Talk:The red road/Archive 1

Archive 1

The section on Michael Webster

... is too long (it's not an article on Michael), please summarize and make room for other voices. =There are plenty of them= ... I added some book titles if that helps. It'd also help to bring in some discussion from some of the topics in See Also. Twang (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes Michael Webster's commercial site a WP:RS? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This seems just cherry picking words from a few spiritual leaders. It appears to be OR, and has been so little developed in two years, that it should probably be deleted. Parkwells (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD or Prod. Either sounds better than what's there now. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the quotes selected are not about the pan-Indian concept; nor, as far as I can see, are they about any specific culture that may use "The Red Road" to indicate a spiritual approach that differs from the pan-Indian usage. Also problematic is the usage of the phrase as a neologism by non-Natives or people with some blood but no involvement in traditional ways who believe they are practicing Native ways, independent of any Native community. That could be covered under Plastic Shaman or Cultural appropriation. So, if we cut all the stuff cherry-picked from now-deceased spiritual leaders who never even used this term - and I think we should - the article has no content. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Many problems

Legitimate Native traditions are hard to source, and write about, because the real stuff isn't meant to be written about on the Internet. But the answer is not to source statements to blogs and books written by non-Indians who have no idea what they're talking about. Quoting from commercial sites and non-WP:RS sites is right out, as well. If it isn't accurate, kosher to write about, and sourceable to WP standards, keeping it brief or leaving it out is the only acceptable option. If you want to collect profuse amounts of dubious material you just "like", make a blog or MySpace page for that. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled to see that the Vine Deloria "quote" was only half a quote, found on p. 185 of the book cited. The rest appears to have been cobbled together and synthesized from somewhere else, and then misrepresented. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, "Many Problems" is an understatement. The first paragraph under "Expressions" is in a very poor format for a wikipedia article. It needs to be rewritten to conform to the standards..right now its more like someone trying to talk to you. I am in no way qualified to do this, but it *needs* to be done. It would be preferable if someone who knows what they're talking about did so. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have gutted it again. It was full of completely unsourced opinion. That is not what Wikipedia is for. If you can't source it - not to some new age book written by outsiders to Native cultures but to reliable, WP:V, WP:RS sources - don't add it. Start a blog or something. Don't do it here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)