Talk:Michael Harner

Association with Anton LaVey

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)

Issues

Originally posted in article by a user at 64.142.86.96; moved here by Jefgodesky - The writer makes inflammatory statements (which are completely unsubstantiated here) about Harner's reputation as an anthropologist. Factually, they also get it wrong when they say he chaired the anthropology department at New York University. Harner was never at NYU. He chaired the anthropology chair at The New School.

Looks like you're right about New School; I fixed that. I also added Susan Grimaldi's contesting that Harner was not on Castenada's dissertation committee, as Noel alleged.

Is this Aztec human sacrifice guy

Or not? Stilgar135 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Aztec human sacrifice theory:

The theory that Aztecs practiced human sacrifice (which is undisputed) and cannibalism (which is disputed only by a few) because of dietary deficiency was in fact a leading 'traditional' theory regarding there society, long before the 1970s or Harner's advocacy of it. (Although this fact comes from memory, and I can't quote sources).

This theory in fact holds no water, because the Aztecs like other North American farming cultures relied on the corn/beans/squash triad, which certainly provides adequate nutrition. Although I am not certain, I think that they may have also had domestic turkeys.

Aztecs did engage in such grotesque practices as wearing the human skins of their conquered victims, and such 'clothing' has been exhibited in museums; so it is not a far cry to believe that they did in fact (as recorded by the earliest Spanish writers) engage in ritual cannibalism. The notion that they did so was certainly regarded as an unquestioned fact until quite recently.

It should also be noted that fearful belief in the reality of 'cannibal psychosis' as a spiritual 'disease' is widespread among Native American cultures, as far north as Canada; and that substantial physical evidence exists that, at least at one point in history, human cannibalism was practiced among Pueblo peoples in the area of New Mexico - at the extreme edge of the zone of Aztec cultural influence. Speaking as a Native American, there is no doubt in my mind that 'cannibal psychosis' is real, and little doubt that its influence may have been endemic in Aztec culture.

Joseph McCord [email protected]

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)

I am not familiar with the editing process, and this question / comment might need its own subheading.........but here goes..... Also noteworthy are Harner's comments at the 1966 AAA meeting in Pittsberg, where Gough and others challenged the Association's stance regarding Vietnam, whereby Mead (?) and others declared an anti-Vietnam stance did not further the professional interests nor the science of anthropology. Harner's comment, and its quite famous, was "Genocide is not in the professional interests of anthropology."

This is where I first encountered Harner. Reference: 1968. Berreman, Gerald D. Is Anthropology Alive? Social Responsibility in Social Anthropology. Current Anthropology 9(5) 1968. 391-396.

I'm new here so forgive me if I format this wrong, but I was reading this page and wanted this included in his bibliography. You're right about his theories on the Aztec sacrificial complex. The correct source is It was published in 'American Ethnologist' and is a really interesting read, but his theories are almost entirely based on Spanish accounts and his is generally considered to be a poor explanation. Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano wrote a paper in 1978 which was a direct counter-argument to Harner and it relies much more heavily on actual archaeological data. Published in 'Science', titled. Tuggsbrohe (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutrality needed in articles

Harner is an important part of 1950's [Removed remainder of paragraph: libelous, unsourced. Anomazee (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)]

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide a neutral recording of what is known, and not to take a position as to whether the subject is "right" or not. When one uses words such as "so called", "mythic" and "This resonated with the changing spiritual tastes of Western "New Agers." one is assuming the position of a sceptic, not a scholarly reporter. The concept that in fact there is such a uniform body as Western New Agers, for example, is oversimplification of complex sociological phenomena of a pluralistic society in which the vacuum left by the breaking up of the central role of the Christian churches in people's lives has been filled by adoption and then adaptation of both belief systems and direct experience systems (derivative vs non-derivative). [I should note that this phenomenon tends to be most active in Former British Empire countries... the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and of course Great Britain itself.]

The weakness of Wikipedia is in people feeling that because they can make entries onto a subject, they therefore have the competence to make entries that meet the standard of an encyclopaedia. The research on Harner is not complete because the man is still alive. When he is dead (and therefore not able to reply), history will begin to explore how his work helped shaped the second half of the 20th century. Until that happens, repositories of knowledge and fact, such as Wikipedia need to be vigilant to assure their text sticks to a neutral recitation of facts, and avoids insertion of opinion, bias and generalisations.

ClassicalScholar (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Plagiarism

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)

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)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.shamanism.org/articles/article16.html. 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)

Criticism

(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)

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)

"classic ways"

"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)

Some sentences to tidy up

"[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)

Npov

As Henry notes above, this is is a pro page with little criticismandycjp (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've replaced the NPOV dispute tag; it is not to be removed until the issue is resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No doubt, but I don't see any critical RS studies on them.

People might be interested in these sales pitch presentations to Japanese by an American associate of Harner's. The links are from an archived page, though the box advertising them is still on the current webpage. part 1,

part 2, current homepage, Japanese language version.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the NPOV flag was removed, as this still reads like an advert. - CorbieV^☊ 20:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Challenged References and Resolution of Possible Bias

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)

You are a paid editor, a Single purpose account, an associate of the article's subject, here to promote the article subject's interests[1]. 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)

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)

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)

Or (3) added a {{Page needed}} after the citation ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

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 {{request edit}} (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)

Thank you - very helpful!Bashamfour (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

I personally don't have a problem with editors getting paid for writing articles and editing them. I do have to say that this article relies very heavily on primary sources and to avoid any future problems with the article staying on Wikipedia, I recommend you work very hard to replace the primary sources with secondary or tertiary sources. It would also help that if you provide more information like the ISBN numbers of the books, showing that they are not self published, but instead went through editorial and peer review that would also make the sources more credible. Just some friendly advice-I don't like to see articles disappear from Wikipedia and I think that this information could be important to readers.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at some of the books written by Mr. Harner. They indeed were published by reputable publishing houses and this should be reflected in the references in the article. It will lend much credibility to your sources. It also looks like you need help properly formatting your references. If I help reformat the references, can I get a cut of your salary? LOL!

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 19 August 2015

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)

Request edit on 23 August 2015 Replacing Primary Sources

Replace the primary source given for Harner's resigning his professorship to devote himself to the Foundation for Shamanic Studes, Harner's article "The History and Work of the Foundation", with these secondary sources:

Haviland, Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge - already included in references

Walsh, Higher Wisdom: Eminent Elders Explore the Continuing Impact of Psychedelics - already included in references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashamfour (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing the article again today, the referenced primary source is actually given twice in the references. The first instance can be replaced with the references above. The second instance appears in the Development of Core Shamanism section after the sentence beginning "Students in the United States and Europe..." which can be replaced with Haviland, Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge.

When these edits are made, the only primary sources remaining will be citations to Harner's books and a couple of articles, references which are not used as the source of material in this article, so the banner that the article relies too much on primary sources should be removed. Bashamfour (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet more COI from Harner's staff

And more COI. I don't know if Spirittruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 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". @Spirittruth: 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)

Spirittruth and I are not the same. --Bashamfour (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing the term New Age

Hello, I work with Michael Harner and would like to request that the term "New Age" be removed from the lead section of the article. Core-Shamanism is different than New Age, as pointed out by anthropologist Joan Townsend in her book "In Shamanism: An Encyclopedia of World Beliefs, Practices, and Culture" on page 49. I have a scanned copy of the book page if you need the actual text for reference.2600:100D:B02B:D654:296A:8893:D803:DBAC (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

One author's opinion that Harner's approach is not New Age is undue weight compared to the many sources that consider "core shamanism" not only a part of the new age, but foundational to the entire neo-shamanic movement. Request declined. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly debate and disagreement around this; it's not just the single source that the original request provided. There are certainly scholars that classify neoshamanism as a New Age practice, others aren't so sure:

• Robert J. Wallis points out that while Core Shamanism might look like New Age visualization, the fact that journeyers experiences look like traditional shamanic "suggest a more complex picture" (p.73).

• Dawne Sanson considers the issue at length and concludes that the "blanket labelling of Neo-Shamanism as 'New Age' is not necessarily indicative of the nature of individual Neo-Shamanic practices."

• Jenny Blain, in an ethnographic account called Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic: Ecstasy and Neo-Shamanism in North European Paganism goes so far as to say that she does not deal with the "new age" in the book.

That's three sources that say that issue is not so clear-cut, and given that, I'm removing "New Age" from the article for now. If we want to include some hedging or something similar ("which some scholars classify as a part of the New Age"), that's fine if there's consensus, although honestly that seems a bit in the weeds for the lede to me. Suomichris (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

But not every mention of neoshamanism here is about Harner or even Core Shamanism. They aren't interchangeable here. I haven't read that particular work by Blain, but she generally writes about actual Euro traditions in folklore and surviving customs, not new age ones (though she may touch on the latter in comparison). We can't use all neoshamanims refs to source core shamanism issues; the two aren't interchangeable. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You're right, they aren't interchangeable, but (a) before I got to this article today, both core shamanism and neoshamanism were referred to as "New Age" and (b) the sources I mentioned refer to both—some to neoshamanism, some to Harner's work, indicating that in neither case it is as simple a matter as calling them "New Age." As to Blain—the preview is available on Amazon. It's very clear that she's talking about the kind of neoshamanism that would fit comfortably at neoshamanism. Suomichris (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

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)

Pinging CorbieVreccan 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)

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)

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)

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)

New-age?

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)