Talk:Michael Harner

message: Removed this sentence from Career section:
"During the 1950's, Harner joined Anton Szandor LaVey's Order of the Trapezoid, a predecessor of the Church of Satan--his first exposure to pagan ritual." as it violates Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living persons.  It is not factual and is potentially libelous.  Dr. Harner's only association with LaVey was to interview him in connection with research for a chapter in Dr. Harner's book, Hallucinogens and Shamanism.
Anomazee (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Association with Anton LaVey

message: Or not? Stilgar135 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is the biography of a living person, not a forum for discussion of unsubstantiated opinion.  Unless adequate citation is given for the comments made above, it will be removed. The comments also were made on a much earlier version of this article.  Dr. Harner's theories have been more fully described in the current version. Anomazee (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this Aztec human sacrifice guy

message: Harner is an important part of 1950's [Removed remainder of paragraph: libelous, unsourced. Anomazee (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every editor has a POV. That's a natural outcome of our humanity. The funny thing about people who wring their hands with concern over the POV of others is that they have so much trouble recognizing how their own POV permeates their presentation. Regardless, this is only an encyclopedia and not worth getting upset about. If you think the language can be improved, then be bold and improve it. That would be a far more constructive act than smearing the article with a POV tag. Mmyotis ^^o^^ 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality needed in articles

message: Much of the text of this article is obviously plagiarized from this article. Note the prominent copyright notice. I'm surprised the FSS hasn't noticed yet. 65.4.66.82 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment refers to a previous version of the article.  It has since been revised to conform with Wikipedia's policies (see comment about resolution of copyright issue below). This interview with Dr. Harner is now provided as an external link from the article. Anomazee (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: (I'm not a good enough editor & my time is limited these days so I will provide references for others who wish to pursue this.)
Well besides Daniel Noel (mention in the article) there has been some critics of Michael Harner that wasnt mention. 
There is a good article which can be found over the net titled "Modern Shamanic Practise: Thoughts on "neo shamanism", "core shamanism", "urban shamanism" and other labels" by Annette Høst 
Theres also the book "Shamans/neo-Shamans: ecstasy, alternative archaeologies, and contemporary pagans" By Robert J. Wallis 
-Henry123ifa
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That source can be previewed on google books here. It seems to present a fairly balanced pro/con discussion on Harner and the neo-shamans more generally. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: "Harner was the first to train contemporary Westerners in the practice of classic ways of shamanic healing such as guardian spirit and soul retrieval, spirit intrusion removal, shamanic depossession, and psychopomp work"
I don't think this sentence is at all clear. Firstly, what is a "contemporary Westerner"? Given that he was teaching people, they would necessarily be "contemporary". Secondly, the "classic ways of shamanic healing" sound everything but traditional in their naming, and the idea of them being "classic" is rather difficult to interpret. I know little/nothing about this subject (hence reading about it in this article) and this sentence did little to help me understand.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "classic ways" 

message: "[The Way of the Shaman]... includes important experientially tested evidence that shamanism and the shamanic journey were legitimate practices connected with an altered state of consciousness and entrance into another reality."
1. What is "experientally tested evidence"? 2. What kind of legitimacy was demonstrated? 3. How was this "important" i.e. to whom? 4. Is it acceptable to refer to "another reality" in this way? There is an article dealing with a discussion of that topic (Reality) and I think that the meaning of this term is not made clear here.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sentences to tidy up 

message: A reversion of a recent edit of mine by CorbieVreccan requires that I supplement my reasons and role in making the edit.  In retrospect I should have used this Talk page to give more information about the edit in the first place and made my role more clear on my user Talk page.
I am not an employee of Dr. Harner.  I was asked by him to consult on improving his biography and remove contentious material in violation of Wikipedia’s policies for biographies of living persons.  As a paid consultant to Dr. Harner my role is not to make his biography into an advertisement in his behalf, but to advise him on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to monitor his bio for potential abuses and unsubstantiated bias, and to submit contributions which will hopefully make this into a higher quality page while maintaining a neutral point of view.
The edit summary for the reversion claimed that I am an employee who made the edit to improve Harner’s public image, not the article, and that I had deleted sourced material.  Rather harsh I thought given Wikipedia’s tenets of assume good faith and don’t bite the newbies. I requested a page reference from CorbieVreccan to Noel’s Soul of Shamanism to verify the “sourced material,” but so far have not had a response.
My edit to the first paragraph added Harner's latest book, Cave and Cosmos and removed an insertion made by CorbieVreccan that Harner's first book "has been foundational in the development and popularization of core shamanism as a path of personal development for new age adherents of neoshamanism." The reasons behind my edit were that 1) I do not believe the use of the term neoshamanism in this context was made in good faith, and 2) I was unable to verify the quoted text as from Noel.  Additionally, the differences between traditional shamanic practices, core shamanism, and neoshamanism would be better introduced later in Harner’s bio and should include a more academic discussion, critics and supporters both, with verifiable, solid references.  In any event, in keeping with the strict policies on the biographies of living persons,  any reference to Noel’s book should be given as an inline quote along the lines of “In Daniel C. Noel’s opinion, The Way of the Shaman was instrumental in the popularization of shamanism in the West.”  Whether this was restricted to “new age adherents of neoshamanism” is conjecture.
I am presently checking references to Dr. Harner in Noel’s book.  So far it seems to be Noel’s views from a Jungian analyst’s perspective on the interest in shamanism in the West.
I have read the two articles (Hobson and Aldred) and have watched the video “White Shamans and Plastic Medicine Men”  given as references to support CorbieVreccan’s addition to Development of Core Shamanism, “However, most authors in the field…” (which field?).  The articles concern the abuse and commercialization of Native American spiritual traditions. They make no mention of core shamanism being the “primary influence on, and foundation of, the Neoshamanic movement.”  One does not mention Harner at all (Hobson); another likens an advertisement for a Harner workshop to “Sun Dances held on Astroturf…and sex orgies…” (Aldred). The video briefly shows an image of a Foundation for Shamanic Studies CD (Macy). These references were ported over from what appears to be a pet project of CorbieVreccan’s, Plastic shaman.  The biography of a living person is not a forum for the airing of grievances and pet theories.
This biography is in definite need of editing, including additional third-party references as suggested, some of which I intend to undertake myself and will make sure to support my edits here.Bashamfour (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a paid editor, a Single purpose account, an associate of the article's subject, here to promote the article subject's interests. You have Conflict of interest. For a spa to call articles that are worked on by established editors and admins, "pet projects" based on "grievances" shows your lack of experience with, or concern for, the 'pedia. Harner and his work exist in the full milieu of the new age movement he works within, hence sources on these matters are used. While I appreciate that you disclosed your COI, that does nothing to change the fact that your COI is still there. When discussing core shamanism, articles and media that discuss the cultural role of core shamanism and neoshamanism are relevant. Personally, I don't think you should be editing this article at all. Per your initial disclosure, you are limited to the talk page and removing blatant vandalism. You have already overstepped this boundary. - CorbieV☊ 22:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my comments, specifically the nature of the citations given and the tone of your edits.  Relevant criticism of the subject is, of course, part of a well-balanced article, but personally I find the citations for the criticism weak.Bashamfour (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much of this article is sourced to Mr. Harner's own work.  Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be about what a subject says about themselves and their own ideas, but about what secondary sources such as books, news reports, and magazine/journal articles written by others have written about them.  The article needs more of these secondary sources, not fewer.  Bashamfour, I noticed that you said you removed a source because a page number was not included. A neutral editor would have (1) looked up the source and added the page number, or, if that wasn't practical, (2) added a note on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the source, requesting that the page number be included.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Or (3) added a  after the citation ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenged References and Resolution of Possible Bias 

message: A recent contributor to this article has very properly declared a conflict of interest (here). Just as a reminder: conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting  (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking where it says "click here" on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted. 
Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - very helpful!Bashamfour (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: In the lead paragraph, replace the last sentence with "Some authors consider his 1980 book, The Way of the Shaman, to have been the primary catalyst for the popularity of neoshamanism." with these additional references:
Townsend, Joan B. (2004) Core Shamanism and Neo-Shamanism. In Shamanism: An Encyclopedia of World Beliefs, Practices, and Culture (Vol. 1 pp. 49-57). Walter, Mariko Namba and Eva Jane Neumann Fridman, eds. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Walsh, Roger (2007) The World of Shamanism: New Views of an Ancient Tradition, p. 5. Woodbury: Llewellyn Publications. ISBN 78-0-7387-0575-0.
Brunton, Bill (2003) "The Reawakening of Shamanism in the West" Shamanism vol. 16(2).
The reference given for Harner's date of birth is actually from the same source as what is now ref. 9 (Walsh and Grob, Higher Wisdom) which was reproduced at shamanism.org as "My Path in Shamanism."
Bashamfour (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 19 August 2015 

message: And more COI. I don't know if  is also Bashamfour, but the account is also a WP:SPA and has declared COI: here: "I have replaced Michael Harner as President of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies and am in touch with him. We wish to set the record straight about his career".  please see the COI notice on this talk page and your personal talk page, and read the Conflict of Interest guidelines. It is not appropriate for you to be editing WP in cases like this one where it advances the interests of your own organisation. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: And yet more COI from Harner's staff

message: Thank you for looking at my previous edit request.  
I'd like to request an edit to add Harner's education and teaching background. He received a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of California at Berkeley in 1963. He taught anthropology at UC-Berkeley, Columbia University, and Yale University. He was on the graduate faculty at The New School for Social Research and also chaired the anthropology department.
The source for this information is as follows Haviland, William A., Harald E.L. Prins, Bunny McBride and Dana Walrath (2013). Anthropologists of Note: Michael J. Harner. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (14th ed., p. 307). Belmont: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-133-95597-9. Thanks!2600:100D:B007:87B4:B1F9:A967:8375:42E (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  as the user who declined this IP's last request to see if they will be better inclined to take this request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Maybe. While this is not the place for resumes, it's acceptable to include a BLP's educational background. However I believe there was some question about accuracy of some of the claims in the past, though I think that was mostly about specific degrees and where all he had taught. I don't care much either way whether his educational background is included, though given the promotional nature of some of the past content, I'd ask for more than one source. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 01:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for considering this edit.  I will do some research and find some additional sources.2600:100D:B007:87B4:F588:1453:5D48:A11A (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: Please feel free to restore this request once you find the additional source.  Sakura Cartelet Talk 20:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: When Herner asked if was new-age or part of neo-shamanism. He said no. He's stone-age, not new-age. Plus, neo-shamans don't see Herner as part of them either. This is all in the literature. Even if some reference says Herner is, it's a misleading reference and it should not used in the lede.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F02:7000:F481:5C70:BE27:E801 (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New-age?