Talk:Chuluaqui-Quodoushka

Disputed

This article does not seem to be properly sourced, nor is the tone neutral. -Will Beback 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article was researched properly

Sourced from numerous published articles, and also from the Manual of the subject in question. Tone has been adjusted to a degree sufficent to allow neutral perspectives from non-predisposed participants, but preponderence of information leads to a natural perception of non-neutral bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry Cornelius (talk • contribs)

Jerry, I do see great improvements made towards a more neutral tone. However, Will is also right that even if the information in the article came from good sources, it doesn't seem to be -- what information came from which sources isn't listed. I've sourced one of the quotes in the article as an example of how it can be done. Anything done to show people where the facts they're reading are coming from will improve the article overall. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Ok.... That's really quite clever.... I did not notice how to do, or even think of doing that sort of thing. I readily see your point.... In fact I can say I embrace it... Ok, that gives me serious food for thought.... I thank you.... J. Cornelius... March 13 2006

I read the article, and I think it seems ok. I know a bit about the "Q" and I have to agree with the article. The "Q" basically has a very bad reputation and is widely hyped among those that sell it or similar sex courses. There's really not a lot of good to be said about it. (From Dave)

I think the article was quite balanced. It's hard to come up with a neutral pint of view with a subject like this. It would be like trying to portray a villain in a good light, just to balance the article. It's well known that the Quodoushka is a money making scam. It may offer some good points but it's mostly just sex wrapped up in Psuedo-spiritual garbage. Leave the article as it is, I haven't seen any information anywhere else that contradicts the article.

To say that the article is balanced, and then use a term like "villain" to describe the subject is internally inconsistent. Large portions of this article are obviously written from a hostile perspective and include unsubstantiated and verifiably hostile claims and accusations. I am personally familiar with the subject and the people involved and I have *never* seen anything approaching what is described here. Bearheart 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a name like 'Bearheart'you are seemingly one of those New Age shamanism type who truly believe all this nonsense about it Native Sex workshops etc. It's true not all "Q" sessions are as depicted, but I too know people who have experienced the types of things listed in the article.

Disputed assertion on tantra

The opening sentence in the section on "How it works" says:

"Exactly like Tantra, Chuluaqui-Quodoushka is a form of hypnosis".

As a traditional buddhist tantric practitioner I found this assertion inappropriate, indeed eye-popping. It does not suggest a NPOV for "Tantra" and certainly begs the question as to what is "hypnosis". From a buddhist perspective, everyday conventional awareness is a form of hypnosis. And Chuluaqui-Quodoushka does not seem anything like the tantra I know, let alone "exactly" like it. Perhaps "plastic tantra" or "new age tantra" is meant here? Geronimo20 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm That might be a more accurate way of putting it.

Added a new criticism section.

I know nothing personally about "Q" myself, as I tend to stay far away from anything "new age" mainly because I'm a hereditary practitioner of something which is often misrepresented and "plasticized" by "New Age" practitioners. However, despite my bias against the "New Age" I found the "Those in Favor" section to need a serious attitude adjustment. So I took everything from "Those in Favor" where the critical claims started and moved it to a criticism section, bulleted the critical points and added language that I hope is neutral. I did this in an attempt to add more neutrality in a way that won't upset either the critics or the proponents of "Q". Also, I'm going to say that I spent most of my childhood in Quallah, North Carolina (a so called "Cherokee Reservation") and this is the first I've ever heard of spiritual secret societies in the Cherokee tribe, outside of the Ahnikutani. Somehow I doubt the Ahnikutani were heavy into sex. Anyway, I hope my edit help contribute to the neutrality of the article. -- Lucy Blackwolf - July 23rd 2006

General Cleanup and Bringing up to Wiki Standards

What needs to happen is simply to cite the sources for some of the criticical *and* supportive claims in this article that are clearly POV. I've added in a few citations, but I know the others are out there. I think with a little work we can get the flags removed from this. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in, I'd say it's less a matter of factual dispute than general cleanup being needed. The whole piece needs an overhaul for a less conversational and more encyclopedic tone. Some sections will need to be sourced or ditched. Not sure if I'll have a chance to get to this one today. Hopefully soon, though, if no one else wants to tackle it sooner. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally familiar with Quodoushka and the people involved and I can say, authoritatively, that there is very little in this artical that is factually accurate. There are a number of people who are personally offended by various aspects of these teachings and the personalities of some of the people involved. Because Dr. Reagan has long held a policy of refusing to dignify their accusations with any response, they have had free reign to make up whatever stories they like. This article is full of that "stuff", and little else. --Bearheart 17:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh Let's see now. With a name like "Bearheart" it seems quite likely that you are in fact a member of one of these so called New Age Shamanism groups that actively support Harley Reagan and his fraudulant offerings. So I would be inclined to say that your comments show a bias. Harley Reagan has never responded to such accusations simply because he cannot defend them. Reagan is also not a doctor. I too am personally familiar with Quodousha, and I fail to see anything incorrect in the article. It leans a bit to being a negative POV, but is substantially accurate. -- Aaron Strong, February 26 2007

I notice the first discussion of this article took place a year ago on March 9 2006. Today is March 8 2007. For all the comments, I haven't seen anyone offer any proof that the statements in the article are false. The article itself does cite references and corroborational statements. It seems that this article is substantially accurate and it should be put to bed - no pun intended. --Jillian, March 8 2007

Neutrality? This article? Only if you accept that Joseph McCarthy did a neutral job of depicting the "red menace" in the early 1950s. The strategy of guilt by association seems to work quite well for the author of the article. For example, the statement that "actual sexual intercourse does take place as part of the classes but only in the 'most advanced' level" seems more out of 1880s Victorian parlour conversation than a (supposedly) neutral description in this decade. Gasp! You mean sex actually takes place in a sex workshop? Horror of horrors! Or dropping the name of "porn star Porsche Lynn," with the implication that the workshops are pornographic themselves. Finally, there's a movie which has as one of the words in its title the word Quodoushka. That proves it beyond all doubt! OK; OK - by now you're thinking that I'm not being neutral. Exactly! One absolute requirement for neutrality is that a neutral article has to present both sides; this one presents a huge negative argument, then adds little snippets of (faint) praise from sources it considers questionable. Neutral? Hardly. -- Tom Davis, May 6, 2007

I believe the lack of neutrality was brought up before. It also seems that in the time of this article, no one has come up with anythintg positive to say in defence of Quodoushka. Certainly nothing that can be corroborated. Perhaps if someone has something to balance the article's POV to be more neutral they should post it. -- Erin Rose May 20, 2007