Talk:Don Juan Matus

unwitting

Carlos was an unwitting instrument of don Juan's intent. This is not to say that don Juan's teachings were not equally offered to Carlos. Carlos never grasped the teachings. In the long run, the value that Carlos extracted from his experience was more a poorly designed C don Hubbard business model that lacked appropriate mainstream consideration for success. Those who saw the teachings took from them what they could. The rest of the world identified Carlos as central and simply reacted poorly to his choice (and handling) to make money off of that fact. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.197.189 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2009 January 12

brujo

"Don Juan revealed himself to Castaneda as a brujo (Spanish for wizard)" in fact, "brujo" means "warlock" (male witch). "Wizard" would be "mago" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rixoel (talk • contribs) 21:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Original research

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)

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)

I was referring to material that has been removed since then. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

External Links

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)

Take a look at the Evergreen link again, but I'll go with whatever you decide.--Editor2020 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Bias-ectomy desperately required

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)

• Your "library stack requests" story is completely fake - De Mille never wrote anything of the sort. This fake story first appeared online on 27th April 1998, (the day of Castaneda's death, which was not announced to the public until some 2 months later).. and since then, has been copied and pasted across the internet as if it were fact - but you won't find it in any of De Mille's writings. 92.20.190.150 (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• * *

I second Geo Swan's motion, resounding agreement. Alas, so far I conclude WP 'open editing' policy and practice enables exploitive misuse like we see in this entry. Its just wide open, red carpet invitation to disinfo interests pushing propaganda impersonating fact (badly), pretending to inform. Same situation at other psychedelic hero entries (e.g. Terence McKenna ... OMG). I've found no accountability in WP, nor possibility thereof from inquiries I've made. For any 'driven' interest, WP lacks least boundaries that might at least allow for (if not guarantee) reasonable integrity of its product. For cultists - as Castaneda notoriously 'inspired' (in his name, amen) - its open season on factual validity, or even coherence. Unintelligibility glares from this article (present edit), right from the first sentence. Vaguely alluding to a - no, "the" - "series of books on 'Nagual Sorcery;" assumably referring to some or all, or - which? - of Castaneda's cultic scriptures. Libraries and bookstores without a Fraudulent Nonfiction shelf, also become complicit to literary counterfeit - wily nily.

"Truly appalling" - well said. WP needs functional policy and practice. Failing that, as per present, its 'Worst Practices' standard negligently facilitates disinfo by WP Editors-in-Service to Castanedism. WP's dismal lack of sound editorial policy/procedural boundaries, enables cultic missionaries to freely use it as a broadcast tower for their "inspirational" spin doctoring. Any attempt at redress can simply be 'reverted.' This article, under curatorship of a proprietary cultic agenda, will never offer any significant truth or information. Nor include critical sources of urgently vital perspective. E.g.:

DON JUAN PAPERS by de Mille (as Geo Swan cites) ... J. Fikes, CARLOS CASTANEDA, ACADEMIC OPPORTUNISM AND THE PSYCHEDELIC SIXTIES ... R. Marshall, "The Dark Legacy of Carlos Castaneda" (www.salon.com/2007/04/12/castaneda/) ... BBC (vid documentary, 2006) "Tales From The Jungle" (www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlI2gvSjJ4Q) - "Castaneda's life was like an earthquake, and the closer you were to the epicenter - the greater the damage" Akersbp (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) akersbp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why?

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)

OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.169.17 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

De Mille/Castaneda hypothesis.

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)

How about "suggested"? That's the word actually used by the cited source.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)