|WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Peru||(Rated Stub-class)|
Folks, previous versions of this article were better than the current. For instance the paragraph on the shaman at the end is out of place and inaccurate. The paqos in Peru typically, if they work with a hallucinogen at all would have more access to the mescaline cactus San Pedro which grows in the highlands rather than Ayahuasca which is made from plants of the Amazon rain forest. Shaman itself is a Siberian term and should not be used outside of that cultural context.
If you have something to say about this please email me at blue dot jaguar at hotmail dot com in the next few days. Otherwise I will be performing edits if no others interested in this topic.
Added NPOV and Original Research
There has to be a better way of explaining the controversy without trivializing the topic. Even though the new age beliefs surrounding the chakana may be considered false by mainstream scientific and archaeological sources, this must be presented in a way that does not attack people. Most troubling I find this line: " Another reference, Mejillones Acarapi, a self-styled Amauta (Incan philosopher-teacher) was arrested in 2010 with 350 kilograms of liquid cocaine. " Does a drug-related arrest instantly discredit a person? This is an overt example of ad hominem fallacy. As was written under "Article argues with itself", this article destroys its own premises, and thus is completely unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD12:A569:48B8:BB1B:F873:98A7 (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have redacted the article, removed offending language and self-referencing citations; there have been no further entries here regarding the "controversy" section of this article. Unless the conversation resumes here, I will remove the NPOV and Original Research tags. If there are objections, please state them.
What do you mean, "Shaman"?
I agree with the previous comments: the whole paragraph should be deleted as irrelevant (there's no relationship indicated (here or elsewhere, that I know of) between "chakana" and the so-called "shaman") and inaccurate (Shaman is a Siberian term). The assertion that "The shaman was superior to priests, sorcerers and witch-doctors" is such outrageous waffle, it must be explained and justified (but not here - how about in Inca religion) or simply deleted. The Lesser Merlin (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The article "chakana" is entirely original research, and is simply untrue. It is fantasy. Check the citations, they are empty. The philosophical treatise in German is a clever move, but uses the word to mean bridge, as transition, not as graphic design. The citation in Spanish is in the same voice as the article, fantasy given as fact.
It seems to me that the "Chakana" is not a significant figure in pre-contact Andean culture; it is not an identifiable motif in pre-columbian artifacts except as an incidental geometrical component of some Wari culture textiles and ceramics, and, with an added level of complexity, on one example of Tiwanakan worked stone. The "Chakana" and all of it's interpretive elements emerged in Peruvian, Bolivian, and Ecuadorian tourist-oriented crafts and conventions within recent decades. Because the geometry is pretty simple you find about half of it in architectural elements now and then, and as a bas-relief on one of the pink ashlars of Ollantaytambo's "sun temple," but really, the whole thing is a modern invention. And those interpretations, do they sound Andean to you? From what source? You can substitute "amauta" for "shaman" and it's still just a way to sell jewelry to tourists. Has no authority spoken up on this in print anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czypcamayoc (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Article argues with itself
It looks like someone decided to add an extremely detailed and cited essay arguing against the existence of this article to the article itself. The result is a self-referential Wikipedia article that is completely unencyclopedic and, rather than presenting two differing points of view, disputes its own existence and criticizes its own writers.
The person who went to all of the trouble of creating that essay should have just had the boldness to make the article accurate using those sources, and should have kept the criticism justifying any omissions to this talk section.
I lack any knowledge of Inca culture, but as a mortified occasional Wikipedia contributor, I'm going to take it upon myself to delete the bulk of this article, as it is just plain bad. To those of you who are experienced and actually care about this topic: Please make sure your edits follow Wiki guidelines and result in an article that actually looks like it belongs in an encyclopedia, and not on an internet forum argument. Matt S. (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also, one extra thought: An absence of mention from reliable sources does not itself count as a refutation from authorized sources. This does not function as a valid citation on Wikipedia. We need to obtain sources from credible authorities in the field who themselves actually refute the idea. If the idea hasn't even landed on the radar of any reputable authorities, then perhaps this entire article is unnecessary and not noteworthy. Matt S. (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The entire article as originally posted is unnecessary, untrue, and not worthy of Wikipedia. An accurate article on "Chakana" would merely state that the word derives from the Quechua for "bridge," means "crossing over," and refers to the three stars in the Belt of Orion. Reputable authorities seem to disdain to publish on the question. I believe the whole article should be removed, but am unwilling to take that action.
"Controversy"- redaction and revision
I have redacted and revised the "Controversy" section of this article to eliminate internal conflict. The point made there is pertinent and critical, since the original article presented what is demonstrably an invented tradition, based on a single contemporary work, as actual, historical, cultural tradition, and was being quoted throughout the internet, usually without citation, as fact. The section is now shorter and friendlier, while making the same point. I have removed the citations listing the accredited authorities and primary sources who do not support the thesis of the original article - that is, all of them - to spare the reader the task of proving a negative; that no source refers to that "tradition" before the year 1983, and none as described in the article before 2003.
It seems important to respect the Andean peoples and their authentic history, customs, and traditions.
Continued edit war over sourcing
Since it seems Czypcamayoc is going to blindly revert removal of a wikipedia mirror used as a source, I'd like to start a discussion here before alerting a larger audience. The source inserted here does appear to be an outdated copy of the wikipedia article at Cultural appropriation. Indeed, the material at that site has the required notice at the bottom of the page indicating that it is a simple mirror: "This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by its online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information, please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License." Obviously, we cannot self reference and this does not come close to meeting WP:RS. What is the counter-argument? Kuru (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to Kuru
The edit war is on your part. I haven't deleted any contribution made by another writer. I am trying to maintain an honest and accurate article. What is your authority to "take action" against another contributor? Are you appointed, on a panel? If so, to whom would I appeal to mediate this controversy? From where I stand, it looks like vigilantism.
As for the Free Dictionary citation, it is gone. I did not recognize it as a mirror of Wikipedia.
I don't see "collaboration" on anyone's part here; just unilateral action followed by a threat. Is this what you mean by "collaboration?"
- Thank you for removing the bad reference. In the future, if you are confused by the language used by other editors, please feel free to start a discussion or reach out to them instead of reverting. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind that there was no "language used by other editors" in this instance; only action taken without explanation.