# Talk:Dreamtime (book)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dreamtime (Duerr book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 13:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article in the next several days.  Other editors are welcome to participate. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


### Infobox
Is there a reason you are using release_date instead of pub_date and english_pub_date?  See {{Infobox book}} for more info.
Nope, none at all; so I've made the alteration. :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Looks good, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is there a sort order for the subjects listed in the infobox, for example, from primary topic to secondary?  I ask because it seems like a lot of subjects for a book infobox; I'm wondering if we should limit it to three. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I have no idea to be honest. Perhaps we could restrict the number of subjects to three; I suggest "Anthropology of religion", "Philosophy of religion" and "Entheogens" ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC))
I'll leave it in your hands. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In your absence, I've changed it. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks very much! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC))
I made some more changes.  Feel free to revise as needed. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Publisher: Blackwell
I just noticed that this link is wrong.  It should read Basil Blackwell, which links to Wiley-Blackwell.  I'll fix it now. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well done for picking up on that! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC))


### Images
IMO, the modified cover of the book (brighter color) is worse than the original.
Does Duerr say why he included the Baldung Hexen 1508 kol image as the tenth plate? Why did you choose this plate to include over others? Was it the only free image you could find?  As a reader, I expect a more relevant capation.  Yes, he used the image, but why?
Right, I couldn't decide which of the two book images was worse/best (admittedly neither are brilliant), so have gone along with your suggestion.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Duerr doesn't mention why he has chosen to feature that particular image, but it is fincluded in a chapter in which he discusses European witches, so I suppose it is simply used to illustrate his point here. The fact that it depicts a flying witch might also tie in with his theories regarding shamanic flight which he deals with later in the book. I chose to use this image on this particular Wikipedia page simply because it was free and because it was already uploaded on the site. Nonetheless, I shall add a little more explanation to the caption below the image on this article (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)).
Looks good, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


### Lead
...it makes particular reference to...It was written by...It was subsequently translated... The use of "It" here is repetitive.  Try using "the book" as an alternative to three instances of "it".
He argues that "archaic cultures" recognize...Believing that the modern western worldview failed to understand this process, he criticizes...  Instead of repeating "he" for a second time, why not use "Duerr" in the second instance?
If the reviews were mixed, shouldn't you represent that view in the lead?  You say the book was described as unbalanced and inaccurate; what about the other side?  For example, Fayter (1990) described the book as a "groundbreaking ethnographic study" (86). Hinich (1986) notes that the critique is successful and supported by the "range of his scholarship and intellectual facility" (357).
Right, I've made some note of the praise that the book received in this article's lead. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading this article again, I find it strange that nothing is said about the meaning of the title.  The lead should at least tell the reader what it refers to, and I think this could tie directly in to a restatement of the central thesis of the book. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


#### Caves and vagina
arguing that in various goddess-centred cultures, the cave represented the female vagina - you explain this in more detail in the synopsis, so it feels a bit out of place to read this at the end of the second paragraph in the lead without knowing more.  The reader asks why did Duerr argue that the cave represented the vagina?
he criticizes the work of those anthropologists and scientists - can you be specific?  Seems odd to generalize instead of naming the primary proponents, of which there must only be a few.
Regarding your first two points here, I respectfully disagree, as I feel that the lead is already fairly long as it is, without going into any more detail. Such detail should certainly be dealt with in the synopsis, naturally, but is it really warranted within the lead itself ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC))
I'm not asking you go into more detail, I'm saying that the statement, "arguing that in various goddess-centred cultures, the cave represented the female vagina" doesn't really follow.  You might as well tell the reader the cave represents purple people eaters, but for someone not familiar with the subject, it doesn't make much sense.  Why does Duerr argue that the cave represents the female vagina?  Answering that question shouldn't require many more words or much of a change.  In other words, why is it important enough to appear in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If you are trying to link it to birth rituals practiced around the world, why not say that? Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Duerr seems to be saying that the cave represents the vagina because it is physically similar; both are cavernous, dark, and in some cases wet. Furthermore, the cave does regularly feature in various world mythologies and folklores, and Duerr cites several examples here, primarily from the Classical World, and highlights any mention of goddesses or female figures associated with maternity and birth. Duerr seems to take the view that if a goddess of maternity ever appears in or around a cave in mythology, then that is evidence that caves were associated with the vagina and womb in pre-Christian times. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC))
Yes, which is why I added in various goddess-centred cultures, the cave represented a symbolic vagina and was used for birth rituals.  Do you see how I answered the question posed to the reader by indicating that the cave was a symbol for the vagina and was used for specific rituals as a result?  If that is different than what you mean to say, then please modify it.  The previous version said only that it was a symbol, and failed to indicate what it was used for as a symbol. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Yes, I think that you've made a definite improvement there. Thanks (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC))


#### Describing the book
The book is...an anthropological and philosophical study of how hallucinogens have been used to achieve altered states of consciousness, moving the mind from the realm of "civilization" to "wilderness".  Sounds interesting, but I'm wondering if you could simplify this for readers who aren't familiar with the subject.  Most readers won't have a clue what "moving the mind from the realm of civilization to wilderness" means.  Could you paraphrase what you think it means in simpler language?  Remember, we want to write for someone who doesn't know the subject and introduce it to them gradually.
Hmm... difficult one. I had already simplified it down from what I was originally intending to write. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any suggestions ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC))
What does it mean to move the mind from civilization to wilderness? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it to: Dreamtime: Concerning the Boundary between Wilderness and Civilization is an anthropological and philosophical study of how hallucinogens have been used to achieve altered states of consciousness, focusing on the witches' salves of Early Modern Europe. If this is not correct, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, after taking a break for a few days, I just had to look at it once again, and I'm afraid that this is probably not accurate, given what Fayter, Hinich, and Valadez say in their brief reviews.  I'm concerned that this is probably not an accurate summary of the central thesis of the book, but does accurately describe one aspect of Duerr's "Wilderness" argument.  In other words, it is a narrow summary of a broad topic.  Ask yourself, is it accurate to say that the entire book is a "study of how hallucinogens have been used to achieve altered states of consciousness"?  Based on the sources, probably not.  I think we will need to rewrite this. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a contentious issue certainly. What is Duerr's Dreamtime really about ? I personally find that quite difficult to say, because it is about so much. Every chapter throws up new ideas and new theories, often with little or no connection to the rest of the book. The main thrust of the work is that "archaic" societies believed in travelling from the mental space of "civilisation" to the mental space of "wilderness", often through the use of hallucinogenic substances. Duerr argues that this is the practice undertaken by shamans, and by some of those accused of being witches in early modern Europe, and that modern westerners should also do it too. Is there a way of introducing this into the lead ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC))
Take another look at Stevens-Arroyo 1991 for a good summary.  This is what Fayter, Hinich, and Valadez were getting at in their summaries.  Do you see my concern? Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the reference to hallucinogens in this article's lead is not entirely necessary because it is not a part of Duerr's primary argument ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC))
Let's take a step back.  I'm saying that the lead should summarize the main points of the article, and that includes the synopsis.  When we run into issues with writing a synopsis and summarizing or stating the main thesis, we should rely closely on sources to do it.  So, what I'm saying is, how do sources like Stevens-Arroyo, Fayter, Hinich, and Valadez (and anyone else you want to bring into this) summarize the work?  And, finally, is there a difference between their summary and the one currently in use?  What common elements do all of these sources share?  Do you they agree on a single or several aspects of the summary?  Is there any disagreement?  To conclude, I think we can write a summary of the work that all of the sources will agree with, and I think the current summary in the lead is much too narrow based on the broad thesis described by these authors.  So, to fix this, I would recommend broadening the scope of the summary based on the best published summaries of the work. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that that's a fair idea. I'll have a look at the above-mentioned sources and get back to you. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC))
Stevens-Arroyo remarks that Duerr's primary argument is that "civilization is a device of society to impose order upon the human experience of reality".
Fayter instead summarizes it as a study of "the boundary between wilderness and civilization, the world of ecstatic experience and sacred presence." Alternately, Hinich remarks that it "explores how Western civilization has been shaped by a series of reactions to challenges posed to prevailing norms of sanity and reality by a shifting array of "otherworldy" cults". As I think this shows, different reviewers actually have rather different things to say about the nature of Duerr's book. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

How about this for a summary: "... an anthropological and philosophical study of how Western society has perceived reality throughout history. In particular, it focuses on subversions of such "civilised" concepts of reality from "archaic" concepts such as those of shamans and of the Early Modern witch." ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC))
I'm out the door at the moment, but when I get back I'll take a look at this and work towards closing out the review. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at Stewart (1987) for a most succinct summary of the thesis of Dreamtime. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


### Background
north of Santa Fé - please see Talk:Santa Fe, New Mexico#Santa Fe, or Santa Fé? and Talk:Santa Fe, New Mexico#Santa Fe in Spanish has no accent.  The diacritic is not currently used in the English-language for Santa Fe, New Mexico.
He was "greatly encouraged" in his preparation for the work by the noted English anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard - instead of directly quoting that he was "greatly encouraged", as the reader, I would much rather learn the nature of the encouragement.
Dreamtime was published at a time of "new developments" in German anthropology - is it necessary to directly quote here?  Why not just paraphrase "new developments" as recent advancements, or some other term?
the 1970s saw the rising popularity of the discipline, with a "tremendous increase" in the number of students enrolling to study ethnography - again, why is it necessary to directly quote "tremendous increase"?  I think a paraphrase would work better, like "increasing numbers".
increasing interaction between anthropologists and philosophers - do you mean interdisciplinary collaboration?
several scholars arguing that ethnography was relevant to "philosophical analysis" - as a reader, I would like to know who these scholars were, if they are notable.
rejected by the "official academic representatives" of the discipline, who believed that it exceeded the "limits of scientific respectability" - I don't see a good reason to directly quote  "official academic representatives" when that can be paraphrased.  Is there a reason you aren't naming names?
Regarding the encouragement of Evans-Pritchard on Duerr's work, unfortunately Duerr fails to go into any more depth on this issue in the pages of this book... Perhaps he does in some obscure German-language interview or something, but certainly not in any of the English-language sources  that I am aware of. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Unfortunately, Pinxten neither mentions who these scholars were, not who the "official academic representatives" were. Late 20th century German anthropology really isn't my area of expertise, and quite frankly I have no idea who such individuals might have been. Personally, I'd rather keep the quote "official academic representatives" for this very reason. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
That's fine, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


### Publication
American academic Wendy Doniger - she is an American Indologist. Why not call her that?  Apparently you do, in the "Press reviews" section.  You also call her "Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty"  I would suggest calling her an American Indologist in the first instance, and choosing a consistent name.
This section should mention that the book itself is shorter than the footnotes.
I have added that she is an Indologist in the Publication section too, and have decided to consistently refer to her with the surname of O'Flaherty, which she used in the newspaper article that is being referenced here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


### Synopsis
Is there a reason you didn't move the arguments into a separate section like A Community of Witches?  The smaller size of the synopsis section in that article is generally best practice. 
Throughout the article the words "argue", "argues", "arguing", and "argument" are used 37 times, with many occurring in the synopsis. Once you establish that Duerr is constructing an argument in the beginning of the section, there is no need to keep reminding the reader.
Regarding my article on Helen Berger's A Community of Witches, it was easy enough to produce separate sections for the Synopsis and the Arguments, because Berger devoted the entire work to formulating and discussing only two or three key arguments to go along with her data. With Duerr's Dreamtime, this is more difficult, because he throws up new theories in every single chapter! Admittedly, this means that in this article the synopsis is longer than preferable, but overall I felt that this would be the most appropriate option in the circumstances (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)).
That's a wonderful response.  For some unknown reason, any discussion of the entheogenic experience results in a multiplicity of arguments, so your explanation is  entirely justified (and accurate IMO).  However, I am still concerned with the use of words like "argue", "argues", "arguing", and "argument".  One solution would be to just state in the beginning of the synopsis that the author is constructing an argument composed of multiple theories.  After that introduction, you could just name the theories on a conceptual basis, thereby solving the problem of word repetition. What do you think? As a reader, I dislike having to read variations on "argue", "argues", "arguing", and "argument" 37 times.  If you just say that the author is constructing an argument in the beginning, there's no need to keep saying it. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You write He argues that in future.  Are you missing a the, as in the future?
And is not "in future" just another way of saying "in the future" ? Where I'm from, in the U.K., it certainly is, but I can't make that assumption for the rest of the English-speaking world....If you feel like the latter is better English than the former then I am happy to change it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Interesting.  If that is the case, then just leave it. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You say the author was drawing from the ideas of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.  As a reader, I would like to know which ideas?  Can you specify?
Again, I have difficulty with this one. Duerr never makes it clear to the reader which of Wittgenstein's theories is being referenced. Instead he states things such as "Wittgenstein might counter him by saying...", "experiences such as Castenada's do not resemble the 'solid rails' that Wittgenstein is looking for" and "Is it, as Wittgenstein thinks, simply 'nonsense' to consider the opposite possible?" Unfortunately, I am not at all acquainted with Wittgenstein or his works and so am really in no position to try and guess which specific theories Duerr is actually dealing with here... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC))
That's fine; I've struck it out as my primary concern here is with the "argue", "argues", "arguing", and "argument" wording. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... it means I'll have to find alternate words for "argue" in all these instances, such as "opines", "expresses his opinion that..." etc etc. Are these an improvement ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC))
Don't worry, I can fix this issue.  I'm more concerned about the lead section at this point.  If you could look at the questions I've raised there, I would appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In progress... Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
As I'm editing this, I'm realizing that this is not a "synopsis" in terms of Wikipedia.  On Wikipedia, a non-fiction synopsis is usually along the lines of a concise summary, or on average about 800 words, sometimes less or more.  The current synopsis in this article is around 1260 words, which I think is excessive. I would like to see it chopped down to about 900 words if possible. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Instead of failing this review, I've moved the synopsis, which was in the lead section the whole time, to the appropriate section, and renamed the old synopsis "arguments" which is what I first noticed during the second week of April when I commented about the separate section you used in A Community of Witches. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


### Recognition and reception
In the "Academic reviews" section, it may be helpful (for the benefit of the reader) to link the article counterculture of the 1960s to part of the phrase counter-cultural and drug subcultures of the 1960s. Or not.
Good idea. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


### References
The formatting for the title of De Blécourt (2007) is confusing.  The word "Werewolf" appears as a quote within a quote based on the template use of double quotes. If the citation template uses American English style, should "Werewolf" appear as 'Werewolf', with single quotation marks, as a quote within a quote?  Not that important, but I'm curious as to the answer.
There is a problem with the ISBN for Rountree.  Please see the official publisher info: [1]  The error appears to be in the use of a "5" instead of a "6" at the end.  The correct ISBN (bold added for emphasis) is 978-0-415-30360-6 not 978-0-415-30360-5.  The e-book uses: 978-0-203-63388-5.  Rountree's book was first published in 2003.  The e-book appeared in 2004.
Stewart (1987) is online. Please add this link to the citation: [2]
You have cited Kenneth Atchity as "Kenneth, Atchity" by mistake.  It should be changed to "Atchity, Kenneth".
Regarding the paper by De Blécourt, it is indeed entitled "A Journey to Hell: Reconsidering the Livonian "Werewolf""... hence the quotation marks around "Werewolf". Or that's what my copy of the paper says anyway (obtained from Project MUSE). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Academic reviews to add
Culianu, Ioan Petru (1982). "The Marvelous Ointments of Dr. Duerr". History of Religions (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press) 22 (1): pp. 100-101. JSTOR 1062207.


### Disambiguation
Based on dablinks, please make these changes:

Albuquerque - you mean Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Objectivity - do you mean Objectivity (science) or Objectivity (philosophy)?
South Pacific - do you mean Pacific Ocean or Oceania?
Right, I've made these corrections. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
A few issues with prose and word choice in the lead and synopsis sections.  Prefer paraphrasing over unnecessary direct quotes; word repetition ("it", "he",  "argue") could be easily fixed
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Excellent work.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Pass, but one minor concern about coverage in the publication section.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Questions above about fair representation of criticism in the lead section.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
The caption for the woodcut doesn't tell me why it is relevant.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Minor prose issues with the lead and synopsis.
Fixed and passed. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)