Talk:Vision quest

To do to improve

Though the Inuit example itself is a good start, the main portion of the article is the stubbiest of stubs. Here are some suggestions to improve:

• Define anthropologically what a vision quest is.
• Explain the physiological and psychological mechanism of how the vision quest is achieved.
• Explain how these physiological and psychological mechanism feeds into spirituality.
• Provide example of spirituality differences from one group of people to another, but at the same time show how all these quests have the same/similar physiological and psychological mechanism. (So far, Inuit is covered, but what about Algonquian example, Siouan example, and Athapascan example for North American groups. What about Asian groups? African groups?)

Please cross out list items as they have been incorporated or please add to the list. Thanks.
CJLippert 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of new age practitioners and neopagans are using vision quests as well. Also, the importance of drumming should be mentioned. --Deepraine (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of those are phony vision quests -- they pay up to $9000 for the privilege. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair. While there are certainly suspect traditions to be found (as there are in most religious or spiritual practices), there is a substantial history for vision quests as part of neopagan, shamanic, eco-therapeutic and loosely "new age" practices. Stephen Foster and Meredith Little are just two of the major individuals known within these communities for integrating the techniques of the vision quest (as was or continues to be practiced among a variety of North American indigenous tribes) with other therapeutic and meditative methods. Cost, in these cases, is understood as part of the "give-away" system, honoring one's teacher with a gift (which, yes, in a capitalism, is usually monetary)--most costs I've seen are btw $500-2000, depending on locale and length of process. I think it would be great to expand this article to include both traditional indigenous vision quest practices and their new-age adoption. Madnessandcivilization (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be saying that what is contained is proven fact, rather than a matter of faith. Ted BJ

May I edit it to a more factual direction then? Aerius

All that is needed is to change it to a more indirect way, i.e. rephrase to something like "the legend says", or whatever. Just not write, like, "it is so" as if this is some bible, aye? Heh! Facts, no, but neutrality, yes.--OleMurder 21:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the article starts out neutral, than part of the way through it suddenly becomes instructions for someone to undertake a vision quest. I might see what I can do with it later, afterwards, someone who knows more about this than I could try and fix it up. Goldbot 02:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've revised this page a little to reduce the "instructionism" content. Can the sign be removed now? --Figs 07:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

looks good to me. --Heah (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Should a reference be made to a synonymous term, "spirit walk?" Jbergquist (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Found where this came from

This article is ripped from the site http://www.crystalinks.com/visionquest.html. Thought you all might like to know.

• I compared the information on that website and that in the article itself and apart from a very general similarity I had a hard time understanding what this anonymous editor meant by "ripped". Removed website from "external links".Deconstructhis (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vision Quest"

The subject of this article is purportedly a specific set of religious concepts and practices engaged in by a great number of traditional societies and continues to the present day within the context of those cultures. In my opinion, categorizing this subject as "New Age" would be misleading to the average reader. I have no objection to mentioning in the body of the article that a similar practice is engaged in by people involved in the present "New Age" movement, but in my opinion implying that all such practices belong in the same Wikipedia category can not be supported.Deconstructhis (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender

No female undertakes a vision quest. Those are for men only. Traditional Indians usually have very rigid gender roles and there are things women just don't do, and men just don't do. It's not that women are lesser, it's that they are different. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Generalizing about the religious beliefs of "traditional Indians" is a tricky occupation most of the time, especially to the geographic and cultural extent that you appear to be claiming here. I haven't studied this subject cross culturally here in North America, but I do know that there is at least one exception to this blanket statement amongst some of the traditional Anishinaabeg. I suspect a little digging would surface a few more examples in other North American Nations. Check out "Traditional Ojibwa religion and its historical changes" by Christopher Vecsey, pg 124-125 [1] who is citing Ruth Landes. There doesn't seem to have been any problem amongst at least some Ojibway women and the rest of their culture in terms of experiencing a "legitimate vision quest". I'm going to revert the edit and I'd appreciate it if you could please provide other editors with a citation from a reliable source before re-adding the material. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of a female vision quest tradition in any nation and would be extremely happy to be proved wrong. --Bluejay Young (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in long after you talked last; I don't want to prove you wrong, but am trying to understand this for myself and for the article. In his interviews with Yellow Wolf, L. V. McWhorter was told about circumstances where Nez Perce girls could receive a wyakin. He didn't say it was a "vision quest" but made it sound as if the quest for a spirit was something a girl could undertake. (Yellow Wolf: His Own Life, page 297) available <http://www.archive.org/details/yellowwolfhisown002070mbp>. Could this be tribal? Something not discussed outside of certain circles? Something lost? Different because girls get access to different spirits? Completely false information fed to an inquisitive white man?Jacqke (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs work

I would say that this article needs work to make the tone encyclopedic and neutral. A lot of concepts are taken for granted and it reads as if written by an adherent to this belief system - ie it is written in an "in-game style". Totorotroll (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute, September 2014

The person above me already wrote it more than a year ago, but didn't include the template. This article is a mess. The sentences are written as though the existence of visions from the spirit world was general knowledge and proven fact. The sources are not scientific in nature, as far as I can tell.

Possible solutions:

1. Find actual, scientific sources that confirm the spirit world is in fact real and you communicate with it when you go on a vision quest. Then the article itself can be left as it is.
2. Find scientific sources that describe at least the "earthly" aspects of vision quests (how they are performed etc.) and then their metaphysical interpretation or significance to practicing cultures. The article can be left as it is in most places but the parts that take metaphysical aspects as proven fact will need to be rewritten.
3. Keep the sources, but rewrite the article so it is clear that these are the views of authors who have some sort of connection to the topic but did not perform rigorous scientific research.

Option (1) is unlikely to happen. Option (2) is my favorite, but option (3) would do as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.224.167 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

>>> I don't think wikipedia articles are suppose to reflect just a scientific truth. The global encyclopedia that is wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information not to discuss what is the ultimate truth for a scientific-minded person, but information for everyone. Otherwise it is discriminating the access only for scientific-minded people, while a spiritual-minded person will find itself missing in its seeking for information. I myself am a scientific-minded person here but I think the opinnion above creates a more strict scientific encyclopedia out of wikipedia not a global vision. Is this what you want for wikipedia? Come on! Wikipedia seeks to become the greatest source of information ever available for mankind, and that includes the millions of people not scientific-minded. Let's be inclusive in information even if we don't agree on it. Information is not just facts or scientific truth, information is also beliefs (even if wrong), information is describing the different opinnions on a topic (example: abortion, drug legalization, same sex marriage), information is the different moralities in the world, the different cultural habits. Information is doversity and it is not discrimination or reducing it just to a few people that think information is just this or that. SineBot, let's have a more global vision for wikipedia, more inclusive of all human points of view. [Username: Irpsit]

You say it yourself: "information is describing the different opinions on a topic" - and that's exactly what is NOT happening in this article. In this article, opinion is stated as fact. That's the problem. --92.74.229.228 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:IRS

As with all Indigenous articles, you have to be able to Identify reliable sources in this particular field. I had to remove some that were inaccurate anthro howlers. Just because they got it published, doesn't mean it's accurate. Also, changing things about newage appropriators to "modern reception" past-tenses Natives. Natives are doing these ceremonies now. Part of Native culture is that the legit ones aren't advertised online, though. So, once again, it takes more than a google search to write in this field. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"People" or "people"?

"(...) and how they may best serve the People." - Why the capital "p"?

Joaquin89uy (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)