Talk:Carlos Castaneda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: With the new edit, this article is starting to actually reflect what biographers think about Castaneda. If Castaneda fanatics (especially those don't know how to spell, since they seem to be the most virulent) don't mount a frontal attack on this article's neutrality, this might become a decent report. Chevalier violet They dont spell good, because they are not english. Should we give them a say? Maybe indigenous and latin americans might know some things about this we dont. I find the most fanatical the sceptics, that is what you were referring to? ripping down the legitamacy or trying to verify everything in the books is not nuetrality. LOL... first of all, they should keep their blah blah blah to the talk page. Of course, that's not what this is about. Look when Castaneda "meets" la Catalina in 1962 in one book and "doesn't remember her" in 1965 in another book... I don't think that's being too harsh. It's true, some people are harsh and vindictive, but I still think if the book were plausible he would remember la Catalina three years later. Don't you? (edit) WikiProject Paranormal     (Rated B-Class) Paranormal Portal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there. View comments (edit) With the new edit, this article is starting to actually reflect what biographers think about Castaneda. If Castaneda fanatics (especially those don't know how to spell, since they seem to be the most virulent) don't mount a frontal attack on this article's neutrality, this might become a decent report. Chevalier violet They dont spell good, because they are not english. Should we give them a say? Maybe indigenous and latin americans might know some things about this we dont. I find the most fanatical the sceptics, that is what you were referring to? ripping down the legitamacy or trying to verify everything in the books is not nuetrality. LOL... first of all, they should keep their blah blah blah to the talk page. Of course, that's not what this is about. Look when Castaneda "meets" la Catalina in 1962 in one book and "doesn't remember her" in 1965 in another book... I don't think that's being too harsh. It's true, some people are harsh and vindictive, but I still think if the book were plausible he would remember la Catalina three years later. Don't you? WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Spirituality (Rated B-Class) Spirituality Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality. This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article has an assessment summary page.

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] My Fact Check and additions

"... Critics claim the books are works of fiction, and although the techniques described are verifiable. Fact|date=December 2007 (insertion of the fact check)"

From intro. section I included a Fact Check.

Bill-

December 28,2007

My addition: "... Academic critics claim the books are works of fiction....."

I also included some info in the criticism section: "In the "The Power and the Allegory", De Mille compared "The teachings of Don Juan: A Yacqui way of Knowledge" with Castenada's library stack requests. The stack requests documented that he was sitting in the library when his journal said he was squatting in Don Juan's hut. One of the most memorable discoveries the De Mille made in his examination of the stack requests was that when Castaneda said he was participating in the traditional peyote ceremony -- the least fantastic episode of drug use -- he was not only sitting in the library, but he was reading someone else's description of their experience of the peyote ceremony."

Bill-

December 28,2007

That is the whole point of the discussion surrounding Castaneda's work. There is this 'thin line' between what is real (read verifiable) and 'unreal', the world of the Nagual. As the later part is basically what the books are all about you can not call them academic works, academically speaking. It is, remains, a personal; experience that can not be duplicated. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of fiction, etc, the Criticism section is mostly big block quotes, making the section hard to read. It should be more like a regular encyclopedia, a summary. I'm tempted to move the quotes to footnotes and summarize the information so that the section reads reasonably. Also, the lead should summarize the topic, so I added some summary information to the lead. Leadwind (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To Puppy Zwolle "...and 'unreal', the world of the Nagual."

Please dont use jargon, loaded language or cliches. It gets pretty cultish when people do that. Most people reading it wouldnt know what you are talking about or refering to. (Only the "inner circle". If you get my drift.)

"It is, remains, a personal; experience that can not be duplicated."

Part of the controversy is wether those experiences are really CC's or wether he plagiarized those experiences from someone elses testamonies from a published work; while sitting in the university library (according to Richard de Mille).

Bill-

Wedsday February 13,2008

[edit] Works

The structure of the works section does not conform to the expected standard of listing the works in order of publication. The categorization employed is an expression of the ideas contained within the works themselves and should thus be moved to some other section, the ideas section for example.

The works themselves should be listed according to the date of publication.

Tom

--Mmyotis (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You criticize because you fear. Because he took a step that so many people here didn't. Can you all truly point your fingers with such permanence? And shakespeare? Do you really want to know? Indulge. Indulge. Indulge.

If you did not fear, you would have the power to let go of such relentless desire to know this one simple fact....

Its like studying the margin notes in disregarding the text. This is art. It should be treated as a biography.

Just let it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.239.22 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Talk:Carlos Castaneda page is intended for discussions of how the Castaneda article might be improved. My comments relate to the structure and quality of the wikipedia entry. I'm not sure how your comments add to the discussion. -Tom Mmyotis (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Castaneda Audio/radio Interview

Does anyone know how to get or listen to the "Radio interview with Carlos Castaneda - 1968 "Don Juan: The Sorcerer"? Or whatever it may be called? Is it on the Internet?

[edit] Revamp

Revamped the structure of the Castaneda page to make it easier to read and follow.

First I created a bibliography page:

Further information: Bibliography of Carlos Castaneda

Then I restructured as follows:

Original Structure

• 1 Biography
• 2 Death
• 3 Works
• · 3.1 The Mastery of Awareness
• · 3.2 The Mastery of Stalking
• · 3.3 The Mastery of Intent
• 4 Ideas
• · 4.1 Intent and awareness
• 5 Brief descriptions of his books
• 6 Significant characters in Castaneda's works
• 7 Cultural impact

• · 7.1 Related authors
• · 7.2 Books by other authors
• · 7.3 Other Creative Works
• · 7.4 In popular culture
• 8 Criticism
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 External links

Current Structure(with explanation)

• 1 Biography
• 2 Death
• 8 Criticism
• 4 Ideas
• · 4.1 Intent and awareness
• . 3 Works (renamed Toltec Masteries)
• · 3.1 The Mastery of Awareness
• · 3.2 The Mastery of Stalking
• · 3.3 The Mastery of Intent
• 7 Cultural impact
• 7.4 In popular culture
• 12 Bibliography (combines information from 5 and 7.2 plus other sources and links to a separate page)
• 6 Significant characters in Castaneda's works
• 7.3 Other Creative Works
• 7.1 Related authors
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 External links

Sections Deleted (with the appropriate information rolled into the bibliography section):

• 5 Brief descriptions of his books (taken directly from LitWeb without attribution)
• 7.2 Books by other authors (deleted and moved to bibliography page)Mmyotis (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biography citation needed

The biography section has been tagged for citation since October 2007: "Alternatively, evidence suggests[citation needed] Castaneda wrote in the traditional allegorical style of the storyteller (ethnopoetics) common to many native Indian cultures." Since no citation has been provided, the statement has been deleted as unfounded. Mmyotis (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links to personal blogs

The two most recent additions to external links list (Los Naguales - THE MATRIX and the relation with Carlos Castaneda's teachings, and www.perception.com.mx - El nagual de cinco puntas, conflict with wiki guidelines and should be removed for two reasons. They are unverifiable (foreign language links) and because they point to personal blogs. Mmyotis (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified Claims

The latest section added to the introduction has no reliable source and is probably wrong. A reliable source needs to be provided or it will be deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Section deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toltec Masteries in the Ideas Section

The Toltec Masteries section was lifted word for word from this website: http://www.alphatrades.de/newageguide/new_age/carlos_castaneda.htm without attribution. I considered rewriting it, but it adds nothing of significance to the ideas section and has been deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace

Undid edit suggesting questions about Castaneda's birthplace. There are multiple citations from reliable sources including Time Magazine and The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Volume 5: 1997-1999 that document his place of birth. Mmyotis (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to arguments can be found here.

There's no "reliable" nor "multiple" sources. There are just one source. The investigation from Time Magazine. All other books, dictionaries etc who mention the "immigration records" and the "perunian origin" are merely reproducing this "fact" created by Time. The investigation of Time is erroneous. Castaneda are not Perunian, but Brazilian. The article in magazine are clearly difamatory and have the objective to slander Castaneda reputation, painting him as a lier. However, the magazine also reproduces what Castaneda himself says about his biography in the interview. You should put a summary of this controversy at least, and not only reproduces the "immigration records" version as authoritative, with obscure book like this Scribner stuff stating it as only version. ONLY OUT THE TIME MAGAZINE "investigation" or "acusation" without problematize it is a BAD FAITH procedure.

Because Castaneda said to TIME Magazine what he always said, from the beggining to the end. His birthplace is Brazil, nearby São Paulo. He said this in several interviews. See the Psychology Today Magazine, see the 1968 radio interview, the letters, the tensegrity seminars, the interview to Carmina Fort (published in book). Carmina mention the "perunian origin" in the beggining and Castaneda react to that and ironicize the effort to make his a perunian.

Citing the numerous instances of Castaneda's unsupported claim regarding where he was born is not providing evidence that his claim has merit. Mmyotis (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The pseudo-argument that he lies about the birthplace based on "erase personal history", a concept from the books, are weak. Erase personal history doesnt have not to do with this specific point, but the fact that Castaneda doesnt proof that TIme lie is an application of this concept. Also, there are mentions about Brazil as his birthplace much time before 1972, when the Ixtlan book is published with the chapter about personal history.

All concrete facts are in according to the date and original birthplace, you can see in the link above some of the arguments. Some of Castaneda ole coleagues recognize the brazilian origin. There one who mention a cover of time, in early 1960, with Oswaldo Aranha in the cover, and he points Oswaldo as a relative. The "Aranha" family of Castaneda is a notorious, big, and famous family in nearby São Paulo, its "Aranha" in portuguese, and not "Araña" Spanish.

Castaneda make a interview just one year after the Time Magazine publish (you should correct that in article), in 1975. He conceive an interview to VEJA, a brazilian magazine similar to time. He only agreed to talk with this magazine only because is brazilian and would be published first in brazil. He spooke with the reporter with fluence in portuguese, and also with local brazilian accent, as the reporter note. 201.34.145.243 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You claim that "All other books, dictionaries etc who mention the "immigration records" and the "perunian origin" are merely reproducing this "fact" created by Time." But of course the information has been verified by independant sources, as you can see for yourself if you read some of the evidence given in the bibliography section. If you intend to claim otherwise, you will need to provide a reliable source to support that claim.

"Of course" not. A lie repeteated 1000 times becomes true. That whats happen. If you have the theory that the "other sources" has been verified the information provided for TIME, you should precise it. You need to provide a reliable source which show the perunian origin of Castaneda BEFORE Time. Like an doc from UCLA department or something like this. There's nothing before TIME saying about perunian origim. These "immigration records" need to be verified and there are multiple possible that refer to an homonymous or are false. Its a tinny evidente about the Birthplace, you should considere more documents, not only an obscure "immigration record" quoted by a print magazine which is out of context. Time make a original investigation without give details and dont show the images from documents in article. TIME also isnt specilialist in Castaneda, nor the sources that you have mention.

The fact is, there is no controversy, there is just Castaneda's multiple false statements and the facts as discovered by independant investigators like DeMille. I agree that Castanedas false statements should be documented in the article, because it demonstrates his lack of reliability as a witness.

Of course there's controversy. You are ideological and not a researcher. You're arrogant and you act in bad faith. Its intellectual dishonesty and you know it. I caught you. You reproduce the TIME posture of paiting Castaneda as a lier to affirm the lack of reliability. TIME was difamatory in reportage, and also you make your arbitrary edits to keep the difamatory karma in author. Its a shame, because wikipedia should be free and neutral.

The purpose of WP:CIV is to promote positive dialog. Please keep you comments focused on the topic at hand and avoid descending into incivility. Mmyotis (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lack of reliability, please supply reliable sources to support the claims you are making here on the talk page. For example, don't just say things like "all concrete facts are", provide the facts. Likewise, when refering to a magazine article, state the year of publication, the name of the article, and the volume and page where it can be found. If you want it to be considered as reliable, then make a copy available and if it is in a foreign language, provide a translation so that it can be considered here as evidence in support of a US an English wikipedia article.

You didnt read the discussion and the controversy in the archive. You make the changes without consult the arguments in talk page. They archivied a discussion which was not finished. For example, a stated the year of reportage and also gave a link. You can read the full text in portuguese in http://www.consciencia.org/casvista.shtml

Revista Veja nº356 -1975 ... Website of Veja Magazine www.veja.com.br

Its ' fac-simile. I dont quote obscure books in my claim, requiring that people buy expansive books before can react to my edits. But you can check it in some serious library which keeps this magazine in archive.

This interview interview is in portuguese, as I mentioned, Castaneda talked to the reporter with local brazilian accent, which would be difficult to emulate for a perunian-born. This one is a concrete fact. I mention other evidences in the archive page. A brazilian from north would have difficult to emulate an accent from south. As perunian who learn portuguese too. Castaneda accept to give the interview just because its proposed by a brazilian magazine, after the TIME mess.

You should't require an english translation as a researcher. This is not scientific. Its very selfish and absurd. You should translate yourself, or not edit at all, if you dont know the problematic envolving this subject. Also you should read the Castaneda article in other languages. In Spanish, for example, people give credit to the brazilian hipothesis. English article is very ideological and patrolled from pseudo-academicits who wants an difamatory article.

You appear not to be familiar with the wikipedia policy on verifiability and specifically with the policy on non-english sources. If you would like the article to be considered, please provide a translation of the article so that its merits can be discussed fairly and reasonably. Mmyotis (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion that Time Magazine is not a reliable source suggests a distinct lack of neutrality on this matter. Unless you can provide evidence from a reliable source that contradicts the immigration records provided by the FBI and the geneology data provided by Time Magazine, your personnal theory is nothing more than a personnal theory and does not merit consideration. Mmyotis (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT my personal theory. Is a problematic mentioned in ALL main bibliography about the author. I already mentioned that. For example, the Carmina Fort book which are made after SEVERAL interviews with the author. There's no reliable FBI record and TIME article are bogus. The fbi record are from an pseudo-Castaneda, not the author. The author name was Carlos Aranha, he change it to Castaneda for publish the book, it's not a real name. He took the Castaneda from the maternal grandparents. An record with Castaneda name doest mean nothing. And YOU dont merit consideration, not the me or Castaneda books. I am not interested, however, in make an edit war. I hope someone in the community with sincere intentions read this controversy to pass the problematic to the public in the article. And I Hope people don't HIDE again my winner argues in an archive page, because the discussion is not closed. 201.34.145.243 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages are for discussing how an article can be improved, and your edits which suggest that Castaneda was not born in Peru must be supported by evidence from a reliable source. I am completely open to continuing this discussion, however, you need to present some reliable sources to support what now appears to be simply your POV if you want to be taken seriously. Mmyotis (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We can improve the article not taking this information propagued by TIME as reliable source and not hidding the problematic about the birthplace of the author as if the perunian information was final and authoritative. To indicate this I put a lot of arguments here and show other sources and you ignore it and have nothing in counterpoint. You have only bad posture and bad faith, you think you talk in the name of the community of english wikipedia, but wikipedia if for everyone, I am a contributor as much as you. You point me links about internal policies but you make edit war , arbitrary,m without taking care of the discussion in talk page. The perunian information was in the article at the beggining, but people take it out and put the Brazil alternative hypothesis after we discus the problem in talk. You say that this US Wikipedia, but its not true. This is ENGLISH wikipédia, and english is a world-spoken language, so please check you own procedure before give conceils to others contributors. You even don't know where you are heh ... You act like a selfish and all you have is "TIME is a reliable source, TIME is a reliable source". Or maybe the obscure genealogy that you bring. But both isnt reliables sources, as I show. The thruth is THERE IS CONTROVERSY about this subject, and you should display both (pseudo)evidences of Perunian origim and evidences of the reliability of Castaneda self-declaration about Brazil. You just erase everything about Brazil in article, and in the talk, you may want that is my POV or this a "personal theory" but ISNT. It's a main controversy in the publications about Castaneda, as I said, since the beggining, during TIME mess and after this. Point This would be neutral. But of course you dont nothing about latin america. You even dont want to read sources in the languages envolved. You may think all countries in LA are equal. You are not qualified to do this job. I would suggest that you stop edit this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.145.243 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And more... You have the explicit POV that Castaneda is a lier and not reliaby as testimonial and you make the edits based in the pov. Would be NPOV keep the information as it was... Reproduce the problematic about the birthplace, as is reproduced in TIME, explain the problem. This problematic appear in the main sources about biography, the printed publications and interviews. And i read the Wiki-page about the non-english sources, it means nothing here, they dont discard other sources, only give preferences for en when there's no problematic point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.145.243 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witches, Chacmools, and Blue Scout

Added some new sections with a request for help expanding them. I also recommend a section be added to cover Cleargreen Incorporated. So much to do, so little time. Mmyotis (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas Section

Section is Original Research and does not conform to Wikipedia policy WP:OR and has therefore been deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural impact section

Section is Original Research and does not conform to Wikipedia policy WP:OR and has therefore been deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

The following uncited statement in the Biography section sounds to me like original research: "Some commentators thought this must necessarily mark the end of the series, and were surprised to find both don Juan and his apprentice Castaneda returning for many more books in the ongoing saga."

Since there's no citation forthcoming, it will be deleted. Objections? Mmyotis (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)