tone, etc. But I also have to run everything by you personally on the Talk page? I don't think so.

I am, frankly, disgusted that a Wikipedia admin is acting like this.

I've pinged several other editors who have previously commented on this Talk page, asking that they come take a look through the recent edits to see what they think. They can take it from here, I suppose. Suomichris (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)