Talk:Rolling Thunder (person)

He's a fake
He's a fake. He is a white guy with no Indian blood whatsoever. He may have been a nice guy, with good intentions - I do not mean that he was evil - but he was a fake. He lied about his Indian heritage. Vine Deloria and Ward Churchill (also accused of being a fake) both denounced him. His real name was John Pope. He claimed at various times to be Cherokee, then Shoshone, then Hopi. He made money by charging people to become "certified" medicine people and perform ceremonies, some of which were based on authentic ceremonies he observed, and others that he completely made up. Do a search for New Age Fraud and you will see him listed repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.110.79.213 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry who ever you are. But we knew him in real life ! As did many others. You OPNIONS as to what & who is "Real" are merely your own. I highly suspect you do not accept your self & wish to be someone else & your personal problems do not belong to any one other than your self. I highly suggest you seek & reciseve help for this condition. & may I suggest whit mans medicine as you have no clue as to earth medicine or it's workings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.148.69 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Those who know, dont tell, and those who tell, dont know. You had to be there.(Mercurywoodrose)99.101.137.28 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Take the personal discussion about the person somewhere besides Wikipedia. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

If is is non-Native then some sources are wrong. Ivakhiv actually cites him as Native. Panther-Yates says he was Cherokee, but also ascribes miracles to him.  I think we should follow Ivakhiv pending better RS, and if sources conflict, then handle that per WP:WEIGHT. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 11:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who does not have solid sourcing that they are Native, but claims to be Native, is by definition, "self-identified". The source does not need to state the phrase "self-identified". This has been backed by another admin, when they reverted a pretty-much identical WP:SPA edit, which, looking over the history here brings up not only WP:COI concerns, but WP:SOCK and WP:LOUTSOCK concerns as well. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually went through the trouble of looking up the sources listed on this page. Rolling Thunder's given name being John Pope is not a controversy. A Native American man having a white man's given name is not inherently a controversy. Many Natives have caucasian names. To assert that this is controversy is a lack of education on Corbie's part. "He has been accused of cultural appropriation..." I located these sources. The Hobson one simply says to take Rolling Thunder "with a grain of salt" but states no reason why. Is that really all it takes to create a documentable controversy? The Chidester one never even mentions Rolling Thunder, and neither make claim that Rolling Thunder took money for his practice. There is also no evidence of Rolling Thunder "self identifying".
 * User CorbieVreccan blatantly lying and distorting facts on this page

For transparency, yes I am John Pope's grandson. Yes I recognize the potential conflict of interest. However anyone can look into these same issues and find what I did - that these sources are irrelevant.

Furthermore, RT stating he may belong to multiple tribes is not in itself a controversy. Somebody prominent calling him out about that would perhaps qualify.

I will continue to pursue the issue until the facts are stated instead of these dramatizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidianmsjones (talk • contribs)


 * [edit conflict] You have stated your WP:COI. And Bishonen already explained the "self-identified" thing to you last time you tried this:. Read the policy. Those too close to the topic, as you are, should not edit pages where they are too invested, as you clearly are. Other established users, including admins, have supported the state of the article I am preserving. I am neither lying, nor does the text seem to say what you think it does. Other editors included some bio details in the "controversy" section as part of establishing the section. The article as a whole could use better sourcing, but you're not the one to do it. You've tried to add your laudatory books about your grandfather, John Pope as sources. The controversies surrounding the article subject are well-known, and your career writing books about him is dependent on things like good press and the spin on the info in articles like this. Your editing history here is almost 100% self-promotional. Now you're engaging in personal attacks when asked to follow the rules every Wikipedian has to follow. If you can't follow these rules, your ability to edit will be removed. This also includes Editing logged-out and using alternate accounts, which are quacking in the edit history. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 23:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect on numerous accounts. In order... To be someone and to identify as someone are two separate things. Granted, when the public has no proof of either, then it is unknown. However you have chosen to bias on the side of self-identification. Worse, you list this as part of the main bio, as if it were proven, instead of in the controversy section with a source that would include any evidence. This is bias and against Wikipedia rules.

I already stated, and you continue to ignore, the fact that Hobson only says to take Rolling Thunder "with a grain of salt" and Chidester never even speaks the name of Rolling Thunder nor John Pope. Have you read the source material? I have. I purchased them from Amazon specifically to verify the validity of the claims on this page. Yet you continue to use these sources, one of which never even mentions Rolling Thunder. This is also against Wikipedia rules.

You state my books are "laudatory" and that I have a career in them yet I have stated in public that I neither believe nor disbelieve in shamanism, and I neither believe nor disbelieve that John Pope was a shaman. The books were created specifically to preserve the history of John Pope, not for profit. You can check the BSR's on Amazon for yourself to see that these are not profitable books. For you to take this opinionated position against my recording of this history is proof of bias. While I recognize that my familial ties here are POTENTIAL for conflict of interest, you need to also understand that I am also one of perhaps only half a dozen people in the world qualified to write his legacy, because I traveled the US collecting it for years. Whether my books sell, or whether John Pope was a real shaman are of no consequence to me. But I do care about the truth, and you are actively stifling the truth.

If you had any interest in actually preserving facts on Wikipedia you would renounce your bias, allow me to do my work here, and then FACT CHECK what I have contributed instead of assuming it is unfactual or self promotional. SidianMSJones
 * Your RfC statement is a long way from being neutral. Starting out by saying You have stated your WP:COI is not the way that we do things around here; when, my first thought was "why am I being called out on this?", as I imagine others may have felt also. Please either reword your statement, or pull the the tag. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My question is, is this person even noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article other than being an example of a fake shaman? There's so many of those around, this guy is no one special, let's be real. I would suggest putting a Pages for deletion tag on this page rather than argue with this editor who has obvious connections to the subject. oncamera   (talk page)  09:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redrose, my apologies - there was an edit conflict and formatting issue. It's not my RfC statement; It's not my RfC. This wasn't an RfC when I wrote my response. It's not really correctly formed as one now. I'm not sure what Sidianmsjones' question is.
 * Sidianmsjones posted at the top of the page, made several edits to his comments, then added the RfC tag after his comments. I was moving his text and my response down to this section, as I had already responded to him once down here, as had other editors. I also chose to change his personal attack from a section header to bolded text, so as to not repeat the personal attack with every user's edit. In the midst of that were edit conflicts. Sorry for the confusion. At the risk of further confusing things, I'll move my comment up before the RfC tag, as that's the order in which it was written.
 * Sidianmsjones' disruption to the article has been dealt with as he's now been indeffed at ANI from editing it. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * is not the way to go about fixing an RfC statement - first, as you were advised when editing that page, your edit was overwritten with the very next run of Legobot; second, per WP:RFCST, the RfC statement needs to follow the tag on this page. People coming in cold need to know the nature of the dispute before they are presented with arguments for and against. At present, it begins Incorrect on numerous accounts. In order... which is neither neutral nor informative. It's also far too long, meaning that it's  at WP:RFC/BIO. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unclear on what it is that you would like me to do. I did not start this malformed RfC. I just reconfigured the talk page to move Sidianmsjones comments from the top, down to the section where this conversation was already in progress. Again: Jones went back and inserted the RfC tag after his comments, in an ongoing discussion, in the midst of an edit conflict. He didn't format the RfC correctly. He didn't write a statement when he posted the template. So my response to him, which I had already written, got automatically picked up by the bot as the "statement". I was also surprised to see it misrepresented as an RfC statement. After you posted here, I went to the RfC page to make it clear this is neither "my RfC" nor "my RfC statement". I don't know what else to do to clarify this. -  CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have yanked it, since it clearly cannot continue as a formal RfC. But, discussion may (and should) continue. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He was a fraud. It's unclear to me what makes this person notable. I agree that AfD is a reasonable venue to clarify whether he meets guidelines. The sourcing is subpar, will clean up the ones that don't mention him. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiments of Oncamera and Netherzone above. No need to argue the point with someone so closely tied to the subject. AfD it, let the community !vote on it and what's done is done. -- A Rose Wolf  20:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Bob Dylan and Jerry Garcia saw him as a spiritual leader.
"Bob Dylan and Jerry Garcia saw him as a spiritual leader." [in the main article]

At no point did Bob Dylan see Rolling Thunder as a spiritual leader. Has someone suggested he did? Is there a reference for this?

It is more likely he saw him as a curious charlatan... But there is no evidence anywhere of what opinion Bob Dylan had. EDLIS Café 19:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/who-is-alleged-rapist-redwolf-pope-turns-out-he-is-not-american-indian-after-all/

131.111.184.102 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Panther-Yates citation
To what does this refer? It's not clear in-article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.196.36 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * He's a kook. See Articles for deletion/Donald Yates and the earlier AfD. Doug Weller  talk 10:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)