Talk:Carlos Castaneda

My contribution , please edit carefully

See comments in Talk:Carlos_Castaneda#Removal_of_the_Metaphysical_Aspects_section regarding Mmyotis's section formerly here. I suppose this section stub should now be removed. 67.193.183.61 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Works

The structure of the works section does not conform to the expected standard of listing the works in order of publication. The categorization employed is an expression of the ideas contained within the works themselves and should thus be moved to some other section, the ideas section for example.

The works themselves should be listed according to the date of publication.

Tom

--Mmyotis (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You criticize because you fear. Because he took a step that so many people here didn't...

(The preceding comment is inappropriate to the discussion of what should go into an encyclopedia entry. Opinions and flames don't count and should not be tolerated.) --Saturdayloo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturdayloo (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. As one outside the field of anthropology, the only step I see is the one he took off a cliff. It's a nice metaphor for an anthropologist going "native"! :o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.236.123 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's true, we didn't take the step Castaneda took - because most of us earned our degrees honestly, through the use of actual research and without resorting to plagiarism. Anyway, I don't know what "step" you're talking about exactly since Castaneda was chosen for his path, where his only purpose at the time was to do an interview for his paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.8.65 (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

...Can you all truly point your fingers with such permanence? And shakespeare? Do you really want to know? Indulge. Indulge. Indulge.

If you did not fear, you would have the power to let go of such relentless desire to know this one simple fact....

Its like studying the margin notes in disregarding the text. This is art. It should be treated as a biography.

Just let it go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.239.22 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Talk:Carlos Castaneda page is intended for discussions of how the Castaneda article might be improved. My comments relate to the structure and quality of the wikipedia entry. I'm not sure how your comments add to the discussion. -Tom Mmyotis (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda Audio/radio Interview

Does anyone know how to get or listen to the "Radio interview with Carlos Castaneda - 1968 "Don Juan: The Sorcerer"? Or whatever it may be called? Is it on the Internet?

It's available through the Pacifica Radio Archives: http://www.archive.org/details/DonJuanTheSorcerer-CarlosCastanedaInterviewedByTheodoreRoszak

I'll add it to the External links section Pahool (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Revamp

Revamped the structure of the Castaneda page to make it easier to read and follow.

First I created a bibliography page:

Further information: [[:Bibliography of Carlos Castaneda]]

Then I restructured as follows:

Original Structure

• 1 Biography
• 2 Death
• 3 Works
• · 3.1 The Mastery of Awareness
• · 3.2 The Mastery of Stalking
• · 3.3 The Mastery of Intent
• 4 Ideas
• · 4.1 Intent and awareness
• 5 Brief descriptions of his books
• 6 Significant characters in Castaneda's works
• 7 Cultural impact

• · 7.1 Related authors
• · 7.2 Books by other authors
• · 7.3 Other Creative Works
• · 7.4 In popular culture
• 8 Criticism
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 External links

Current Structure(with explanation)

• 1 Biography
• 2 Death
• 8 Criticism
• 4 Ideas
• · 4.1 Intent and awareness
• . 3 Works (renamed Toltec Masteries)
• · 3.1 The Mastery of Awareness
• · 3.2 The Mastery of Stalking
• · 3.3 The Mastery of Intent
• 7 Cultural impact
• 7.4 In popular culture
• 12 Bibliography (combines information from 5 and 7.2 plus other sources and links to a separate page)
• 6 Significant characters in Castaneda's works
• 7.3 Other Creative Works
• 7.1 Related authors
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 External links

Sections Deleted (with the appropriate information rolled into the bibliography section):

• 5 Brief descriptions of his books (taken directly from LitWeb without attribution)
• 7.2 Books by other authors (deleted and moved to bibliography page)Mmyotis (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line Mmyotis's rather elegant structure has been flattened. Does anyone know why?

I'll take a stab at minor structuring, but this should be properly addressed.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Biography citation needed

The biography section has been tagged for citation since October 2007: "Alternatively, evidence suggests[citation needed] Castaneda wrote in the traditional allegorical style of the storyteller (ethnopoetics) common to many native Indian cultures." Since no citation has been provided, the statement has been deleted as unfounded. Mmyotis (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

External links to personal blogs

The two most recent additions to external links list (Los Naguales - THE MATRIX and the relation with Carlos Castaneda's teachings, and www.perception.com.mx - El nagual de cinco puntas, conflict with wiki guidelines and should be removed for two reasons. They are unverifiable (foreign language links) and because they point to personal blogs. Mmyotis (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unverified Claims

The latest section added to the introduction has no reliable source and is probably wrong. A reliable source needs to be provided or it will be deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Section deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Toltec Masteries in the Ideas Section

The Toltec Masteries section was lifted word for word from this website: http://www.alphatrades.de/newageguide/new_age/carlos_castaneda.htm without attribution. I considered rewriting it, but it adds nothing of significance to the ideas section and has been deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace

Undid edit suggesting questions about Castaneda's birthplace. There are multiple citations from reliable sources including Time Magazine and The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Volume 5: 1997-1999 that document his place of birth. Mmyotis (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to arguments can be found here.

There's no "reliable" nor "multiple" sources. There are just one source. The investigation from Time Magazine. All other books, dictionaries etc who mention the "immigration records" and the "perunian origin" are merely reproducing this "fact" created by Time. The investigation of Time is erroneous. Castaneda are not Perunian, but Brazilian. The article in magazine are clearly difamatory and have the objective to slander Castaneda reputation, painting him as a lier. However, the magazine also reproduces what Castaneda himself says about his biography in the interview. You should put a summary of this controversy at least, and not only reproduces the "immigration records" version as authoritative, with obscure book like this Scribner stuff stating it as only version. ONLY OUT THE TIME MAGAZINE "investigation" or "acusation" without problematize it is a BAD FAITH procedure.

Because Castaneda said to TIME Magazine what he always said, from the beggining to the end. His birthplace is Brazil, nearby São Paulo. He said this in several interviews. See the Psychology Today Magazine, see the 1968 radio interview, the letters, the tensegrity seminars, the interview to Carmina Fort (published in book). Carmina mention the "perunian origin" in the beggining and Castaneda react to that and ironicize the effort to make his a perunian.

Citing the numerous instances of Castaneda's unsupported claim regarding where he was born is not providing evidence that his claim has merit. Mmyotis (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The pseudo-argument that he lies about the birthplace based on "erase personal history", a concept from the books, are weak. Erase personal history doesnt have not to do with this specific point, but the fact that Castaneda doesnt proof that TIme lie is an application of this concept. Also, there are mentions about Brazil as his birthplace much time before 1972, when the Ixtlan book is published with the chapter about personal history.

All concrete facts are in according to the date and original birthplace, you can see in the link above some of the arguments. Some of Castaneda ole coleagues recognize the brazilian origin. There one who mention a cover of time, in early 1960, with Oswaldo Aranha in the cover, and he points Oswaldo as a relative. The "Aranha" family of Castaneda is a notorious, big, and famous family in nearby São Paulo, its "Aranha" in portuguese, and not "Araña" Spanish.

Castaneda make a interview just one year after the Time Magazine publish (you should correct that in article), in 1975. He conceive an interview to VEJA, a brazilian magazine similar to time. He only agreed to talk with this magazine only because is brazilian and would be published first in brazil. He spooke with the reporter with fluence in portuguese, and also with local brazilian accent, as the reporter note. 201.34.145.243 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You claim that "All other books, dictionaries etc who mention the "immigration records" and the "perunian origin" are merely reproducing this "fact" created by Time." But of course the information has been verified by independant sources, as you can see for yourself if you read some of the evidence given in the bibliography section. If you intend to claim otherwise, you will need to provide a reliable source to support that claim.

"Of course" not. A lie repeteated 1000 times becomes true. That whats happen. If you have the theory that the "other sources" has been verified the information provided for TIME, you should precise it. You need to provide a reliable source which show the perunian origin of Castaneda BEFORE Time. Like an doc from UCLA department or something like this. There's nothing before TIME saying about perunian origim. These "immigration records" need to be verified and there are multiple possible that refer to an homonymous or are false. Its a tinny evidente about the Birthplace, you should considere more documents, not only an obscure "immigration record" quoted by a print magazine which is out of context. Time make a original investigation without give details and dont show the images from documents in article. TIME also isnt specilialist in Castaneda, nor the sources that you have mention.

The fact is, there is no controversy, there is just Castaneda's multiple false statements and the facts as discovered by independant investigators like DeMille. I agree that Castanedas false statements should be documented in the article, because it demonstrates his lack of reliability as a witness.

Of course there's controversy. You are ideological and not a researcher. You're arrogant and you act in bad faith. Its intellectual dishonesty and you know it. I caught you. You reproduce the TIME posture of paiting Castaneda as a lier to affirm the lack of reliability. TIME was difamatory in reportage, and also you make your arbitrary edits to keep the difamatory karma in author. Its a shame, because wikipedia should be free and neutral.

The purpose of WP:CIV is to promote positive dialog. Please keep you comments focused on the topic at hand and avoid descending into incivility. Mmyotis (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lack of reliability, please supply reliable sources to support the claims you are making here on the talk page. For example, don't just say things like "all concrete facts are", provide the facts. Likewise, when refering to a magazine article, state the year of publication, the name of the article, and the volume and page where it can be found. If you want it to be considered as reliable, then make a copy available and if it is in a foreign language, provide a translation so that it can be considered here as evidence in support of a US an English wikipedia article.

You didnt read the discussion and the controversy in the archive. You make the changes without consult the arguments in talk page. They archivied a discussion which was not finished. For example, a stated the year of reportage and also gave a link. You can read the full text in portuguese in http://www.consciencia.org/casvista.shtml

Revista Veja nº356 -1975 ... Website of Veja Magazine www.veja.com.br

Its ' fac-simile. I dont quote obscure books in my claim, requiring that people buy expansive books before can react to my edits. But you can check it in some serious library which keeps this magazine in archive.

This interview interview is in portuguese, as I mentioned, Castaneda talked to the reporter with local brazilian accent, which would be difficult to emulate for a perunian-born. This one is a concrete fact. I mention other evidences in the archive page. A brazilian from north would have difficult to emulate an accent from south. As perunian who learn portuguese too. Castaneda accept to give the interview just because its proposed by a brazilian magazine, after the TIME mess.

You should't require an english translation as a researcher. This is not scientific. Its very selfish and absurd. You should translate yourself, or not edit at all, if you dont know the problematic envolving this subject. Also you should read the Castaneda article in other languages. In Spanish, for example, people give credit to the brazilian hipothesis. English article is very ideological and patrolled from pseudo-academicits who wants an difamatory article.

You appear not to be familiar with the wikipedia policy on verifiability and specifically with the policy on non-english sources. If you would like the article to be considered, please provide a translation of the article so that its merits can be discussed fairly and reasonably. Mmyotis (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion that Time Magazine is not a reliable source suggests a distinct lack of neutrality on this matter. Unless you can provide evidence from a reliable source that contradicts the immigration records provided by the FBI and the geneology data provided by Time Magazine, your personnal theory is nothing more than a personnal theory and does not merit consideration. Mmyotis (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT my personal theory. Is a problematic mentioned in ALL main bibliography about the author. I already mentioned that. For example, the Carmina Fort book which are made after SEVERAL interviews with the author. There's no reliable FBI record and TIME article are bogus. The fbi record are from an pseudo-Castaneda, not the author. The author name was Carlos Aranha, he change it to Castaneda for publish the book, it's not a real name. He took the Castaneda from the maternal grandparents. An record with Castaneda name doest mean nothing. And YOU dont merit consideration, not the me or Castaneda books. I am not interested, however, in make an edit war. I hope someone in the community with sincere intentions read this controversy to pass the problematic to the public in the article. And I Hope people don't HIDE again my winner argues in an archive page, because the discussion is not closed. 201.34.145.243 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages are for discussing how an article can be improved, and your edits which suggest that Castaneda was not born in Peru must be supported by evidence from a reliable source. I am completely open to continuing this discussion, however, you need to present some reliable sources to support what now appears to be simply your POV if you want to be taken seriously. Mmyotis (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We can improve the article not taking this information propagued by TIME as reliable source and not hidding the problematic about the birthplace of the author as if the perunian information was final and authoritative. To indicate this I put a lot of arguments here and show other sources and you ignore it and have nothing in counterpoint. You have only bad posture and bad faith, you think you talk in the name of the community of english wikipedia, but wikipedia if for everyone, I am a contributor as much as you. You point me links about internal policies but you make edit war , arbitrary,m without taking care of the discussion in talk page. The perunian information was in the article at the beggining, but people take it out and put the Brazil alternative hypothesis after we discus the problem in talk. You say that this US Wikipedia, but its not true. This is ENGLISH wikipédia, and english is a world-spoken language, so please check you own procedure before give conceils to others contributors. You even don't know where you are heh ... You act like a selfish and all you have is "TIME is a reliable source, TIME is a reliable source". Or maybe the obscure genealogy that you bring. But both isnt reliables sources, as I show. The thruth is THERE IS CONTROVERSY about this subject, and you should display both (pseudo)evidences of Perunian origim and evidences of the reliability of Castaneda self-declaration about Brazil. You just erase everything about Brazil in article, and in the talk, you may want that is my POV or this a "personal theory" but ISNT. It's a main controversy in the publications about Castaneda, as I said, since the beggining, during TIME mess and after this. Point This would be neutral. But of course you dont nothing about latin america. You even dont want to read sources in the languages envolved. You may think all countries in LA are equal. You are not qualified to do this job. I would suggest that you stop edit this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.145.243 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And more... You have the explicit POV that Castaneda is a lier and not reliaby as testimonial and you make the edits based in the pov. Would be NPOV keep the information as it was... Reproduce the problematic about the birthplace, as is reproduced in TIME, explain the problem. This problematic appear in the main sources about biography, the printed publications and interviews. And i read the Wiki-page about the non-english sources, it means nothing here, they dont discard other sources, only give preferences for en when there's no problematic point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.145.243 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually he admitted making up historical facts. He was actually from Argentina. I even have an article from an argentine magazine he did where he used argentine slang and style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awp (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's really interesting news about Castaneda admitting that he made up historical facts. Well worth documenting. What is your source for that?

As for Castaneda's reportedly using argentine slang and style, Castaneda did pretty well with Spanish and English slang and style too, so I guess that doesn't mean very much. This is not the first time you've mentioned the argentine magazine article. As I said before, if you can provide an English language translation, we can take a look at it and make some judgment about its reliability. As it stands now, we have no way of verifying the claim, and wikipedia depends on verifiability. In the meantime, you could try adding theinformation and supporting citation to the Portugeese language version of Wikipedia.

BTW, let me give you a hint about pursuing the "Castaneda admitted making up historical facts" tactic. All the written evidence indicates that he was born in Cajamarca, Peru. The only evidence to support the Brazil claim came from Castaneda, so you are undermining your own argument when you claim Castaneda is an unreliable source. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this article has him being born in both Brazil and Peru. Shouldn't the most well-documented version be presented until someone can prove otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.244.158 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Witches, Chacmools, and Blue Scout

Added some new sections with a request for help expanding them. I also recommend a section be added to cover Cleargreen Incorporated. So much to do, so little time. Mmyotis (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.162.2 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideas Section

Section is Original Research and does not conform to Wikipedia policy WP:OR and has therefore been deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact section

Section is Original Research and does not conform to Wikipedia policy WP:OR and has therefore been deleted. Mmyotis (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

The following uncited statement in the Biography section sounds to me like original research: "Some commentators thought this must necessarily mark the end of the series, and were surprised to find both don Juan and his apprentice Castaneda returning for many more books in the ongoing saga."

Since there's no citation forthcoming, it will be deleted. Objections? Mmyotis (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's speculation and shouldn't be part of an impartial, descriptive encyclopedia entry. --Saturdayloo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturdayloo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you make the article a piece of bulls* .

Why are you afraid of Carlos? Maybe you're a fanatic religious. The article is very poor. I think people shoulde keep changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.237.159 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

People who believe in Castaneda are brainwashed New Age cultists. Castaneda made totally insane claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.46.155 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief descriptions of his books

I just noticed something wierd. you deleted this section in march 2008, claiming it was plagiarized from http://www.biblio.com/authors/652/Carlos_Castaneda_Biography.html, but i am the one who wrote that part, so they must have plagiarized from here. Awp (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That happens a lot. I see stuff I wrote for Wikipedia all over the place. People know we've given up for all eternity any ownership of our material so they take it without citing the source, which of course is another matter altogether and very sloppy. 24.5.236.123 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

tensegrity link

one of the links to tensegrity links to the wrong definition of tensegrity, yo. -zuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.203.208 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the note. Feel free to just make the change yourself in the future. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism Section Removals.

Apparently someone remove sections of the criticism section with out any discussion. This person removed comments that had references to them.

I question why the reference to De Mille's book "The Power and the Allegory" in discovering Castenda's university library book request where it showed Castenda was not partcipating in a peyote ceremony but was reading someone's elses discription of the ceremony in the library was removed.

DON'T REMOVE JUST CITE: I'm a first time contributor to anything Wiki, but I have just begun a Castaneda book, but was needled by doubts I found on this Wikipedia page. I got a copy of De Mille's book 'Castaneda's Journey The Power and the Allegory' looking for the source of the most damning claims against Castaneda I read: that he was actually at the UCLA Library reading about peyote ceremonies at the same time that his books claim he was in Mexico participating in a peyote ceremony. I spent two hours last night pouring through the pages of his book but found no such claims. The closest he comes is on page 60 where he says: "My theory finds him there [in the UCLA library], early in 1960, sitting unobtrusively in a corner of the special-collections reading room, perusing Volume Two [of 'Mushrooms Russia and History'] with unbending intent, taking copious notes (this time in English) on what the ethnomycologists had found in central and southern Mexico."

De Mille is presenting this as a theory. He doesn't claim here to have found any "library stack requests." If the author of this section of the Wikipedia page knows where De Mille makes such a factual claim, then it should be cited. As thoughtful and probing as I found De Mille to be in his long careful investigation into Castaneda and his work, I have to think he would find it intolerably ironic to be cited for making factual claims where no facts admit. - Mr. Aeon (October 2nd, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Aeon (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I also question why was the Time Life 1973 article on Castenda removed? Agenda? Why because it questions Castenda's claims?

The person who removed it also inserted their own POV: Nevertheless, though De Mille and Noel cannot prove beyond a doubt that Castaneda made everything up--as they clearly believe that he did--at the very least, the efforts of both men do suggest that the peyote culture Castaneda encountered was one that was not known to western science. Castaneda never claimed that don Juan Matus and his cohorts were part of any organized Native American peyote religion or part of one whose roots were in northern Mexico. He only reported what he had encountered. Castaneda's main mystical writings themselves, prominent in his later books where the use of psychotropic plants are not discussed, have yet to be dismissed authoritatively. Thus, while Castaneda's day-to-day accounts in his early books may be inaccurate (or purposefully evasive), Castaneda's discovery of a thriving Toltec mystical culture in Sonora, Mexico has no equal in literature--anthropological or otherwise. Only the recent writings of ..... offer a similar window into that culture. Castaneda's popularity remains high throughout the world.'

I would add I highly question the sources of the comments of this person. Infact many of the comments are highly dubious and has no references. It POV. Its a Criticism section not a debate club. The criticism section is about the criticism of Carlos Castenada.

Well, you know, Bill, if you read what I wrote clearly you'll see that it's meant to be a concluding paragraph putting what came before into a perspective. Everything I said is not pure POV. It's true. None of Castaneda's mystical teachings have been contradicted, analyzed, or refuted --- and even a statement such as this belongs in a criticism section. Saturdayloo (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

At the same time Castaneda's reports cant be 100% verify either. Even to this day by any anthropologist spcializing in Mesoamerca studies. --Bill--

It has been disputed if Carlos Castenda has ever even went to Mexico. See De Mille's book "The Power and the Allegory"

De Mille is only speculating in his book. There are dozens of individuals who are still alive who know for certain that Castaneda traveled throughout Mexico (as well as Latin America and South America). But then, you don't believe that, do you? De Mille makes claim after claim with nothing to back them up. Saturdayloo (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources for your statements? De Mille does provide sources and testamonies. Even Castenada library stack requests were documented. I dont think you read his first or second book even. Btw its not just De Mille but a number of others who find Castenda suspect. --Bill--

As for psychotropics. Infact Wasson a highly regarded botanical authority disputes Castenda's geographic location of botanical substances mentioned.

Shucks, Bill, I harvested peyote myself in 1969 in central Sonora. Almost got myself killed, but I did it with several friends.Saturdayloo (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do I say peyote anywhere? --Bill--

As for "thriving Toltec Culture" this is also highly disputed. William Curry Holden, Jane Holden Kelley, Edward Spicer are/were the world's leading authorities on the Yaqui. They all disputed Castenda's claims. Edward Spicer originally supported Castenada's work but later questioned his work as well.) etc.

I could go on....

--Bill-- Monday April 13, 2009

Hi Bill, I am the culprit for all of the bad things I've removed from this site. My snarks are above. I removed the wide swath of material because it was mostly speculation, some of it highly biased (I'd even say virulent) against Castaneda, and I then rewrote the entry (some of it) to read like an objective encyclopedia entry--which would include both the bad and the good about Castaneda.

And yes there is a thriving Toltec culture in northern Mexico--it is a culture, not an ethnicity. Castaneda never claimed to discover a hither-to unknown group of Yaquis. He came across a group of diverse individuals who were engaged in certain mystical practices established in Mexico, at least formally, since the early 1700s, none of whom were in the beginning Yaquis. Now, all of this could be bull. But I wanted the entry on Castaneda to simply be objective and not slanted so heavily toward Castaneda's critics. And, by the way, just because someone says Castaneda _could_ have done something (such as copy material from a UCLA library book), doesn't mean he actually did. This is the entire thrust of DeMille's book.

Saturdayloo (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As for "Toltec culture" this notion (of Toltecs) is highly disputed by academic scholars. Even though the Aztecs speak of the Toltecs through their mythology. Of course you can argue with the historians and archeologists. --Bill--

"And, by the way, just because someone says Castaneda _could_ have done something (such as copy material from a UCLA library book), doesn't mean he actually did."

Doesnt mean he didnt either. Once again LOTS of anomalies, coincidences of convience etc. Too many in my opinion. --Bill--

"Castaneda never claimed to discover a hither-to unknown group of Yaquis. He came across a group of diverse individuals who were engaged in certain mystical practices established in Mexico,...." This would make them a religious sect or cult then.

--Bill--

The criticism section is not NPOV. It now reads like a defense of Castaneda and a denunciation of his critics. It is FAR from NPOV. [note: I edited this section to remove comments directed toward a particular user. I apologize for my original post. I only needed to reference the material, not the author.] Pahool (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems that user Henry123ifa is making an attempt to bring some counterpoints to the currently biased nature of the criticism section. Unfortunately, this seems to be mostly in the form of unsourced parentheticals. I propose reverting the Criticism section to its March 28, 2009 version, before Saturdayloo began removing all the sourced material that was actual criticism. I am reviewing the edits one by one, but on the whole, they have removed sourced material and turned the Criticism section into a defense of Castaneda against his critics. The current criticism section can be moved here to the talk page, for discussion, but I think reversion is in order since this was a removal of sourced material from the Criticism section by a lone user. Pahool (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pahool, I changed the language of the criticism section because it was highly biased _against_ Castaneda. It treated his critics unquestioningly and that, to me, was inappropriate. It basically said that because a handful of Yaqui experts had not heard of don Juan or that some Yaquis might have used peyote, that therefore what Castaneda experienced must be a hoax. But, you're the expert here. Go ahead and rewrite it the way you want it. I don't care. Saturdayloo (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the previous version of the criticism section contained sourced material that was removed to create a largely unsourced criticism section that's sole purpose seems to be to refute Castaneda's critics. I think the summary analysis above of what the previous criticism section said is largely unfair to the authors of that section. It contained materials from a variety of sources and referred to quite a bit more than just the questionable existence of don Juan and the use of peyote among the Yaqui. Among other things, it listed legal conflicts that were removed without any stated reason, which are certainly relevant in a criticism and controversy section. (I know the "controversy" label was removed, but this was done by the same editor who has removed all the sourced material.) The Willis excerpt has been stripped down to look like a vindication of Carlos Castaneda when the entire content of the original excerpt would have to be categorized as skeptical at best. De Mille's material has been almost entirely removed, and whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his research certainly deserves more than a cursory dismissal in a section on Carlos Castaneda criticism.

I am not making any claim to be a Castaneda expert. In fact, I came to the Wikipedia page to get more information about him. I am aware that he is a controversial figure and I believe that his critics deserve a voice in this Wikipedia article. I don't believe that the previous criticism section contained language that was biased, as the current criticism section clearly does. Presenting critical material in a criticism section in a wikipedia article is appropriate, especially when it is properly sourced. The previous section was not flawless, and could stand some work. But I definitely think it is a better place to start from than the criticism section we currently have. Perhaps individual issues could be discussed on the talk page before drastic changes are made to the article?

Having said that I am rolling back the content of the criticism section to the March 28, 2009 version. Saturdayloo seems to have acquiesced to that and I think that it's a good starting point to begin with cleaning up this section. I will be moving the current content of the criticism section here, to the talk page, for discussion purposes.

Pahool (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Below is the criticism section that was removed when I reverted that section to the March 28, 2009 version: Pahool (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While Castaneda's actual writings in Toltec mysticism, the discovery of the assemblage point, and "stalking the self", have never been questioned or analyzed in any fashion, Castaneda's early anthropological writings have been criticized by a number of academics. They were early on seen by some as highly suspect in terms of anthropological fieldwork, particularly in relation to the extent to which his critics claim Castaneda expropriates the research of Barbara Myerhoff without attribution, fictionalizing on the basis of her field research. However, since Myerhoff's writings were published in 1974, six years after Castaneda published The Teachings of Don Juan in 1968, such a criticism is invalid (although Castaneda wrote numerous works after Myerhoff's 1974 writing). Indeed, most of Castaneda's current critics settle for the idea that the stories are fictitious or that they are part of Castaneda's effort to erase his own personal history in accordance with the precepts he learned from the old nagual, don Juan Matus, who had embarked on a similar procedure when he was young, studying under a Nagual named Julian.

One genuinely conflicting aspect of his work is the description of the use of psychotropic plants to induce altered states of awareness. In Castaneda's first two books, he describes the "Yaqui way of knowledge" using for assistance the use of powerful indigenous plants, such as peyote and datura. In his third book, Journey to Ixtlan, he makes clear that the use of psychotropic plants ("power plants") or substances was not necessary to achieve heightened awareness, although his teacher advised their use was beneficial in helping to free the stubborn mind of some persons. He says that don Juan used them on him to demonstrate that experiences outside those known in day-to-day life are real and tangible.

In Journey to Ixtlan, the third book in the series, he wrote: "My perception of the world through the effects of those psychotropics had been so bizarre and impressive that I was forced to assume that such states were the only avenue to communicating and learning what don Juan was attempting to teach me . . . That assumption was erroneous."

The closing part of this quote (after the ellipses) was not present in the article, so I have restored it, since without it what remains is a gross misrepresentation of the passage quoted. 67.193.183.61 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Robert J. Wallis, in his 2003 book Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Contested Ecstasies, Alternative Archaeologies, and Contemporary Pagans: "At first, and with the backing of academic qualifications and the UCLA anthropological department, Castaneda’s work was critically acclaimed. Notable old-school American anthropologists like Edward Spicer (1969) and Edmund Leach (1969) praised Castaneda (although Edward Spicer later found Castaneda's work to be highly suspect), alongside more alternative and young anthropologists such as Peter Furst, Barbara Myerhoff and Michael Harner. Although Furst and Harner are running highly profitible shamanic oriented busineses.

The authenticity of don Juan was accepted for six years, until Richard De Mille and Daniel Noel both published their critical exposés of the don Juan books in 1976. Most anthropologists had been convinced of Castaneda’s authenticity until then; indeed, they had had little reason to question it."

Nevertheless, though De Mille and Noel cannot prove beyond a doubt that Castaneda made everything up--as they clearly believe that he did--at the very least, the efforts of both men do suggest that the peyote culture Castaneda encountered was one that was not known to western science (even though similar peyote cultures were documented by anthropologists). Castaneda never claimed that don Juan Matus and his cohorts were part of any organized Native American peyote religion or part of one whose roots were in northern Mexico. He only reported what he had encountered (even if, according to his critics, he made it all up). Castaneda's main mystical writings themselves, prominent in his later books where the use of psychotropic plants are not discussed, have yet to be dismissed authoritatively.

Thus, while Castaneda's day-to-day accounts in his early books may be inaccurate (or purposefully evasive or deceitful), Castaneda's discovery of a thriving Toltec mystical culture in Sonora, Mexico has no equal in literature--anthropological or otherwise (even though no anthropologist have found this culture makes it highly suspect). Only the recent writings of Miguel Ruiz offer a similar window into that culture, even though Ruiz is not an anthropologist. Though Castaneda's popularity remains high throughout the world, he is mostly dismissed by academics.

Hey, Pahool, nice job. Now you've created an entry that suggests that Castaneda's writings were hoaxed; that he made it all up; and that nothing he wrote is of any merit. This is clearly now an anti-Castaneda site. It's not objective by any means. So, you win.Saturdayloo (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add any properly-sourced relevant material that you want. I only objected to the fact that well-sourced critical material was being replaced with relatively unsourced defenses of Castaneda. Castaneda is a controversial figure. This discussion, if nothing else, illustrates that. You may disagree with his critics. But the criticism section is the proper section for critical material, if it is relevant and properly sourced. Before removing other people's work, why not start a discussion here on the talk page. That gives the community an opportunity to respond to proposed changes. If you go ahead and remove well-sourced material capriciously, you are going to encounter resistance. Also, Using personally derogatory language on the talk page is kind of bad form. People are going to respond a lot better to your changes if you are civil. Pahool (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it't seems the Castaneda-stormtroopers are still trying to sabotage this article. Along the same line there's a "lecture" on Wikiversity which is total bull****. It's obviously written by some brainwashed Castaneda, who's miserable enough to still believe in Castanedas hoax. You can believe what ever you want, but that page is propaganda. Why don't you let Tom Cruise lecture on Scientology then? Here's the Castaneda-propaganda page, please delete: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.173.165 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I remove this insertion made. It was obvious bias and lack sources.

"However, de Mille does not reveal how he came upon this seeming-discrepancy, as there are very tenuous references to dates and times in "The teachings of Don Juan". Yet de Mille asserts that he has such proof." Henry123ifa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Removal of the Metaphysical Aspects section

This section may not have been perfect, but it was well-sourced and it was removed wholesale without any discussion. I am reverting it to the state it was in before it was removed on March 29, 2009. If you have particular objections to the material, perhaps a discussion could occur here on the discussion page? Pahool (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The section should be removed, and relevant aspects merged into more appropriate parts of the article. I also think what remains of it after dispersal should be much shorter. I ask, "metaphysical aspects" of what? The first subsection ("The Witches") has no metaphysical context whatsoever. There is little that is "metaphysical" in the other subsections. Please let more competent hands make changes to the article. 67.193.183.61 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, the section definitely didn't warrant the "metaphysical aspects" title. The information was still valid and well-sourced however, and it certainly had biographical relevance. I am not the author, I was only restoring what I thought was valid information. Please refrain from making insulting comments. Pahool (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Castañeda?

Why is changed the surname of Castaneda? He signed his books with Carlos Castaneda. Look on Amazon.com books... --Violetova (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering the same thing... this Wikipedia page is the only place online I see him referred to as Castañeda rather than Castaneda. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoax?

Shouldn't it be made more obvious that Castaneda created a huge hoax? Should this article be in the hoaxes category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.46.155 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You dont have any rigth to put this article in hoaxes category.

There is a lot of people who truly believe his work. If you put this in hoax, then you have to put also christianity,islam, scientology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.76.147 (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 96.50.10.234 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that Castaneda created a hoax is more than ample. See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0969696000/roberttoddcarrolA/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0310577314/roberttoddcarrolA/ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=richard+demille http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595144993/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Death

Did he die of liver or pancreatic cancer or both? Both are listed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The linked to image of the Los Angeles county death certificate is somewhat hard to read, but it states the primary cause of death as metabolic encephalopathy, and the secondary as liver failure, both due to hepatocelullar cancer. In simple terms, he died from complications of liver cancer, pancreatic cancer is not mentioned. According to the article on Hepatocellular carcinoma, the term is used for a tumor that develops as a primary malignancy, not for one that develops from metastasis.

By the way, two different causes of death aren't the only conflicting information the article provides, there are also two different places of birth: Cajamarca, Perú, in the writer info box, and Juqueri, Mairiporã, Brazil in the Biography-section right next to it. Obviously, one of them has to be wrong. The death certificate says Brazil. Textor (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of psychotropic substances

I have objections to the first paragraph of this section:

His accounts of hallucinations from psychotropic plants paralleled the "Mind Expansion" hippy ideas of the 60's, and sold in large volumes to the hippies. In contrast, the indigenous Mexican indians that ingest Peyote and Datura do so very rarely, only once a year for peyote, in a deeply sacred communal ceremony, rather than on their own for philosophical insights. It must be added that Castaneda wrote that he ingested peyote in a group situation.

The first sentence is true but doesn't support "misrepresentation". The second sentence says "In contrast" but the items counterpoised are not comparable.

Even if the paragraph was restructured, I don't see a basis for misrepresenation. To the best of my knowledge, during all the years of his alleged apprenticeship, Carlos claims to have ingested peyote only twice, and ingested or applied Datura only three times, so if the original author was suggesting this contrast their criticism is false.

The use of the term "deeply sacred" is loaded. There is nothing demonstrably less sacred about his apprenticeship than there is about other practices involving psychotropic plants. Finally, the paragraph ends with a sentence asserting (correctly) that Castaneda reports ingesting peyote in communal ceremonies, nullifying the last possible contrast contained here.

On the basis of these criticisms, I have removed this paragraph from the section. 67.193.183.61 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Book source

"He may be lying, but what he says is the truth": Book chapter on Castaneda in The Invention of Sacred Tradition, Cambridge University Press 2007, discusses Castaneda's reception. Could be a useful source. --JN466 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Removal

"This too is also debatable as most North and Central American Indigenous languages are not phonetically transcribed, let alone found with a symbolism to correspond with the linguistic imagery being described. Moreover, original discussions of these works were conducted in Spanish syntax, which in various situations is not kind to the type of semantics necessary for proper English translation. The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. And it is often found by linguists that English has great difficulty in matching many ancient and indigenous American continent languages to the frame of description and understanding that the Indo-European language family is built upon. "

I remove this from the criticism section. It is not referenced at all. Its more of a personal commentary. Also the topic is about criticism of Carlos Castenada.

Ifa123 Feburary 17, 2010

Castaneda murderer, cult leader, fraud.

I'm alarmed by the overlooking/hiding of the obvious murderous, cult-like and fraudulent aspects of Castaneda's life and works. It seems to be very biased and someone should edit it or revert it to before it was changed.--Ageebo (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased much? Shii (tock) 06:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

New Yorker Artilce, his life in Peru, ...

This article lacks details about Carlos's youth in Peru and his life as a student in the USA before he received his PhD. There are details of this availble in articles and in the recollections of Peruvians who knew Carlos or his Peruvian daughter who might still be living in Peru. To understand him you need to know rual Peruvian culture. Has anyone gone to Peru and interviewed Peruvian anthropologists? Has anyone gone to his home town and found the people who went school with him? Or talked to his daughter who obtained a visa to visit him in California? Why was he taken out of high scool and forced to finish high school in Lima? What about the people who were his early friends in California? Until you add this background information you are leaving out important facts that might help everyone better understand his writings. What I do know is that things I've read, heard, or experienced in Peru are presently missing from the article. Stan Osborne (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Questioning the Changes made in the "Reception" section (formally called "Criticism" sections)

With the more recent changes I believe alot of information was unfairly cut out including referenced sections such as the March 1973 Time Life article about Carlos Castenda. I think previous changes also took out of alot of De Mille's material as well.

---

To cut & paste what was there befor the changes were made. (see below)

Criticism Castaneda's writings have been criticized by a number of academics, and have been seen by some as highly suspect in terms of anthropological fieldwork. Various critics have tried to reconcile Castaneda’s accounts with his own personal history and those of his fellow apprentices, with no success. Some hold that this is proof that the stories are fictitious but others believe that Castaneda made a strenuous personal effort to erase his own personal history, in accordance with the precepts he learned from the old nagual, don Juan Matus, who had embarked on a similar procedure earlier.

One conflicting aspect of his work is the description of the use of psychotropic plants as a means to induce altered states of awareness. In Castaneda's first two books, he describes the "Yaqui way of knowledge" using for assistance the use of powerful indigenous plants, such as peyote and datura. In his third book, Journey to Ixtlan, he makes clear that the use of psychotropic plants ("power plants") or substances was not necessary to achieve heightened awareness, although his teacher advised their use was beneficial in helping to free the stubborn mind of some persons. He says that Don Juan used them on him to demonstrate that experiences outside those known in day-to-day life are real and tangible.

In Journey to Ixtlan, the third book in the series, he wrote:

My perception of the world through the effects of those psychotropics had been so bizarre and impressive that I was forced to assume that such states were the only avenue to communicating and learning what don Juan was attempting to teach me.

That assumption was erroneous.

According to Robert J. Wallis, in his 2003 book Shamans/Neo-Shamans: Contested Ecstasies, Alternative Archaeologies, and Contemporary Pagans:

At first, and with the backing of academic qualifications and the UCLA anthropological department, Castaneda’s work was critically acclaimed. Notable old-school American anthropologists like Edward Spicer (1969) and Edmund Leach (1969) praised Castaneda, alongside more alternative and young anthropologists such as Peter Furst, Barbara Myerhoff and Michael Harner. The authenticity of don Juan was accepted for six years, until Richard de Mille and Daniel Noel both published their critical exposés of the don Juan books in 1976 (De Mille produced a further edited volume in 1980). Most anthropologists had been convinced of Castaneda’s authenticity until then — indeed, they had had little reason to question it — but De Mille’s meticulous analysis, in particular, disproved the veracity of Castaneda’s work.

Beneath the veneer of anthropological fact stood huge discrepancies in the data: the books ‘contradict one another in details of time, location, sequence, and description of events’ (Schultz in Clifton 1989:45). There are possible published sources for almost everything Carlos wrote (see especially Beals 1978), and at least one encounter is ethnographic plagiarism: Ramon Medina, a Huichol shaman-informant to Myerhoff (1974), displayed superhuman acrobatic feats at a waterfall and, according to Myerhoff, in the presence of Castaneda (Fikes 1993). Then, in A Separate Reality, don Juan’s friend don Genaro makes a similar leap over a waterfall with the aid of supernatural power. In addition to these inconsistencies, various authors suggest aspects of the Sonoran desert Carlos describes are environmentally implausible, and, the ‘Yaqui shamanism’ he divulges is not Yaqui at all but a synthesis of shamanisms from elsewhere (e.g. Beals 1978).

As early as 1973 a Time Magazine article had questioned

"... the more worldly claim to importance of Castaneda's books: to wit, that they are anthropology, a specific and truthful account of an aspect of Mexican Indian culture as shown by the speech and actions of one person, a shaman named Juan Matus. That proof hinges on the credibility of don Juan as a being and Carlos Castaneda as a witness. Yet there is no corroboration beyond Castaneda's writings that don Juan did what he is said to have done, and very little that he exists at all."

Serious analytical criticism of Castaneda's books did not emerge until 1976 when Richard de Mille published Castaneda's Journey: The Power and the Allegory, in which he argues, "Logical or chronological errors in the narrative constitute the best evidence that Castaneda's books are works of fiction. If no one has discovered these errors before, the reason must be that no one has listed the events of the first three books in sequence. Once that has been done, the errors are unmistakable."[10]

The most damning instance of this, according to de Mille, is Castaneda's relations with a witch named 'la Catalina.'

In October 1965 Carlos-One went through an ordeal so unexpected and disturbing that he sadly withdrew from his apprenticeship and avoided don Juan for more than two years. The ordeal was a night-long confrontation with a powerful enemy who had assumed don Juan's bodily form though not his accustomed gait or speech....

Curiously, when Carlos-One begged don Juan to explain what had happened during the "special" event, 'the conversation began with speculations about the identity of a female person' (Castaneda's emphasis) who had snatched Carlos's soul and borrowed don Juan's form. The lady was not named, and the reader was left to wonder whether the galvanizing impersonatress was in fact a certain 'fiendish witch' called "la Catalina," who had been mentioned briefly on November 23, 1961, four years earlier. At that time don Juan had said he was harboring certain plans for finishing her off, about which he would tell Carlos-One 'someday.' Poor Carlos-One had to wait ten years to learn about those plans in Tales of Power, but Table 2 reveals that Carlos-Two, traveling a parallel time track, carried out those plans with moderate success in the fall of 1962, when he met the magic lady six times in a row, once as a marauding but indistinct blackbird, once as a sailing silhouette, and four times face to face "in all her magnificent evil splendor" as a beautiful but terrifying young woman. Reacting to those encounters, he felt his ears bursting, his throat choking, his hands frozen, his body chilled, and his arms and legs rigid. The hair on his body literally stood on end. He shrieked and fell down to the ground. He was paralyzed. He began to run. And he lost his power of speech.

Here we are asked to believe that a flesh-and-blood anthropologist who enjoyed this tumultuous supernatural affair with a glorious witch in 1962 did not recall her name in 1965, did not make the connection between the last meeting and the previous six when sorting through his field notes in the safety of his apartment, did not put it all together when naming her in his first book, but found the memory "as vivid as if it had just happened" on May 22, 1968, a few pages into his second book. Even if we could credit this uncharacteristic amnesia, we would still have to account for don Juan's equal failure to name 'la Catalina' in 1965. The puzzle is easily solved by switching from the factual to the fictive model. The abrupt, unsatisfying ending to The Teachings is not a symptom of ethnographic battle fatigue, for our campaigner has already survived six such battles with colors flying. It is only a serialist's preparation for the next episode, a cliffhanger that makes us hungry for another book.

On these showings, one thing is certain. "The Teachings of Don Juan" and "Journey to Ixtlan" cannot both be factual reports.[11]

In the The Power and the Allegory, De Mille compared The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui way of Knowledge with Castenada's library stack requests at the University of California. The stack requests documented that he was sitting in the library when his journal said he was squatting in don Juan's hut. One of the most memorable discoveries the De Mille made in his examination of the stack requests was that when Castaneda said he was participating in the traditional peyote ceremony—the least fantastic episode of drug use—he was not only sitting in the library, but he was reading someone else's description of their experience of the peyote ceremony.

Henry123ifa Thursday May, 20, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Ruiz

Is there any reason to have a link to the article on the above author? A quick look at the page in question doesn't show anything other than publishing the same type of book.Autarch (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shamanism

• I was advised to read C Castaneda by a Lanzarote (Canary Islands) friend of a Toronto based sculptress. When I realized that this was just witchery, and told them, they became astonished. Some of the things Castaneda depicts appear also in the writings from men of the spanish religious missions to Mexico: the jump from a cliff, the "confession" of sexual sins by those going to take peyotl, were seen with horror by these priests. The keys to enter the Castaneda shaman world are not many: the definition of a sorcerer would be: 1) I am my own father, 2)A sorcerer is interested mainly in this world and only in this world, and 3) The control of "dreaming", that starts by watching your own hands while dreaming. A core issue in the shaman's world is "how far do you go in the way of power depends on the power itself", i.e. the power is not something, the power is somebody.

Castaneda opens one of his books by a quotation from San Juan de la Cruz, the spanish mystic,about "The lonely bird", but the shaman world is totally opposed to the catholic religious environment: to the Christian advise: "Love your enemy, do the good to those that hate you", don juan's proposal is "You will be able to harm your enemy", to the commandement "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect", Castaneda proposal is "I am my own father", and "A sorcerer must be impeccable". Drugs, even when cited several times in the Castaneda books are not the core of the "separate reality" access, it's just a matter of mental work, and adherence to an obviously satanic world. Better don't mesh with this, the end can be the one Castaneda tells: being chewed by something like a dinosaur. The data you give about Castaneda death, although few, are compatible with a liver cancer, that is many times related to B hepatitis infection, whose marker is Anti VHB core Antibodies, a condition related with not very good sanitation measures, as in the Peru C Castaneda was born. Salud + —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you just making a list of shortcomings in Christianity that are solved by shamanism, or what? It's not pertinent to the article... Shii (tock) 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

My intention was remarking some cardinal traits of the Yaqui and Shaman way of knowledge and approach to the world and life, and point that it is radically different, if not opposite, to Christian beliefs,I don't want to say this, Christianity has no shortcomings, christians do have, one of these can be flirting with shamanism.

No, I don't think such POV statements about Christianity can be added to the article... on Wikipedia, Christianity and shamanism are equal. Shii (tock) 13:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Quoted Referenced Material Removals

I dont believe there is no justification to remove qouted referenced material. One should refer to wikipedia policies about that. Therefore some of the removals have been reverse in the "Reception" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic summary, not a thesis paper. Shii (tock) 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is an encyclopedic summary" what does wiki say about how long an article can be??? imo I think to compare it to a thesis paper is maybe stretching it abit. What is the average length of a thesis paper? Note there are some pretty lengthy articles in wiki such as "Islamic Golden Age", "Alchemy", "Christianity", "Islam", "Freemason", "Shamanism" etc.

Regardless that still does not mean you can remove qouted reference material (if you can rewrite a shorten version of it while still keeping the references thats fine. I have no problem with that). If I recall correctly it is wiki's policy to reference statements and or claims. Further more befor removing anyone's work its common courtesy to at least discuss it on the talk page befor removing it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 August 2010 Henry123ifa

Removal of literary hoax category

I've removed the literary hoax category from the article. This is my view: According to Literary forgery, a work can be described as such if it is "presented as an original, when in fact it is fake". It goes on to say that it is a case of "the text not be[ing] what it purports to be according to its meaning". The problem, it seems to me, in describing Castaneda's work as a hoax, is that there is no definitive evidence as to whether or not his writings are fictional. There is a notable amount of circumstantial evidence to this point, in terms of internal contradictions, and a lack of corroboration. However, since Castaneda writes of essentially mystical and religious topics, to frame it as a hoax would be illegitimate for the same reason that citing the wealth of internal contradictions and factual errors in the Bible, and claiming it to be a hoax. It is the case of two apparently non-scientific and non-realistic narratives, which both have its believers and supporters. Again, the veracity of Castaneda's work has not been conclusively disproven, which his critics recognizes (as seen in the Wallis quote).

Even so, it there was a category for "Purported literary hoaxes", that could be a pertinent sorting. But without sufficient evidence, I think it's injust to frame any author's work, in total, as a hoax. Mystical or not.

One these grounds, I'm reverting. Your thoughts? Shoplifter (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2010(UTC)

There are no grounds for reverting. Sufficient proof exists - like the records from the U.Cal. library. Why aren't you asking what proof there is in favor of Castaneda's claims? He never bothered to submit anything verifiable, like photographs or sound recordings. Instead, he told lies, like about having been born Dec. 25, 1935, in Sao Paolo, Brazil. But his immigration file says 1923, Cajmarca, Peru.

As to "writing on mystical and religious topics": in his thesis project, he also made numerous factual claims based on alleged anthropological field work on Yaqui culture. Many of these have been found to be wrong. Academic degrees should be awarded for advancing science through honest and productive efforts, not mendacious flights of fancy. Textor (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I essentially agree with you on the standards of academic conferment. I too think Castaneda's work should've been subject to intense scrutiny in the scholarly context prior to him receiving a degree. I also find the U.Cal circumstances troubling. But I still think that the evidence available does not suffice to categorize his output, as a whole, as faudulent. If there was an article or subsection on his doctoral thesis, the (sourced) claim of a possible hoax should be included.

In regards to proof in favor of Castaneda's claims, I think that the standard applied must be one of innocent until proven guilty, as far as making an absolute sorting (which is the case with a category). The accusations and corroborating evidence are included in the article, and, in lack of defintive proof, I think we should let everyone make their own judgement. Shoplifter (talk) 10:43, 16 July

2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that his writings are truthful? He claimed to have turned into an animal, and jumped from a high cliff unharmed. But reliable witnesses there are none. He alleged the Yaqui people use peyote, when other anthropologists showed they do not. Why don't you apply your standards of proof to Castaneda's own words? The Literary Hoax category seems entirely justified, as long as his writings are not credibly substantiated. Textor (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, Castaneda's work is mystical in nature. In the Bible, Jesus is purported to have walked on water. This has by some been interpreted literally, as a factual event, by others as metaphorical or symbolic. Because of the unambiguously religious context; from a scentific point of view, these narratives are not treated as treatises. They are treated as stories, which have believers and followers, but that are outside the domain of science.

I think you're misdirecting your skepticism a little. No scholar acceps claims of supernatural events as fact, and nobody has done so in the case of Castaneda. His critics are not repudiating his account of events on this basis. As far as I can tell, their main gripe with his work is whether he did conduct serious antrophological research to support his descriptions of mundane scientific investigation, such as the one you referred to about the use of peyote among the Yaqui people. That is a legitimate, scholarly inquiry, which can be empirically verified, and thus circumstantial evidence has surfaced, suggesting that Castaneda did not carry out the kind of research he professed to have done.

Again, however, as far as this evidence is concerned, it is not sufficient to categorize his entire ouevre as fraudulent. The subsection devoted to reception of his work casts a long shadow, and seems to have been written by a person critical of Castaneda. Personally, I think stern exploration of facts in itself can be useful, so I don't have any problems with it. But one must, I think, separate the supernatural events from those that can be explored within the current realm of science. Shoplifter (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What was removed in the "Reception" section

Are they important enough to be included in the article? Discuss.

Further discrepancies appeared. As early as March 1973 a Time Magazine article by Sandra Burton had questioned - "... the more worldly claim to importance of Castaneda's books: to wit, that they are anthropology, a specific and truthful account of an aspect of Mexican Indian culture as shown by the speech and actions of one person, a shaman named Juan Matus. That proof hinges on the credibility of don Juan as a being and Carlos Castaneda as a witness. Yet there is no corroboration beyond Castaneda's writings that don Juan did what he is said to have done, and very little that he exists at all." -

- A respected botanist Gordon R. Wasson originally praised Castenada's work later began to question the accuracies of Castenada's botanical claims. -

- The leading anthropological authorities at the time specializing in Yaqui Indian culture namely William Curry Holden, Jane Holden Kelley and Edward H. Spicer (whom orginally supported Castenada's account as true) had questioned the accuracies of Castenada's work. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 06:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

These individual accounts are unnecessary in light of a larger consensus. Shii (tock) 05:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now what is wikipedia's policy on "individual accounts are unnecessary" due to "larger consensus"? (Since when does wikipedia uses "larger concensus" as a criteria for submitting information?? huh huh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign your posts... just type ~~~~ after your insights. Anyway, with the large quotes in the article none of these other individuals' opinions are necessary. Shii (tock) 01:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

References

*slow clap*

I'm sure there is some kind of raging wiki-controversy about this article, so I would just say to those editors in the reality-based community who are trying to "fix" it: Don't bother. The work in its laughably bloated, hagiographic state, complete with idiosyncrasies of capitalization and grammar, is actually much more damning than any WP:NPOV article could ever be. TiC (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This claim cannot stand without a source!

As Carlos wanted a child but did not want to lose his personal power he enlisted a man named Adrian Gerritsen from Utah to father a child for him. Says who? hgilbert (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dividing biography and books

I have divided Castaneda's biography and his books - something he had trouble doing. hgilbert (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Thankyou very much for helping ensure a properly structured and true account ( as accurate and Neutral as possible ) is presented for The Carlos Castanedas page - / I have though returned the Original Opening Paragraph as it seems to cover his works in a Broader sense /apology for editing your comment here as Im not sure where else to thank the contribution appreciated. From Paul in Australia.

Vandalism

In the "Reception" section (formerly "Criticism" section)

There has been some tampering of the qoutes (things that De Mille & Wallis never said) And the complete removal of a qoute from the Time magazine article (which was replace by another qoute by someone) that I have now recover. If you go back far enough you will see how and where the qoutes have been tamper with. (Writing is not my strong point so please correct my writing errors.) I do know wiki has a policy against vandalism.

I also want to thank the person who has been working hard organizing and cleaning up the "Reception" section. It looks alot better now than befor!

(talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Henry123ifaHenry123ifa (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

== Vandalism / Reply and Extras added to "Reception Section " Introduction Paragraph at TOP - NO WHERE IN ANY VOLUMES HAS CASTENEDAS CLAIMED THAT - the sorcerors world was an INNER experience Unless this person can verify this statement with excerpts from the Writings of Castaneda I will make a Vandalism claim to wikipedia publishers / he always maintained that it is a PRAGMATIC Real world to be intercepted by our OUTER senses, I have corrected this statement twice Now

In the "Reception" section (formerly "Criticism" section) - I have added to start his reception on The POSITIVE reception Firstly - which the Author deserves also for public to know he has supporting Critics as well as Critics who question his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.45.194 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To 'unsigned' person can you qoute the passage you are refering to. It will make it easier for everyone to know what you are reading & refering to. Henry123ifa (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In Reply From "unsigned person" to Henry 123 - Thank you for pointing this out appreciated. The quotation in question has been removed - The Carlos Page is now as 8/3/2011 Exactly as it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.56.123 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Paragraph "BOOKS" Is a quoted statement - from the moderator of the Carlos C Page( The moderator is wrong ) - "He also says the sorcerer bequeathed him the position of nagual, or leader of a party of seers." This statement ( Bequeathed )is not correct- In the books Don Juan responded to Carlos "that THE SPIRIT Chose" -not he himself as Don Juan - I propose to have the word removed please - and instead replaced with the words "Identified Him" as being more correct to the works of Castanedas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.56.123 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ill agree with that - someone likes big words lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.44.253 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasson/de Mille/POV bias

Quote: "Despite the widespread popularity of his works, some academic critics question the validity of Castaneda's book as early as 1969. In a series of articles, botanist Gordon R. Wasson, who had originally praised Castenada's work, questioned the accuracies of Castenada's botanical claims.[10]"

Wasson made two main claims: firstly, that hallucinogenic mushrooms did not grow in the Sonoran desert. This was completely wrong, as a quick Google will confirm. (De Mille made the same assertion and his publishers had to recall that first edition of his book and print a new edited edition, without any apology btw).

Secondly, that trees that were big enough to climb did not exist in the Sonoran desert. This is also completely wrong. There are many species of tree that fit the bill. Wasson seems to think that the Sonoran desert consists entirely of the "classic" desert landscape. How can such an academic make such elementary mistakes? What were his research skills like?

Quote: "Anthropologists specializing in Yaqui Indian culture (William Curry Holden, Jane Holden Kelley and Edward H. Spicer), who originally supported Castenada's account as true, had questioned the accuracies of Castenada's work[11]

This was put to bed years ago in the 1970s. Castaneda wrote that, although originally believing that he was learning a Yaqui belief system, he had to change his opinion when Don Juan told him that it was in fact an ancient "Toltec" belief system.

Quote: "In The Power and the Allegory, De Mille compared The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge with Castaneda's library stack requests at the University of California. The stack requests documented that he was sitting in the library when allegedly his journal said he was squatting in Don Juan's hut.Italic text One discovery that de Mille alleges to have made in his examination of the stack requests was that when Castaneda was alleged to have said that he was participating in the traditional peyote ceremony—the least fantastic episode of drug use—he was sitting in the UCLA library and he was reading someone else's description of their experience of the peyote ceremony.

I can't find any specific dates as alleged by de Mille in any of those early books of Castaneda. Without such documentary evidence, de Mille's evidence is just hearsay.

This whole article reeks of bias.. and to use the web sources 1) and 2) as references says it all. They lead to two ad hominem sites that are as far removed from serious critical analysis as is possible. It all points to the origin of this article's mood as coming from that sort of site. The previous (now edited) use of christian names of the main protagonists is a dead giveaway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.190.96 (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding comments made. To quote User talk:78.147.190.96|talk: " Wasson made two main claims: firstly, that hallucinogenic mushrooms did not grow in the Sonoran desert. This was completely wrong, as a quick Google will confirm. .... Secondly, that trees that were big enough to climb did not exist in the Sonoran desert. This is also completely wrong. There are many species of tree that fit the bill. Wasson seems to think that the Sonoran desert consists entirely of the "classic" desert landscape. How can such an academic make such elementary mistakes? What were his research skills like?'' "

Did Wasson EVER made such claims? From which academic journal? Giving the history of vandalism and certain individuals posting fabricated information it should be ask.

Wasson from my understanding went to Mexico in 1953 to search for hallucinogenic mushrooms. Where he was able to contact a Mazatec curandera named Maria Sabina. And as a result wrote an article about it in Life Magazine in 1957(Castenada's The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge was published in 1968 which was 11 years after Wasson mentioning hallucinogenic mushrooms in Mexico). ???

REPLY: Wasson published some papers in which he threw doubt on the botanical claims of CC regarding the Sonora Desert. The papers are cited at the beginning of the Wiki article. If you think that this is hearsay, why haven't you criticised the inclusion of the Wasson reference in the first place? Why is it even there, when his claims were disproved in the 70s, leading to the withdrawal of de Mille's first edition by his publisher?

Henry123ifa reply: You take put words out of context. Wasson questioned the accuracy of CC botanical claims now where does he specifically say "hallucinogenic did not grow in the Senora desert" (in those papers)? You claim that Wasson's "claim" was disproved in the 70's can you cite your source for this? According to whom??? To emphasize Wasson from understanding went to Mexico in 1953 to search for hallucinogenic mushrooms. He is well known for his LIFE MAGAZINE May 13, 1957 article on curandera Maria Sabina and the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms in Mexico. This is 11 years prior to the publication of A Yaqui Way of Knowledge(1968).

Also what is the source that de Mille's first edition was withdrawn by his publishers? Where does this info come from??

qoute User talk:78.147.190.96|talk " (De Mille made the same assertion and his publishers had to recall that first edition of his book and print a new edited edition, without any apology btw). "

I'm skeptical of the source of this. A publisher is going to spend thousands of dollars to recall a first edition over a tiny thing??? What is the original source of this information comming from? One can put this in the category of hearsay just as well.

REPLY: It wouldn't have cost "thousands of dollars" and it most certainly was not over "a tiny thing". All they had to do was pulp the remainders of the edition- it didn't involve recalling books from thousands of bookshops: the print run was a relatively modest one and it would not have been a costly exercise. Check de Mille's print run and sales figures: relatively small.

Henry123ifa reply: You said "The Publisher was protecting itself against litigation, which would have run into thousands of dollars.. and which they would have lost because their printed information was false." Do you have sources or evidence for this claim? It still seem mostly speculative hearsay. One has to ask what is the original source of this info comming from?

To qoute User talk:78.147.190.96|talk [ " Quote: "Anthropologists specializing in Yaqui Indian culture (William Curry Holden, Jane Holden Kelley and Edward H. Spicer), who originally supported Castenada's account as true, had questioned the accuracies of Castenada's work[11] This was put to bed years ago in the 1970s. Castaneda wrote that, although originally believing that he was learning a Yaqui belief system, he had to change his opinion when Don Juan told him that it was in fact an ancient "Toltec" belief system. "]

Some might consider that to be back peddling though. First Yaqui. Then Huichol. And then finally "Toltec"?

REPLY: I think you mean "back-pedalling" but "back-peddling" brings a smile. CC didn't back-pedal: he wrote the "I am a Toltec" (DJ) quote before any criticism: the critics obviously hadn't caught up with this fact when they called him out on the "Yaqui" reference, possibly because they only read the first book... and btw.. CC never wrote anything about DJ or his "teachings" being Huichol.

Henry123ifa reply : You said "...he wrote the "I am a Toltec" (DJ) quote before any criticism:...." can you cite the specific published source of this information? And specifically when it was written by CC? (chronological time period is important here)

LOL your right I should have spelled it as "back-pedalling" not "back-peddling".

Henry123ifa (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Henry123ifa (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Distinct POVs ensure a NPOV article

Yes, I will try to collaborate here; hopefully this can improve this article (please, be patient). My background: I read all books by Castaneda, and many others related sources written by mystics, critics and supporters, and not only in English but also in Spanish. Yeah, I am truly knowledgeable about Castaneda (you don’t need to believe me, I really don’t care). So what? My POV? Well, I think he was not completely but significantly honest in his first three books, and later he did what any writer does: he mixed literary fantasy and facts but keeping intact the core of his message, the alternative view of the don Juan’s world. Did he lie? Yes, sometimes. Did he tell the truth? Yes, sometimes. Was he a hoax? Of course not, but his books shouldn’t be taken word for word. The good news it is that English Wikipedia embraces foreign sources specially when English refs are absent. Of course English WP aims to be a universal and therefore a complete encyclopedia and not only one built on written English texts. English WP wants comprise the whole world knowledge and bring this to English language, obviously. However the bad news it is that sometimes bizarre things happen in English WP: when editors (creators) source foreign references, some critics ignore such materials, disqualify, and delete the content and refs. Therefore English WP has a huge flaw in its set of rules, and such attitude shouldn’t be tolerated because it is vandalism. The onus of a translation has to be enforced to the critics as a rule. WP cannot lose knowledge because critics don’t want so much work. Remember, creators are volunteers, they already made hard work providing sourced information, thus, don’t be ridiculous and irresponsible making demands, or removing knowledge. Removing content from foreign source it is obscurantism and violates NPOV. And even worst: unfortunately continuously emerge editors making their own interpretation of WP rules/guidelines, disregarding other sources/opinions, enforcing exclusively their POV, and thus instigating edit-wars like historically we see in these repulsive battlefields settled in Wikipedia. Different sourced POV should be added, enriching the article; nothing sourced should be removed; that was the plan to WP, what did happen? One more example of how grotesque all this is: demanding tags are evil and unaesthetic, most of the time they don’t help to improve WP, they belong to the Talk page, not in the article, but for some procedural disaster lost in time, they started to be put in main space. Wake up, the hardest part of an encyclopedia it is to write and source articles, yeah I know you know that. Oh yeah, I was almost forgetting: What I wrote here I took some parts from others discussion/user’s talks (I hope you don’t mind).

Very well, I think this article precisely reveals all these structural problems; among them it lacks of foreign references (official documents, mainly). I will stop here pointing out one example: Castaneda’s death certificate says he was Brazilian while immigration register says he was Peruvian; which American department received wrong information? You really don’t know. Therefore both possibilities should be present in the article. Where are they? That it is only an example of many not NPOV here. Eddietrich (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

An angle I don't see anyone using is the material from the 30th Anniversary edition. Castaneda specifically calls out Professor Clement Meighan "who started and set the course of my fieldwork and Professor Harold Garfinkel "who gave me the model and spirit of my inquiry", Professor Robert Edgerton, "who criticized my work from the beginning", Professors William Bright and Pedro Carrasco "for their criticisms and encouragement", and Professor Lawrence Watson "for the invaluable help in the clarification of my analysis." (Frontispiece, 1998). So if this man's web is so easily pierced by Library Records, or sequence of events, wouldn't one of these professors have known? Some have passed on, but would any notes exist? Basically, the article reads like something from about 1990 before the web really caught on. Maybe the mystique is passing, because if it was really important to someone, someone would have checked with the University(ies). This edition has been out there for 13 years. TaoPhoenix (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link to Wikiquote

The link to Wikiquote would seem to indicate that there exists a page there about Castaneda. It is only a search link, and the page http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda was deleted over 2 years ago due to ¿lack of attribution?

As a side note, it does seem odd that there is no Wikiquote page, for such a prolific writer/seer/cult leader or whatever people want to refer to Castaneda as.Halibutron (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

First person passage

The following was inserted inappropriately in the text of the article: My introduction to Guadalupe was in 1993 at a midnight ceremony in the hills overlooking Santa Fe, New Mexico.[who said this?] Over the years we became good friends, and she often came to stay in my home in Canada. When my son[clarification needed] was born (1997), Guadalupe stayed several weeks with us and shared many stories about her life. Until then she hadn't talked about herself. Of Castaneda, she had very little to say. "He took our knowledge, our stories, made his millions, and didn't send money to us even though we were poor as dogs" (G. de la Cruz, personal communication, September 26, 1997). She told me that one of Castaneda's wives contacted her after his death to set the record straight, promising to publicly credit Guadalupe's father. Guadalupe returned to Mexico and became very ill. I never saw her again, and I have no idea if her father was ever credited. I'm copying it here in case anyone wants to find where it came from and reference it. I'll excise it from the main article. Autarch (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking more closely, the rest of the paragraph also looks like a copy-and-paste: The late Huichol shaman, Guadalupe de la Cruz, told the author[who?] that her father was the real 'don Juan' on whom Carlos Castaneda modeled his fictional sorcerer teacher (G. de la Cruz, personal communication, September 15, 1997). His books sold in the millions and were still in print for years after his death from liver cancer in 1998 (Frey, 2007). According to Guadalupe, who inherited her father's 'sorcery bundle', Castaneda stayed at her father's house many times over the course of nearly a decade, taking notes. Guadalupe said Castaneda never credited her father. Nor did he credit her shaman husband, Ramon Medina, who also spent time with Castaneda. Today most people assume don Juan never existed and was entirely fictional (Applebome, 1998). Some doubt whether Castaneda even traveled beyond his local library (de Mille, 1976). Autarch (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A New Approach

This sad article and sadder talk page needs a whole new approach. Clearly, it cannot be determined whether Castaneda's writing is factual or fiction. It can't even be determined where he was born. However, that should not prevent a good encyclopedic article from being written. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus for an example of a well written article where the fundamental facts are in doubt. That article doesn't sink into internal dispute over whether the bible is fact or fiction. It simply, and skillfully, reports the contents of the bible and what various sources say about it.

With regard to Castaneda, report what others say - with references. Castaneda himself says he was born in Brasil; Time Magazine says he was born in Peru. That's the encyclopedic approach. Same with the fact vs. fiction nature of his writing - these sources say fact, while these say fiction. Report all widely held points of view from published sources and be done with it. It is important for the reader to be told when there is uncertainty. Wikipedia is here to report, and not to take sides in religious disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanHuie (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Credulous much?

I noticed in reading this article that all of Castaneda's claims were treated as factual and all of his critics suspicions couched in terms like "alleged". Surely, this is an indication of bias, no? Phiwum (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"RECEPTION" section (information removed)

" Anthropologists specializing in Yaqui Indian culture (William Curry Holden, Jane Holden Kelley and Edward H. Spicer), who originally supported Castaneda's account as true, had questioned the accuracies of Castaneda's work[11]"

Why was it removed (in December 2011)? The article now ONLY has anthropologists who praise Castaneda. When infact there has been several anthropologists (mentioned in the qoute) who questioned Castaneda's research.

The article is no longer neutral.

Henry123ifa (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it was removed because the footnote, "[11]", is not a valid citation and as the article is edited, the citation numbers change. If you want to readd the sentence, please source it correctly. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The footnote "[11]" was the old footnote source. The new footnotes was included.

The issue of neutrality has still not been adressed. Henry123ifa (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what you're doing? Please use only reliable sources (pages on Angelfire.com are not generally considered reliable) and please also use full citations, the name of a book with a year and page numbers is incomplete. We need the author, publisher and ISBN as well. Yworo (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Distinct POVs ensure a NPOV article. With the mentioning of only anthropologists who supported CC's work it cant be neutral.

Yep I am working on that.

btw Thanks

Henry123ifa (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The new lies of Carlos Castaneda

In my opinion the original versions of Castanedas first 4 books ( The Teachings of Don Juan; Separate Reality, Journey to Ixtlan and Tales of Power) were truly beautiful, the rest were twisted and wrong, this was because he failed completely in his "leap into the abyss" and was rescued by another brujo who has since used his fame for his own needs. Don Juan had already abandoned him as a useless cause.

The present versions of his first four books have been massively re written with much important detail removed, such as the discussions of objects of power...virtually rule 1 in the teachings of don juan..." never accept an object of power from someone that you wouldnt trust with your soul" ( on the castaneda website...www.cleargreen.com...the first thing that one sees are objects of power FOR SALE !!!!!), the whole story of the nagual woman has been removed, the jump into the abyss isnt mentioned until the last chapter of Tales of Power...the battle for his lost soul ( the corn magic ) isnt even there, the peyote and humito sequences are much editted and glossed over..

Truly a travesty and an obvious indication of the lack of pure intent and impeccability. In fact the impeccable aspect of Castaneda is his weakness and deceit.

Tragic waste of beauty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.205.28 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous

The article is filthy and utterly untruthful.

Not because it doesn't describe verifiable facts. It probably mostly does that.

It is filthy and disgusting because it doesn't give even a remotest idea about the content of Castaneda's books. That makes it utterly untruthful and makes you guys, who have compiled it, charlatans of the highest order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Floyd Pink (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Please fix it. I will support whatever you want to add. Shii (tock) 03:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Academic credentials

While the UCLA Dept. of Anthropology might want to now stay far, far away from association with his work, it is not typical to describe individuals who have received a PhD as "students". Either just describe him as an "author" or "author and anthropologist" but he is not merely a "student of anthropology". Someone who has that designation would be a college student who had taken a few classes in the discipline. Whether you approve of his work or not, he was awarded a doctorate by the University of California and shouldn't be referred to as merely "a student". 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe useful link - the magical worldview

It may make sense to add a link to the writings of Bob Makransky (eg Thought Forms), who met Castaneda and writes that over the decades, whilst following Castaneda's books, he was able to validate most of what was written. The current wiki page takes only the consensus reality perspective/worldview, not the magical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.238.18 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Alas, Wikipedia has a strict policy of adhering to consensus reality. Shii (tock) 20:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Richard de Mille and Scientology.

Richard de Mille was a Scientologist, who co-founded the movement with L.Ron Hubbard, as writer (nom de plume D. Folgere), self-publisher and P.A. Although he inferred that he had lost belief in the movement, by stating that he had fallen out with Hubbard in the 1950s, he continued to publish works on Dianetics and delivered Dianetics-based treatment and seminars right up to the time of his death. (There is no forthcoming evidence of any involvement of his with the splinter group Scientology Freezone, a group of disaffected Church members who state that they have left the Church and formed a breakaway Scientology group).

This Castaneda article uses references to other Scientologists and websites connected to Scientology and as such is biased.

The article in no way resembles an encyclopedia entry and should be ruthlessly edited to remove all traces of personal bias and Scientology. As it stands at the time of posting, it is a blatant advertisement for the Scientology-biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.183.40 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Noel doesn't seem to be a scientologist. The only connection I found to de Mille is that his book came out around the same time. Is there some reason that this scientology connection with de Mille is notable? Bhny (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing?

Okay if I do a bit of copy edit to organise the information in the article? It seems scattered atm. I'd like to be bold etc, but am aware it's a precious subject to some. Manytexts (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead Shii (tock) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

False statement concerning Richard De Mille's book.

Quote (Reception section): "In The Power and the Allegory, De Mille compared The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge with Castañeda's library stack requests at the University of California. The stack requests documented that he was sitting in the library when allegedly his journal said he was squatting in Don Juan's hut. One discovery that de Mille alleges to have made in his examination of the stack requests was that when Castañeda was alleged to have said that he was participating in the traditional peyote ceremony – (the least fantastic of many episodes of drug use that Castañeda described in his books) – he was sitting in the UCLA library and he was reading someone else's description of their experience of the peyote ceremony. Other criticisms of Castañeda's work include the total lack of Yaqui vocabulary or terms for any of his experiences.[16]"

This is not true and is an edited cut-and-paste from the referenced book ref. 16.

Nowhere in the cited De Mille book can any such allegation be found. He mentions no documented 'library stack requests', no examination of any such material. He does theorize that Castaneda may have been sitting in the UCLA library when he wrote that he was in Mexico, but does not go beyond this proposition. He makes no mention whatsoever of having witnessed and documented such evidence from the UCLA library.

In the light of this and with the lack of any supporting opcit., this paragraph should be deleted and the referenced book 16 removed.

So I shall now try so to do.

EDIT: When I preview this page, it looks fine, but when I save it, there is some extraneous text (article references) that appear under my text. I want to edit them out, but I can't see them in preview.

?? 89.240.162.127 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good call on the removal of that material. Regarding the references, some posters above forgot to add {{reflist talk}} when placing references in a section on talk pages. I have corrected that now. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

"In January 1960 Carlos married Margaret Runyan. Even though there are many rumors of a divorce in 1973, they were actually never divorced and were still married at the time of Carlos's death in 1998. On August 12, 1961, Carlton Jeremy Castañeda was born in Hollywood, California. Carlos spoke of CJ as his biological son and is listed on the younger Castañeda's birth certificate as his father.

Castañeda also married Florinda Donner-Grau in Las Vegas in September 1993. According to his will of April 23, 1998, Castañeda adopted Patricia Partin also known as Nuri Alexander."

Implying, as it does, that the subject of this article was a bigamist, this section contains no attribution nor references and therefore should be removed, which I shall now do.

89.240.167.146 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)