Talk:Huna (New Thought)/Archive 2

Notability and References

Thanks for coming by and adding tags. I have added references for Long and Hawaiian traditions. I will add page numbers and ISBN later but at least this is a start. I will find suitable citation for the controversy section. Someone else needs to add citations for King and Morrell, otherwise the info should be removed. I did remove some non-essential info that had no citation.

As for notability, a quick check on Amazon finds more than 50 books on the subject. Makana Chai (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the sources you just added actually mention Long's use of the word? None of those I've gone through to date seem to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking - do Malo, Kepelino, 'I'i and Kamakau mention Long's use of the word Huna? No, those authors pre-date Long by a good 50 years. I don't think it is impermissible to state that none of the recognized authorities on Hawaiian culture and traditions use the word "Huna" to describe any philosophy or theology. Anyone can read those books and see that to be true. Makana Chai (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, your notation on this sentence: According to the standard Pukui and Elbert Hawaiian dictionary, the Hawaiian words 'unihipili, 'uhane and 'aumakua do not mean subconscious, conscious and super-conscious.[improper synthesis?] Is is improper synthesis to state that when anyone looks up these words in the Dictionary these words are not part of the definition? I don't think so. Makana Chai (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is only permissible to state what a source does say -- stating what it doesn't say is an 'interpretation' and thus WP:OR lacking a WP:SECONDARY source. This is particularly the case when you state what they 'don't say' in the context of somebody they don't say it about. As far as I know, this is fairly orthodox interpretation of policy, but take it up on WP:ORN if you disagree. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a non-issue. I am fairly certain that what Makana Chai is trying to say can be rephrased and sourced. In other words, she is trying to show that there are different definitions in use, some of which may have more credibility than others. This should be very easy to do with a rewrite and the addition of sources supporting the separate definitions. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Amazon finds" do not prove notability -- particularly when many (most? all?) of the books are written by Huna/New Thought members, not third parties. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, most of the books and authors are notable, and have been covered widely in RS about religion and culture. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following what the concern with notability is here, Hrafn. Please explain it. I've removed the tag because it is absurd. The topic is most certainly notable as can be seen by its coverage in RS. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The "concern with notability" is that there APPEAR TO BE NO THIRD PARTY SOURCES THAT EVEN MENTION THE TOPIC! The contents of the article appear to be either (i) unsourced (ii) sourced to WP:SELFPUB sources or (iii) (most recently) sourced via gross WP:Synthesis of sources that typically do not appear to mention Long and/or New Thought at all. It is your unreasoned defence of this that is "absurd", but more on this below (upcoming). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, if you persist with this bizarre, aggressive, and strange behavior, then you leave me no choice but to follow through with a noticeboard complaint against you. Your behavior here is highly disruptive and nonsensical. The topic of huna is widely covered in the literature and the sources that you keep labeling as self-published are published by large, mainstream publishers like Simon & Schuster. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to report me. Tagging unsourced, self-published ("Peggy L. Jentoft, Reiki and energy work Teacher" is not a "large, mainstream publisher") and or WP:Synthesis material is legitimate editorial activity. "The topic of huna" may be "widely covered in the literature", but there is little evidence that they do so in the context of Long and/or New Thought -- the explicit topic of this article. The literature that has been cited to date has either (i) not been third party (and often self-published) or (ii) fails to mention Long and/or New Thought at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, you are evidently adding tags without actually reading what you are editing, and your erroneous tagging demonstrates this fact. Makana Chai would be happy to help improve this article, but you need to edit in a civil manner and most importantly, work well with other editors to achieve the goal of improving the article. Your aggressive, combative, and disruptive editing style isn't working for you. I see nothing from "Peggy L. Jentoft" in the article, so perhaps you can be so kind as to point it out to me. The literature cited is based on reliable sources and organizations run by the authors - organizations cited in reliable sources. If there is a specific problem, please bring it up here, but so far, I see some edits that can easily be cleaned up and fixed rather than some major disaster that only you can see. You would do well to actually do some research on the topic, first, and most importantly, change your approach. It's already been shown that you aren't paying close attention the material you are tagging. You are welcome to help Makana improve the article, but please approach your editing with that goal in mind rather than coming in here like a bull in a china shop. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: "you are evidently [removing] tags without actually reading" the sources that you are actually (pjentoft.com = "Peggy L. Jentoft") and allegedly basing your claims upon (the material is only a summary or paraphrase of Urban Shaman) -- because they don't support your claims. Your comments here, and on my talkpage have violated WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA, so I would suggest that you report yourself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments did not violate anything, and as I have pointed out to you several times, the source was not "Peggy L. Jentoft", but Serge Kahili King, which you would have noticed if you had taken a minute to read the page. I hope this new information helps you in some way. BTW, I have not made any claims here, nor have I contributed any content to this article, nor am I "involved" in this article. In fact, as you can see from my past edits here, I have done nothing but offer criticism of the article to help others improve it. However, please take note of my approach here and compare it to your own. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can 'point out' that the Moon is made of green cheese, that won't make it true. If you check Urban Shaman (limited search available through Google Books, more extensive through Amazon, if you have an a/c), you can ascertain, as I did, that it is a paraphrase/summary, not a copy. If you want to meaningfully contradict this, please cite the Urban Shaman page(s) containing the full text of the Jentoft webpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A paraphrase/summary of the material does not change the underlying fact that the book was published by a reliable source, as the link makes clear. You made a mistake, now admit it. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A "paraphrase/summary" of a book is not the book itself. Just because the latter is a reliable source (which incidentally hasn't been demonstrated -- I've seen some terribly WP:FRINGE material published by respectable publishers on occasion) does not mean that a WP:SELFPUB "paraphrase/summary" of it is likewise reliable. If you like, we can take this up at WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to take up anywhere. What you don't seem to understand is that this article was written by people who may not be as familiar with sourcing as those of us with more experience. Being able to recognize this and deal with it is the sign of an experienced editor. I can see that the link to the website was used because the contributor who added it wasn't clear on how to link to the book. We can see that inline sources are still in the infancy stage. What this means, is that you step up and help those editors fix the references. What you don't do, is show up revering those editors who are trying to improve the article and make accusations on the talk page. I am experienced enough to see what the editors were trying to do, and see how to fix it. It's called "helping improve an article" and it does not involve placing erroneous tags or making wild claims about the material. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Either you are defending the reliability of the cited source (in which case there most certainly is 'something for you to take up' on WP:RSN, because I definitely challenge its reliability), or you aren't (in which case there was no reason for you to remove the tag). I'm not claiming that everybody should have our experience -- tags are the most immediate way of indicating to such editors that there may be a problem. I have since followed up by explaining my reasoning here on talk -- explanations that you have simply dismissed as "less than convincing" without attempting any specific rebuttal to my points. I did not "show up revering [sic] those editors who are trying to improve the article" -- I reverted once on one single template -- by my count you have reverted on seven tags/templates. I have attempted to discuss content & policy, you have done little but make personal attacks on myself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. If the source is unreliable, then please explain your reasoning, here. Clearly, in regards to this topic, the source is reliable, and he's covered in the related literature. So, tell me, why is the source unreliable? For the record, I am not defending anything, I am merely confused as to why we are supposed to "take your word for it". So, in case I wasn't clear, let me specify my request. Why is Serge King not a reliable source for this topic, or rather, why is it not acceptable for the editor to be using the source in this way? Please answer the question in direct relation to this topic. The question is not one of reliability at all, but one of primary versus secondary sources, and the way the source is being used is entirely acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>

1. "… then please explain your reasoning, here." Already done: "A 'paraphrase/summary' of a book is not the book itself. Just because the latter is a reliable source … does not mean that a WP:SELFPUB 'paraphrase/summary' of it is likewise reliable."
2. "So, tell me, why is the source unreliable?" Because Jentoft is not a a recognised expert on the topic, and her paraphrase/summary is WP:SELFPUB.
3. "Why is Serge King not a reliable source for this topic" King is not the cited source. See #1.
4. I see you have replaced (" formatting reference"?) this webpage with a citation to Urban Shaman itself. I would like to point out that you need to cite page number(s) for this reference. I will WP:AGF and assume that you have ascertained that this material is in fact contained in the book itself without any distortion from Jentoft's summarisation.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're still talking about Jentoft when this was previously resolved and explained to you? Why haven't you ascertained the material is contained in the book, when you've already stated that you looked at it on Amazon? I'm extremely curious why you refuse to do any work here except add erroneous maintenance tags and whine about how the source is unreliable. How would you know? Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• (i) I was "still talking about Jentoft" because until a short time ago Jentoft was the source cited in the article. You did not state to me that you had changed the source or that you had abandoned your defence of Jentoft (most recently defended at 10:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC) ). (ii) Amazon allows me to do a text-search, good for checking if something's an exact copy, poor for checking the verifiability of paraphrases. (iii) In any case, as you added this source it is your responsibility to be certain that it verifies the material newly cited to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are beginning to look very foolish. Do a search for "seven principles huna". This material is widely published in RS all over the place. I'm surprised you can't be bothered to lift a finger to verify it for yourself, but instead, you spend your time here yelling about reliability, notability, and the quality of sources. In the future, could you please make an effort to offer an informed opinion? You could start by helping to expand this article. Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• The King material in question is apparently also covered in Eva Ulmer-Janes', Magie im Management: Mit schamanischen Techniken zu neuen Lösungen (2000) [1] Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mistaken"?

Let's start with this edit:

1. Where does A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language (no page number given) state that "Long's use of Hawaiian words was primarily based on the 1865 Andrews Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language, which was the only English/Hawaiian dictionary then available."? A Google Books search within this dictionary could find no evidence of Long being mentioned in connection with Andrews (or even any mention at all of Long as far as I could find).
2. Where do "Malo, David. Hawaiian Antiquities, Beckwith ed., Kepelino's Traditions, Kamakau, Samuel. The People of Old, Works of the People of Old, Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, 'I'i, John Papa. Fragments of Hawaiian History." (again no page numbers given) state that they don't "use the word Huna for a tradition of esoteric learning." This claim is prima facie WP:OR.
3. Where is the {{page number}} for Lee, Pali Jae (that this template was "mistaken")? Tales from the Night Rainbow? And how can "An oral history as told by Kaili'ohe Kame'ekua of Kamalo, Moloka'i, 1816-1931" (Amazon description) be other than a WP:PRIMARY source from which "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", such as that "In the Hawaiian language, the term kahuna is used for any expert. Kahuna include experts in diagnosing illness, herbal medicine, canoe building, temple building, wood carving, star-gazing, agriculture, and others" should not be made?

And this edit:

• Serge King's "seven principles of Huna" are not cited to "Simon and Schuster" but to http://pjentoft.com/huna-principles2.html%20huna-principles, a broken link on the site of one "Peggy L. Jentoft, Reiki and energy work Teacher". In any case King is not third-party as he appears to be very much a Huna-insider.

I would suggest that it is Viriditas's removal of legitimate tags that was "mistaken". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe Makana Chai would be happy to help fix the wording and tighten the sourcing in regards to 1-3. On Wikipedia, we generally use the talk page in a civil manner to discuss these things, rather than reverting other editors and adding tags in a disruptive manner. As for your point about King, his seven principles of Huna are most certainly cited to Simon & Schuster, and it says that on the very link: "From URBAN SHAMAN by Serge King, © 1990 used with permission from Aloha international". Urban Shaman is a 1990 book published by Simon & Schuster.[2]. Now, Hrafn, please stop with the aggressive, accusatory edits. Makana Chai is one of the primary contributors here, and she would be happy to work with you. My role here is to make sure you treat her with respect and respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I miscopied the URL out of the dif, apologies for the mistake.
2. That does not alter the fact that the linked-to page is at best a paraphrase or summary of Urban Shaman, and is not itself a WP:RS.
3. In any case, as I have already pointed out, King is a Huna-insider, not a third party, so his work, even if published by Simon & Schuster, does not add to noability per WP:GNG.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P)

As I said before, I'm sure Makana would be happy to work with you to address whatever valid concerns you might have. However, I don't see a problem with the source in question, and your challenge to his notability is somewhat misplaced. Like I said, please actually do some research on this topic first. I'm not exactly clear what the bee in your bonnet is about this topic, but you seem to be making claims that just aren't supported. King is covered in RS, and I don't see a problem here. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Viriditas:

• You accused me of "reverting other editors",[3] without noting that the template had been removed "without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary".
• You were the one haranguing me on my talkpage a mere six minutes after your first post, before I even had time to read it, let alone reply.
• You were the one WP:HARASSing me by WP:REFACTORing my talkpage.[4]
• You accused me of 'mistakenly adding the tags, whose use I have justified (without serious contradiction) above.
• You falsely claimed that http://pjentoft.com/huna-principles2.html was published by Simon & Schuster, when it was in fact self-published by Peggy L. Jentoft.
• You personally attacked my behaviour as "bizarre, aggressive, and strange".

My problem is with you, not with Makana, who seems perfectly amiable. I would suggest that you (i) justify your editorial actions on this article & (ii) cease and desist the personal attacks and other harassment, here and on my talkpage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior is bizarre, aggressive, and strange, and you have been edit warring in the article without properly using the talk page. You did mistakenly add a notability tag to a notable topic without doing any research first, and you did mistakenly add a self-published tag to a book published by a major publishing house without looking at the actual source. And, it is not harassment to tell you this on your talk page. I hope that clears up any problems you might have understanding my position. Rather than continuing to waste my time, you are, of course, welcome at any time to start doing research on the topic and help Makana Chai improve it. Hopefully, you will choose that route. Otherwise, I will file the noticeboard report if your bad behavior continues. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You falsely accuse me of "edit warring", when I have (i) only made one revert on this article & (ii) have defended (without even an attempt at rebuttal from yourself, except on the Jentoft/Simon & Schuster issue) all tags made in the article.
• You removed the tags I placed in the article, whose use I have justified here on talk -- it is therefore it is up to you to defend their removal. Failure to do so will result in their reinstatement.
• Your position is abundantly clear -- however it would be a violation of WP:CIVIL to state my understanding of it here -- suffice it to say it has to do with the position of your cranium vis a vis your anal cavity.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You have edit warred different tags that you replaced twice, and you did so in a sneaky way so as to think nobody would notice. I noticed that you replaced different tags in the same locations. You have not justified anything, and I am curious what my "position" is, in light of your personal attack above. I have no connection whatsoever to this topic, other than the fact that I support Makana Chai's right to work in peace, in accordance with policies and guidelines, and that I watchlist several thousand Hawaii-related articles. So far, I find your arguments less than convincing. You do not seem willing to help Makana do research and improve this article. Rather, you seem to be nitpicking about small details that can easily be fixed. I don't find your edits to this article to be helpful or focused on improvement. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. A slight overlap (7 minutes from the edit history, between your first edit and my last) between when I completed adding (not "replacing") "different tags", and became aware that you were removing them does not constitute edit warring. You are stretching your point ludicrously.
2. The accusation of 'sneakiness' is both a violation of WP:AGF & unsupported by the edit history. I neither mislabelled my edits, nor attempted to 'hide' them as 'minor' edits.
3. I am sick to death of your baseless accusations. They make your accusations of 'aggressiveness' ridiculously WP:POT.
4. I have never stated nor implied that you have any "connection whatsoever to this topic" -- beyond your removal of legitimate tags from it and then refusing to justify their removal after their inclusion was justified here by myself.
5. You state that you find my "arguments less than convincing", but do not provide any specific rebuttal to them. I find such an approach to be WP:Complete bollocks. You demanded that I discuss this on article talk -- that demand means I have every right to likewise demand that you justify your tag-removals here.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You've given me nothing to rebut. I monitor all Hawaii-related articles on my watchlist. I saw you revert Makana and I came over here to check it out. You erroneously tagged this article with a notability tag and you mistakenly tagged a website that was pointing to a book on the topic under discussion as "self-published" when it wasn't. The facts remain: It is you who has to justify adding the tag. I have already explained why I have removed it. The burden of proof is always on the person making a change to the article. Now, looking at your claims, they just don't pan out, and you keep moving the goalposts whenever you are given an answer. Again, you do not seem to be here to help improve the article. If you were, you would be doing the necessary research and trying to help the editors who are involved in writing this article. So, I must ask, exactly what are you trying to do here besides disrupt the editing process? Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"You've given me nothing to rebut." Please reread my points 1-3 at the top of this thread (this edit having rendered moot the bullet point below them -- though your continuing claims vis a vis this point are WP:Complete bollocks). As you have failed to cite any third party source in the article that actually mentions the topic, its notability is (per WP:GNG) still in question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is it I'm supposed to rebut? You haven't made a claim. What third-party source am I supposed to find that mentions which topic? Please be specific. I am also not clear about what notability you are challenging. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That I stated my concerns as questions does not mean that their meaning is not clear. But to avoid any possibility of a doubt, I will restate them as explicit assertions (though include by reference the material in numbered points above as the basis for these assertions). (i) A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language does not support (without extreme synthesis) the claim that "Long's use of Hawaiian words was primarily based on the 1865 Andrews Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language, which was the only English/Hawaiian dictionary then available." (ii) "Malo, David. Hawaiian Antiquities, Beckwith ed., Kepelino's Traditions, Kamakau, Samuel. The People of Old, Works of the People of Old, Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, 'I'i, John Papa. Fragments of Hawaiian History." do not state that they don't "use the word Huna for a tradition of esoteric learning." and so this statement is impermissible WP:Synthesis of these sources. (iii) Lee, Pali Jae Tales from the Night Rainbow is a WP:PRIMARY source (containing oral histories) and that interpreting it to conclude that "In the Hawaiian language, the term kahuna is used for any expert. Kahuna include experts in diagnosing illness, herbal medicine, canoe building, temple building, wood carving, star-gazing, agriculture, and others" is likewise synthesis. Additionally, regardless of whether this was true, the citation contained no page number, and thus the removed {{page number}} taf was legitimate. 13:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(i), (ii) This needs more sources or it should be removed. This problem is not confined to this topic but is duplicated in the Max Freedom Long. (iii) As far as I can tell, Lee is being used to source uncontroversial information; it is not an interpretation of kahuna that is at odds with any secondary sources on the subject. I think it would be easy to find other sources that support the idea that In the Hawaiian language, the term kahuna is used for any expert. Kahuna include experts in diagnosing illness, herbal medicine, canoe building, temple building, wood carving, star-gazing, agriculture, and others... Appears to be a common, accepted fact about Hawaiian culture. However, unless there are actual sources documenting the controversy (and there are) then the section needs to be rewritten with sources only addressing huna. Viriditas (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources

• In reference to this edit summary, I would point out that WP:SELFPUB states that the article should not be "based primarily on such sources" and that half the sources in the article, and especially the only sources that appear to mention Long or New Thought are all to self-published Huna sources, such as www.huna-research.com, www.huna.org, & www.huna.net + Jentoft's self-published webpage.
• I fail to see how the bare existence of bare existence of Huna: Ancient Hawaiian Secrets for Modern Living makes either Aloha International 'notable' nor makes its webpage other than self-published.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what your point is here. A simple search shows the organization exists and is listed by multiple secondary and tertiary sources. Are you disputing something? If so, please say it plainly, so I can address it. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• My (second) point was that the source is WP:SELFPUB. That "the organization exists and is listed by multiple secondary and tertiary sources" does not change that, nor in any way makes it reliable (I could name numerous organisations that meet that criteria, but are notoriously unreliable). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• No offense, but that doesn't make any sense. Please read what you have written to yourself. Huna is a very small field, and in that field Aloha International is notable, and covered by reliable sources. I'm still not clear what you are trying to say. If you have a problem with the content itself, please say so, and I will try to help the editors who wrote it. Otherwise, I'm not seeing a point. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas:

1. Given our track record to date, a plea of "no offense" demonstrates a rather amusing lack of comprehension of the dynamics that have come into being. We have both been 'offending' each other no end. Telling me that my comment "doesn't make any sense" is unlikely to alter that dynamic.
2. I'm afraid that I find that it is your claim "that doesn't make any sense" to me either. (i) Given you choose a sufficiently "small field" anything (no matter how obscure) can be notable within it. That therefore doesn't bestow any especial status to the object of scrutiny. (ii) Notability is not the same thing as reliability -- there are many individuals and organisations that have achieved great notability precisely for their lack of reliability. A self-published source only achieves reliability when it passes WP:RS in terms of issues such as editorial oversight, fact-checking, and independence. I would no more wish an article on Dell Computers (very notable, and not in any way notoriously unreliable) to rely primarily (or uncritically) on the contents of their websites than I would want an article on the Huna (New Thought) movement to rely primarily on their websites. It isn't an issue of the notability of the source.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am still not clear on what you are attempting to say, and I must say, it does not appear that you are either. So, I can only understand by asking questions. Are you trying to say that "Aloha International" should not be mentioned in this article? Again, I am entirely unclear on what you are arguing. Gale lists the organization as "Manufacturing: Publishes books, audio cassettes and video cassettes relating to Huna and personal development. Reaches market through direct mail. Does not accept unsolicited manuscripts".[5] According to other sources, *"Aloha International is the worldwide network of teachers and members founded by Serge Kahili King to bring Hawaiian knowledge to a wide audience."[6] And, according to King himself, "...I live in Hawaii and direct Aloha International, a worldwide network of shaman healers which promotes the Hawaiian healing tradition through courses and seminars, museums, and local chapters..."[7] My understanding is that King is well-known in the world of management consulting, but I'm sure Makana will know more about this subject. In any case, I'm not exactly clear on what you are trying to say. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am not saying "that 'Aloha International' should not be mentioned in this article", I am saying that it should be mentioned on the basis of third party coverage -- e.g. Gale, not on the basis of self-published material. It is Wikipedia policy that topics should be covered, to a predominant extent and as far as possible, based upon WP:SECONDARY material published in reliable third party sources. Self-descriptions are clearly WP:PRIMARY (as they are "very close to" what they are describing & "offers an insider's view") and should thus be "only [used] with care, because it is easy to misuse them." "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, you aren't making sense. Have you actually read WP:SELFPUB? There's nothing wrong with the source and there's nothing wrong with the content. What is your point? Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:SELFPUB establishes guidelines as to how "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". "Questionable sources" explicitly include "websites … expressing views that are … promotional in nature". Are you claiming that the websites in question do not have, as their main focus, promotion of their respective denominations of Huna? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are moving the goalposts, again. The sources met SELFPUB, then you countered by referring me to "Questionable sources", which refers to, surprise, SELFPUB. Come on. Stop playing games, and address the content itself. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• No I am not, I'm at worst guilty of occasionally conflating self-published (WP:SPS) & questionable sources (particularly when the "questionable sources" are, colloquially if not formally under the policy, 'self-published' by the promoting organisation online). WP:SELFPUB, which I quoted at the top of this thread applies to both so when it said "based primarily on such sources" it meant both self-published & questionable sources. If my sloppiness in language confused you, then I apologise. It does however neither mean that I'm "playing games" nor "moving the goalposts" -- as the "goalposts" for both categories are exactly the same. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I very rarely, if ever, use websites as sources. However, the person who wrote this article did, and looking at the sources, the only problem I see is that ref 8[8] is supposed to point to AI[9] instead of the main site. The rest seem acceptable, for now. Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs sources

The term Huna refers to Max Freedom Long's system of metaphysics, and none of the accepted Hawaiian sources - Malo, Kamakau, I'i, Kepelino - use the word Huna for a tradition of esoteric learning.

This is true, but requires a good source supporting the statement. I'm moving it here until we have sources supporting it. As it stands, Wikipedia interprets this type of writing as original research, even though it is uncontroversial and accepted. It should be easy to find a source supporting it. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources

Makana, do you have access to these sources? Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Foltz, T.G. (1987) "Becoming a Healing Practitioner: The Use of Energy Rituals and Visualization in Learning Huna. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Study of Shamanism and Alternate Modes of Healing. pp. 222-242.
• Frost, P.J. Egri, C.P. (1994) "The Shamanic Perspective on Organizational Change and Development." Journal of Organizational Change Management. 7(1): 7-23
• Handy, ESC. (1965). Ancient Hawaiian medical practice viewed by a doctor, in Ancient Hawaiian Civilization. Japan: CE Tuttle
• Lynch, Frederick R. (Sep., 1979). "Occult Establishment" or "Deviant Religion"? The Rise and Fall of a Modern Church of Magic. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. 18(3):281-298
• Paltin, S. J. (1986). "Huna of Hawaii: a system of psychological theory and practice." Hawaii Medical Journal 45(7):213-4, 217-8.

I've read that Handy chapter. Not sure about #1 and #2. I assume I can find Paltin. Maybe can get to the library this week.Makana Chai (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What would be the use of Handy? I'm sure he doesn't discuss Long or Huna. Makana Chai (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiian traditions

Not sure what this has to do with the article, so I'm moving it here for now. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pukui & Elbert, Hawaiian Dictionary (University of Hawaii, 1986)
• Jensen & Jensen, Daughters of Haumea (Pueo Press, 2005)
• June Gutmanis, Kahuna La'au Lapa'au: Hawaiian Herbal Medicine (Island Heritage, 1976)
• David Malo, Hawaiian Antiquities (Bishop Museum, 1951)
• Samuel Kamakau, The People of Old (Bishop Museum, 1991)
• Martha Beckwith, Kepelino's Traditions of Hawaii (Bishop Museum, 1932)
• E. S. Craighill Handy, Polynesian Religion (Kraus Reprint, 1971)
• Pali Jae Lee and Koko Willis, Tales From the Night Rainbow
• Makana Risser Chai, Na Mo'olelo Lomilomi: Traditions of Hawaiian Massage & Healing (Bishop Museum, 2005)

Third party sources

• Encyclopedia of occultism & parapsychology‎ - Page 444 has a couple of paragraphs on Huna, one of them on Long's interpretation of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an uncritical rehash of Long, just accepting what he said as true.Makana Chai (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions, James R. Lewis. has a couple of pages of material on Huna. Looking at it through Amazon's search facility (of 2001 hardcover edition, pp 405-406) it treats King's Huna International and Long's Huna Research Inc as two completely unrelated organisations (with separate entries), with the former having three branches: Aloha International, Voices of the Earth, and Finding Each Other International. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  The impression that this source gives is that the former is traditional ('kahuna-based' for lack of a better description) 'Huna', whereas the latter "is distinct from the ancient kahuna religion of Hawaii" and was "never and attempt to restore or reconstruct those practices." This would seem to suggest that (unless we find a more reliable source impeaching this one) we should not include King-based material in an article on Long-based/New Thought Huna. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  (Most of the material, almost a full page is on Long-Huna, as opposed to the King-Huna material that is only about 1/4 page). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason King and Long are placed in the same article is because they are both attempting to "sell" the idea of huna, and neither of their philosophies are connected to "traditional" practice. I believe Zora and Makana Chai have both discussed this before on the talk page. From a skeptical POV, "Huna" is basically the "woo-woo" New Age interpretation of what some think is Ancient Hawaiian beliefs and has been compared to NLP. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• That means that we have to be careful to distinguish them, where necessary, according to their respective beliefs. For example, they may be both "'woo-woo' New Age", but that does not necessarily mean that they're both New Thought (there's wide ranges of New Age out there that has nothing to do with New Thought). Does King's lot consider themselves to be NT (do we even have a source for Long's lot believing this)? Do Long's lot subscribe to King's "seven principles"? Documenting the 'evolutionary relationship' between them, and between them and traditional Hawaiian beliefs would be oan important subtopics for the article (assuming that we can get third party sources, to turn it into anything more than a 'he said she said' argument over who's the 'real' Huna). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like Max Freedom Long started out with Christian Science, Theosophy, and other beliefs. You can find two of his works in full on sacred-texts.com: [10], [11]. As if it couldn't get any stranger, a scientist by the name of Sergio E. Serrano has written a biography about him and the origin of Huna[12] and it looks like you might find what you are looking for in that book. King later took these practices, repackaged them in terms of a modern psychological approach, and placed it in a personalized, shamanic framework. Viriditas (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That book by Serrano simply repeats what Long said and takes all of Long's bio info at face value. Not a RS as far as I can see. Makana Chai (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting. Christian Science shares a close genetic relationship with New Thought (though does not classify itself as part of it). Theosophy on the other hand appears to have far more in common with (and is cited as an antecedent of) New Age (though does not appear to have any direct relationship to NT). Emanuel Swedenborg would appear to be (at least approximately) the last common ancestor of the two. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Theosophical beliefs are important here. The United Lodge of Theosophists was formed in Los Angeles in 1909. It seems that Long moved from Los Angeles to Hawaii sometime before 1920, and this period was the height of the Theosophical movement: "At its strongest in membership and intensity during the 1920s the parent Theosophical Society (or Theosophical Society Adyar) had around 7,000 members in the USA." I don't think this is a coincidence. Furthermore, Blavatsky considered Hawaii to be part of the sunken continent of Lemuria, so we see how all the puzzle pieces fit together. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Long wrote that the Christian Scientists understood positive thinking better than any group he knew, (Secret Science Behind Miracles, 1954, p. 364) and encouraged his readers to subscribe to Unity Church’s magazine, Daily Word. (ibid, 1954, p. 366). I've read his letters where he talks about speaking for the Theosophical Society but I know, OR. He may mention Theosophy in SSBM; can't remember. Makana Chai (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Long discusses New Thought and Theosophy here http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/ssbm/ssbm19.htm#page_315 Makana Chai (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Huna not Hawaiian

It looks like you're going in the right direction with the New Thought theosophy stuff. My only interest in this article is clarifying that much of what Huna/Long say is Hawaiian is not Hawaiian. Due to a recent physical disability, I am not able to type more than an hour a day so can't spend time editing this. I only care about the sentences re definition of 'unihipili, 'aumakua and 'uhane, and that it somehow be stated that none of the recognized authorities on Hawaiian religion use the word "Huna." If you don't like the Pali Jae Lee cite on types of kahuna, you can use Kamakau, The People of Old pp. 7-8. Makana Chai (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What if we just stated, According to the Pukui & Elbert Dictionary, 'unihipili means - and then quote the entire definition, leaving it to the reader to realize that it does not include the word or sense of unconscious. Would that work? Makana Chai (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references to the Dictionary Long had use of, I may be afoul of wp:syn - Andrews Dictionary p. xxv, states it was published in 1865, and Pukui & Elbert p. x refers to the "1957 dictionary" which was their first edition, but you're right, I don't find an exact place that says "this is the first dictionary since Andrews." I'll go to the library and look up the 1957 edition where it is probably written. Makana Chai (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found several sources about huna and its proponents that can help steer us in this direction, but I'm surprised at the lack of critical sources on the topic. We generally cannot just cite definitions out of context, but we may be able to use footnotes to add commentary about a definition used by a source. The thing is, on Wikipedia, we are supposed to be summarizing what has already been said, and unless someone else has criticized the definitions, it's difficult for us to add a critique, however, I have found three sources that may get us one step closer. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What we'd be dealing with here is a form of (or near relative to), an argument from silence. Whilst they can be a legitimate deduction, they need to be made by an expert, with extreme care (and a detailed knowledge, so as to exclude all the other potential causes for the silence). They are just the sought of synthetic leap that WP:OR is meant to stop wikipedia editors from making. I agree with Viriditas here. What we need is a post-Long expert on Hawaiian culture who states that Long's work only bears a superficial resemblance to it (or similar). We shouldn't draw that conclusion for ourselves (even if the evidence does appear to be pointing that way). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.Makana Chai (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers

The majority of the citations for this article are now to published books, not promotional websites, which is a very good thing. The trouble is that (until a few moments ago) none of them cited page numbers. Page numbers are necessary to ensure verifiability -- as it's often impractical for readers to work out for themselves where in a book a claim is being made. It also makes it easier to ensure that the material reflects the source accurately (as a source may say similar things in multiple places, making such checks problematical without page numbers). I have added the page numbers for Urban Shamans (which I have access to through Amazon -- though somewhat idiosyncratic access -- it wouldn't show up 'Pono' within the material of interest for some reason). Could I request that those who added the other sources add page numbers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Will you respond to my question above re dictionary definition of unihipili? Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite my best intentions, I re-wrote the thing, and added page numbers. Hope you like it. Makana Chai (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the references you added were all to Long, rather than third-parties. Strictly speaking I should be adding a {{primarysources}} to the article, as 11 of the 16 references are to Huna-insider sources (Long, King & Huna websites, which would make it more than justified). However, given Viriditas' extreme sensitivity to any tags being added, I'll hold off. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the citations. Per WP:primarysources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." I have simply used Long to describe his beliefs, not to make any claims about his beliefs. Makana Chai (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Viriditas, but I am extremely sensitive to tags being added without discussing first on the talk page. Makana Chai (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This is paraphrased by {{primarysources}} as "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." It is permissible to use Long to describe his beliefs, but the article should concentrate on analysis, interpretation, explanation and evaluation from secondary-sources which directly address Long's belief system. This is necessary to ensure that the article is encyclopaedic, neutral (an article sourced almost exclusively from insiders cannot help but have neutrality problems) and demonstrate notability (which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We've already got those sources, but they haven't yet been added to the article. You yourself quoted two of the tertiary sources above, so I'm not clear why you are continuing to pursue this angle. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Viritidas, thanks for adding the citations. Are you planning to add any content to the article from those books? do you still want me to look up Handy? I will look up that Hawaii medical journal article.Makana Chai (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No hurry on any of that. Please rest up and get better. I will add some information from the tertiary sources and from a journal article. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas: the reason I'm "continuing to pursue this angle" is the recent addition to the article of a large amount of primary-sourced material, completely toppling a precarious balance between primary and secondary sourced material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Was any of it an interpretation or unrepresentative of its coverage in secondary and tertiary sources? You need to explain what is wrong with it so I can fix it. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The primary-sourced material has a different emphasis, and tends to be considerably more personal and intimate in tone, making for a less encyclopaedic article. The tertiary material I have to hand is (I think) good for the history & organisational structure, and gives an overview for the beliefs (will replace primary material with it shortly), but should probably be replaced with a good in-depth secondary source if and when one becomes available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please give me one example of this so I can address it. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

see below for continuation of this discussion. Makana Chai (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

archive some of this page?

Would it be okay if I archived some of this page? Some of it is woefully outdated or irrevelevant.Makana Chai (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I would be happy to help you, if you would allow it. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do! I've never even archived a page before. And I'm not able to use the keyboard much. (Thank god for voice-recognition software).Makana Chai (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know by e-mail if I can help you out with any typing assignments or research in the future. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

primary and secondary sources

Hrafn, thanks for the changes. I see what you mean about the tone of voice. However I'm concerned about the accuracy of 2 clauses. (1) "Unlike the tradtional religion of Hawaii, Huna does not have taboo ('kapu') privileging Hawaiian royalty and religious leadership, or temples ('heiaus')." Is this from Lewis? it seems to suppose that Huna is a historical religious or spiritual movement. How can Huna have temples when it was "discovered" in 1935, or have anything to do with Hawaiian royalty when the last royal had died years before? how about omitting this part - Huna does not have taboo ('kapu') privileging Hawaiian royalty and religious leadership, or temples ('heiaus')- so it reads - Unlike the tradtional religion of Hawaii, Huna emphasises practical living and harmony with the three levels of consciousness (or 'selves') that it postulates - ?

(2) "These selves are... aumakua (connection with the divine)." Does Lewis say this, because Long does not. He says that the aumakua are the higher *self*. Long is not much on the divine.

I don't want to change what you've written because I haven't read Lewis so I'm not sure what to do. But it does not represent Huna as I have read of it.

Viriditas, I went to the library and checked the Hawaiian Medical Journal article. It is hard to believe what passes for scholarship, or at least what did in those days. The author apparently took a ho'oponopono class from Morrnah Simeona and used her process on one or 2 psychiatric patients. He just mentions Huna in passing. I also read Handy Ancient Polynesian Civilization and he refers only obliquely to non-Hawaiians not understanding Hawaiian traditions. I scoured the library for anything critical of Long and found nothing. They don't even have any clippings about him in the newspaper clipping file.

I did find what I was looking for with respect to the dictionary that Long had access to. Here is what I found. In 1865, missionary Lorrin Andrews published a Hawaiian-English dictionary. In 1922, that dictionary was re-published as the Andrews-Parker Hawaiian English dictionary. This edition was the same as the 1865 volume except that it rearranged the words according to the English rather than Hawaiian alphabet, and deleted Biblical references. In about 1940 the 1865 dictionary was reprinted. It was not until 1945 that native Hawaiian Mary Kawena Pukui co-authored the first scholarly dictionary. Source Pukui and Elbert, Hawaiian dictionary 1957, page vii-viii. therefore Long was working off of the Andrews dictionary. I suppose that's going to be too much synthesis, but at least you now have the info.Makana Chai (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It is from Lewis. No it doesn't "seem[] to suppose that Huna is a historical religious or spiritual movement" -- it specifically distinguishes Huna from the "traditional religion of Hawaii".
2. Yes Lewis does refer to it as "connection with the divine" (or very similar words). He also refers to it as "higher self", however I specifically avoided the use of lower/middle/higher as it creates confusion due to superficial similarity to incompatible visualisations of the self (most particularly Freud's Id/Ego/Superego). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I just think it's a weird clause, and not necessary, and confusing. Viriditas, what do you think?
2. We should use the specific words that Lewis used, or use the words that Long used. Long specifically used the word higher self because he believed the Hawaiians discovered Freudian psychology before Freud did. Makana Chai (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Makana, I'll take a look in a moment. I'm finishing up a GA review and a few other things. I'm a little put off by Hrafn's use of the talk page. The numbering and and long commentaries make it difficult to respond directly to specific points and move on to the next one. His stand-alone signature is also making it difficult to follow the discussion. I also don't like his confrontational and aggressive style, so I'm trying to calm down before I address the topic. It's sad that his presentation overshadows his points. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The point of the material was to distinguish the traditional religion, which acted to reinforce the cultural hierarchy (as many 'state religions' tend to do -- e.g. see the Church of England), whereas Huna (in common with many new religions) was more egalitarian (it is not part of the cultural status quo, so feels no need to reinforce it, and had a strong reason to make its benefits available to all new adherents).
2. I did use Lewis' "specific words" (just checked, as I couldn't remember if I'd rearranged slightly to fit into sentence structure). Long's unihipili (intuitive/emotional) bears little resemblance to Freud's Id (pleasure-seeking/instinctive/animalistic). Ego & uhane seem at least reasonably similar, but Superego seems to cover quite a bit more than aumakua, and the former, unlike the latter, is in direct opposition to the Id. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Huna is not a religion of the Hawaiian people! It is not a religion. Long never said it was. Huna is Long's interpretation of the Hawaiian religion. This is absolutely why this needs to be changed.

Again, whether or not Long was right that the aumakua was the same as the super-ego, he said that it was. You can't put your own interpretation of what Long must have meant or should have meant. He said what he said, that's Huna. Makana Chai (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The article DOES NOT say that Huna is "a religion of the Hawaiian people" any more than it "seem[ed] to suppose that Huna is a historical religious or spiritual movement". It does not imply it, it does not make statements that could reasonably be considered to be even vaguely giving that impression.
2. Whether Long said it or not, it is uninformative, and potentially misleading, to use the vague descriptive terms low/middle/higher. Primary sources frequently use idiosyncratic language. This is one of the reasons that we prefer secondary sources. Actually, Lewis doesn't use any form of "low" or "middle" for the first two, and only uses "the high self" as an alternative description for the third. For myself, I think that "connection with the divine" tells the reader more than "the high self", so chose to use the former description. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The two sentences can be considered misleading and inaccurate, but it doesn't take much to change them, and the point is to come to consensus. I propose changing this sentence: "Unlike the traditional religion of Hawaii, Huna does not have taboo ('kapu') privileging Hawaiian royalty and religious leadership, or temples ('heiaus'), but rather emphasises practical living and harmony with the three levels of consciousness (or 'selves') that it postulates." Change to read: "Unlike the traditional religion of Hawaii, Huna emphasizes practical living and harmony with the three levels of consciousness (or 'selves') that it postulates." I think we all can agree this latter sentence is accurate, and since we cannot agree that the other sentence is accurate, let's put in the one we agree on, okay?

Similarly, I propose changing this sentence: "These selves are the unihipili (inner, emotional, intuitive), uhane (waking consciousness, rational) and aumakua (connection with the divine)." Long's language may have been vague, but it is not our place in this article to change what he said into something we think is less vague. To argue that "primary sources frequently use idiosyncratic language" so therefore it should not be used is akin to saying that when Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit that was a vague term and therefore we should change it to something else. I propose we change the sentence to read: "These selves are the unihipili (low self, inner, emotional, intuitive), uhane (middle self, waking consciousness, rational) and aumakua (higher self, connection with the divine)." Makana Chai (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

1. You have offered no substantiation for your claim that the "two sentences can be considered misleading and inaccurate".
2. The sole change you are proposing to the first sentence is eliminating "Huna does not have taboo ('kapu') privileging Hawaiian royalty and religious leadership, or temples ('heiaus')". Are you claiming that Huna does have kapu & heiaus? Lewis clearly states that it does not have them. Further, it is unclear why stating that Huna lacks these unique traditional Hawaiian elements is in some way giving the implication that "Huna is a historical religious or spiritual movement" or "a religion of the Hawaiian people".
3. No Makana Chai, it is emphatically "our place" to use a tertiary source's description in preference to a primary's. See WP:PSTS. Part of the reason for relying mainly on secondary/tertiary sources is to provide "interpretation".
4. Jesus in fact never used the (modern English phrase) "Holy Spirit". What he originally said, in Aramaic, is lost. What we have is copies (of copies…) of a decades-later Koine Greek translation of what he said, which uses two different wordings (see Paraclete) for what we now know of as 'Holy Spirit' (the attributes of which, and co-divinity in the Trinity, being post-Biblical developments in Christianity). So no, I would not go to the primary source for a description of what is meant by "Holy Spirit". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this discussion because of Hrafn's use of unindented, long numbered lists and offset signatures. I have moved his signature inline, but I would appreciate it if everyone would keep their comments shorts and to the point and use the appropriate thread indents. Now, my understanding of this discussion so far is that Makana is saying that Lewis may not be entirely accurate, or it is not being used correctly. Is this true, Makana? Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Viriditas. I don't have access to Lewis so don't know whether it's not correct or not being used correctly. What I do know is that the clause about heiau and kapu are misleading, and that not using Long's definition of the words uhane, unihipili and aumakua makes for an incomplete reference. I am simply proposing to eliminate the heiau kapu clause and to add Long's definitions to the other definitions provided. Makana Chai (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You're in luck. Per policy and guidelines (particularly WP:V) whenever one editor has access to a source and another doesn't, you may request that the editor with the source add a direct quote from the passage in question to the talk page so that you may review it. So, Hrafn should be able to post the quote here on the talk page for you to review. As for the misleading part, let's come back to that. Check your e-mail: I'm sending you some links to references and material you can use to compare with Lewis. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive terms low/middle/higher

Hrafn, your argument for removing these terms from the article is not supported in any way. They are terms used in Huna and the sources on the subject reflect this usage. For example:

According to Max Freedom Long, who studied Huna magic in Hawaii, the kahunas recognize three entities of aka (bodies of the human being): a low, middle, and higher self. The low self generates mana through food and other vital processes and is concerned with the physical body and the emotions. The middle self is reasoning entity, while the higher self transcends memory and reason." (Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Ed. J. Gordon Melton. Vol. 1. 5th ed. p755.)

The sources used for this entry by J. Gordon Melton are the same ones used by Makana Chai. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Viriditas: my main concern has always been that it was confusing or misleading, especially 'low' for 'unihipili'. Instinct (from Freud's Id), is generally placed unambiguously lower than reason. Emotion is generally placed roughly equal with reason, and intuition generally placed above it. We now have tertiary sources for both the hierarchy and the descriptions. For myself, I think the descriptions are more informative and the hierarchy simply confusing (unless of course it turns out that the hierarchical element is in some way essential to Long's system -- but we have no indication of that as yet). This is however an editorial decision, and one that I can (and it seems most likely will) be overruled on by a WP:CONSENSUS. (This does not however mean that I should not argue forcefully, here on talk, for my favoured articulation.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  Just noted in typing out the quote below -- Lewis uses 'inner' rather than 'low' for 'unihipili'.This does appear to be more apt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable material

I'm challenging the inclusion of this material and asking to review the direct quotes from the sources that are supposed to support it:

Unlike the traditional religion of Hawaii, Huna does not have taboo ('kapu') privileging Hawaiian royalty and religious leadership, or temples ('heiaus'), but rather emphasises practical living and harmony with the three levels of consciousness (or 'selves') that it postulates.

Kapu was eliminated in 1819 and was more of a legal system with religious foundations. It has nothing to do with Huna in any way and the comparison is bizarre. Same thing with heiaus, which disappeared from Hawaiian culture at the same time as the kapu. This attempt to compare what we know about Huna with ancient Hawaiian practices is entirely specious. Either Lewis doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, or this isn't actually supported by the source used. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Huna is distinct from the ancient kahuna religion of Hawaii. Huna was never an attempt to restore or reconstruct those practices. Huna has no "kapu" (taboo), which preserved privileges and wealth for the royal families and their religious leaders. It has no "heiaus" (temples). Huna is rather a practical way of life, based upon the harmonious relaionship of the three levels of consciousness, called the three selves. These are the unihipli (the inner, emotional, intuitive self), uhane (the waking consciousness or rational self), and aumakua (high self or connection with the divine). In the religion of ancient Hawaii, mana for divine power was a special privilege for royalty and the kahunas and was jealously guarded. Huna considers mana the vital life force that vivfies and empowers each person and not the special perogative of a privileged few. Huna is based on the knowledge of how our three selves function, using mana not only to heal body, mind, and circumstance, but also to attain our goals and live effective lives.

— Lewis, James (2002). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books. p. 407. ISBN 1573928887.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn for the quote. Although the statements by Lewis re kapu and heiau are true, I agree with Viriditas that the statements are bizarre without way more context about ancient Hawaiian religion than we can give here.

The description of the three selves is okay (I note that it includes the high self for 'Aumakua).

The description of mana in Hawaiian belief is not correct.

Mana is god-given. It is supernatural, divine or miraculous power. (Pukui and Elbert Hawaiian Dictionary, 1986) However, it was not limited to kahuna and chiefs.

"The child with specific mana (aptitudes) was trained to be carver or canoe maker or medical kahuna. For such specific, god-given mana must be used well, or mana would be lost." (Pukui, 1972, Nana i ke Kumu, volume 2 page 227)

The mana of skill carried with it an obligation to work at the god-given ability to improve the talent. Mana was lost through non-use, wrong use or neglect. (Pukui, 1972, Vol. I, p. 227) The kahuna who neglected his patients would eventually lose his ability to heal. The craftsman who slid into sloppy work would someday lose his touch. (Pukui, 1972, Vol. I, p. 296)

Every name or inoa has mana. It could play a part in shaping the character, personality, even the fame and fortune of the bearer. (Pukui, 1972, Vol. II, p. 290)

The mana of skill is not only learned through hard work and practice. It is passed on from the kupuna or elder through the breath. “A person about to die passed his knowledge to his successor by expectorating (ku-ha) or by expelling his breath (hā) into his mouth. With this, the mana he had in whatever he was an expert in, passed on to the person to whom he had given it.” (Handy, E. S. Craighill and Mary Kawena Pukui. Polynesian Family System in Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. Honolulu, Hawaii: Mutual Publishing, 1998, p. 142)

The mana of the prayer was in the words and names, but it was the breath that carried the words and the names. Kawena Pukui recalled, “I have seen Tutu Pa‘ele, a dear old neighbor in Ka-‘ū, do as follows when I was a child. He used to pray over a glass of water in which there was a pinch of salt and turmeric and then, ‘Hā,’ expelled his breath over it after the amen, to impart a mana to the water.” (Handy, 1998, p. 142)

Mana can be sent through thoughts. Kūkulu kumuhana means “thinking of you” and “praying for you.” “It was a pooling of mana, concentrating our thoughts on one person or one problem so that, with God, we get the help we need.” (Pukui, 1972, Vol. I, p. 78)

Mana increases or decreases according to the rhythms and cycles of life. The time when kau ka lā i ka lolo, a ho‘i ke aka i ke kino, when the sun is directly over the brain and the shadows retreat into the body – this is the time when masculine, the morning, and feminine, the afternoon, meet. Mana is greatest then. (Pukui, 1972, Vol. I, p. 123-4)

As you can see, mana is a complex subject deserving of more coverage in article dedicated to it. For our purposes here, I can live with the sentence that is currently in the article, i.e. "Huna takes the Hawaiian concept of mana, (privileged as a divine power in traditional Hawaiian belief), and views it as a vitalizing life force, which can, with knowledge of the three selves, be used to heal body and mind and achieve life goals." Makana Chai (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Three selves

Makana, can you please provide sources for this statement so I can merge it into the article?

Long wrote that based on his analysis of root words, he concluded the kahunas taught we each have Three Selves, the Low, Middle and Higher Self, or subconscious, conscious and super-conscious, which he called the "unihipili," the "uhane" and the "aumakua."

There is nothing wrong with using primary or secondary sources to describe these concepts. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

“The kahunas have three grades of mana in their system of Magic. These manas correspond with three grades of consciousness long recognized by the kahunas as separate entities which make up man and which use his physical body. These entities correspond exactly with our subconscious, conscious and superconscious. The names are unihipili, uhane and aumakua.” (Long, Max Freedom. Recovering the Ancient Magic. Huna Press, 1978, (first edition, 1936) page 212)

Root words source of his analysis: Secret Science Behind Miracles, pp. 14-15.

The dictionary he used??? "So I hunted up the two words naming the two souls. As I suspected, they were both there in my copy of the old dictionary which had come off the presses in 1865... it was apparent that the earnest missionaries had consulted the Hawaiians to ascertain the meanings of these two words..." Secret Science Behind Miracles, pp. 14-15.Makana Chai (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Strategies for dealing with a new-found problematical article

I know of two main strategies for dealing with a new-found problematical article (such as this one, links to which were inserted as 'see-also's on a couple of articles on my watchlist):

• The first is to simply tag the problematical material, watchlist (so that you can respond to queries as to the tags on talk, and keep track of progress in remedying the problems), and move on, leaving remedying to the presumptive experts who are the article's regulars. This is generally the course of action I prefer on articles that I myself am a regular on, so I tend to apply it to articles I find.
• The second is to attempt to find sources and rewrite material. As these new-found articles are generally outside one's area of expertise, both the evaluation of the reliability of sources, and the summarisation of them for the article, tends to be imperfect (sometimes highly so). This means that this course of action can quite frequently be wasteful in terms of the amount of accurate material that gets produced for the article for the amount of time spent. It's therefore a course of action I prefer to avoid, unless I have easy access to a solid and unambiguous source.

Viriditas & Makana Chai: your objections to my tagging this article (in addition to being arguably WP:OWNERship) forced me to go the second route. The results haven't been particularly satisfactory for any of us. If you wish to avoid repetition of this, then I would suggest that you allow tags to remain on an article (querying their cause-for-concern, if ambiguous -- though generally the policy tags link to will give a good indication of what the concern is) until their issue has been resolved.

I would also suggest that, if Lewis is considered inaccurate on some points, an effort should be made to find sources allowing it to be replaced in its entirety, as its reliability as a whole must be questionable. The reason I relied on it initially was that it was the third-party source that I had found that gave most depth of treatment to the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)