Talk:Neoshamanism

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)

Yes, we can cite Wallis, as we can cite Harner. On p.13 of his book he self-identifies as a neo-shaman and says it informs his work. So, when we're quoting him, we need to bear that in mind. He's talking about the neoshamanic/neopagan community as a member of that community. So when he says the role of neoshamans in the communities he participates in have a certain role that he considers the same as roles in traditional communities that he's not part of... he's not neutral in this and it's not appropriate for him to make that call. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:32, 24 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 don't see any admin pulling any rank here. Carptrash (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

the photo

I guess my first problem with the article is the caption on the picture that reads, “A street shaman in Mexico City, an example of neoshamanic practice.” We don’t know who this guy is or what his background might be. He could be a fully trained spiritual healer (who we will call a “shaman” even though he probably is not from Siberia) who left his village and moved to the big city to continue his work. We don’t know, but to label him a “neoshaman” is speculation on our part. Carptrash (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the photo doesn't belong. It's potentially offensive to this man, his family and community. I'm not convinced the Ayahuasca one does, either. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with both of you. The photo seemed culturally insensitive at best. As stated, we don't know if the subject thought of himself as a "shaman" or not. We honestly know little or nothing about the man in the photo. The other one doesn't belong either. --ARoseWolf 19:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible sources for critique of neoshamanism/shamanism tourism

I came across this article by Evgenia Fotiou, The Globalization of Ayahuasca Shamanism and the Erasure of Indigenous Shamanism that may be a possible source re: the critique of neoshamanic tourism and the commercialization of indigenous practices. Looking at her research history on Google Scholar indicates that she has written several articles in academic journals on these topics, for example, On the uneasiness of tourism; Shamanic Tourism and the Commercialization of Ayahuasca; Shamanic Tourism in the Peruvian Lowlands: Critical and Ethical Considerations; Contemporary Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Europe: Colonialist and Nationalist Impulses. Don't know if these are of interest here, but thought I'd share this information.

On another note, I agree the photos should be removed. Netherzone (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Added the cite. I think we should add a bit about the (American?) guy who murdered the elder who refused to teach him, and then was murdered by her people. IIRC, that over him trying to set up an Ayahuasca tourism center. I forget which country in was in, though. This was a few years ago. I'll see if I can find the news stories. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, is this the event to which you refer?[2] There are several news stories about a Canadian man who killed an 81 year old female Shipibo-Konibo healer and indigenous rights activist in Peru, who was in turn killed by locals. There are several reliable sources, The Guardian (link above), the BBC[3], CBC[4] Men's Journal[5], CBS news[6], ABC news[7], Newsweek[8] There are enough sources out there to choose the best two or three for inclusion if there is consensus to add this to the article. -- Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the incident I was thinking of. Thanks for gathering those sources. I'll look through them when I get a chance. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This aritcle is kinda trash

Neo shamanism is far more interesting and credible than this crazed, grievance-studies-authored article would have its readers believe. For example, just read some of Joan Halifax's takes and involvement to comprehend what I'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F02:7000:C978:BB70:A2E:A2E6 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)