Talk:Don Juan Matus

message: There are a couple items in this article labeled as original research. Since wikipedia considers original research non-encyclopedic, unless someone has a verifiable reference, they should be deleted. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should apply the appropriate tags so we know where to look.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.150.8 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to material that has been removed since then. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Looks like we need to discuss this one Editor2020. Both of those external links link to commercial websites. And that isn't the only reason they should be removed. Neither presents additional information that is relevant to this article. According to the wikipedia style guide for external links, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." If you think those links merit inclusion in this article, please provide some justification, otherwise I will once again remove them. Thanks. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 03:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the Evergreen link again, but I'll go with whatever you decide.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleargreen was/is the organization that handled some of Castaneda's media.  It would be an appropriate link here, regardless of it being commercial or not.  There isn't a rule (AFAIK) about non-commercial links only. 198.163.150.8 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleargreen was/is the organization that handled some of Castaneda's media, and for that reason a link to their website is appropriately included on the Cleargreen Incorporated article page. However, this is the Don Juan Matus article and the Cleargreen website does not "provide a unique resource beyond what [the Don Juan Matus] article would contain if it became a Featured article." It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to include a link to their website here. This is especially true because theirs is a commercial website, and its inclusion here is nothing but spam. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 23:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: This article desperately required an bias-ectomy. It stated: "yet the actual existence of don Juan has been disputed by a handful of critics".  This shows truly appalling world class bias.  Acceptance that Castenada was truthful is a WP:FRINGE opinion, and our articles should reflect that.
Richard de Mille, author of The Don Juan Papers, pretty thoroughly documented that Castenada was a fraud decades prior to his death.  De Mille described correlating the dated entries in Castenada's books -- which Castenada represented as his "field notes" with the Castenada's stack request forms.  The University library Castenada used microfiched its stack request forms and De Mille was able to show that when Castenada said he was in the field participating in traditional peyote ceremonies he was really sitting in the Library reading scholarly accounts of peyote ceremonies.
I struck the worst paragraph, replacing it with a quote from a chair of an Anthropology Department.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias-ectomy desperately required 

message: Why oh why does this page merit an inclusion in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia?
It's unreferenced malarkey, the pseudo-spiritual ramblings of who knows who.. and now an 'editor' (I use the term loosely) has seen fit to insert a reference to a hatchet article, written by a freelance journalist with links to Scientology, which contains more unreliable, unsubstantiated data, some of which is in direct contravention of WP:BLP and possibly even International Law.
All should be removed. 2.98.203.217 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I am reverting MelanieN's edit of 19.53 25th August 2015.
The scientologist author Richard De Mille never 'insisted' that the character 'Don Juan Matus' was fictional: the closest he came was to compare two Castaneda passages and write that, due to his perceived discrepancies in that part of the chronology of the Castaneda story, both passages could not be true, in his opinion.
That is not 'insisting' that Don Juan Matus was fictional.
Whilst Castaneda was alive, De Mille was at pains not to make any allegations against Castaneda, for which he could have been sued. Only after Castaneda's death did any references to alleged criminality on the part of Castaneda start appearing online, erroneously using De Mille's writings as sources. 92.20.180.72 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "suggested"? That's the word actually used by the cited source.  --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Mille/Castaneda hypothesis.