User talk:Ljlight/sandbox

Responding here as you haven't put this into the actual article. Be very careful how you title sources. Use the actual title of the article, page, or other publication you link to. Calling this link, Native American Healing is a pretty serious misrepresentation of the source as well as of Native cultures. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Cherokee Cultural Society of Houston? It's a cultural society not one of the three federally recognized bands of the Cherokee. Please use authentic sources.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than disrupt an already established article with information that is not of specific use by medicine peoples you could rather expand on this Native_American_ethnobotany The medicines you list are utilized by anyone both within community and by the dominant culture, not specifically medicine peoples. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Medicine Man" Peer Review- Nia Joyner

I believe that this is a very successful edit of the existing Medicine Man Wikipedia page. I think that it is very feasible. Your edits are both relevant and necessary to the existing page. The page, and the edits, are relevant to this course. Your inclusion of the specific herbs, and why they work, are very related to chemistry. If you wished to relate it more specifically to chemistry, you could research why the compounds in these herbs address symptoms. You also used a lot of important academic sources, which gives your edits a lot of credibility. I believe that your edits meet Wikipedia standards. You wrote from a neutral perspective, it does not seem like you used your sources to argue or make new points, and included citations wherever they were necessary. I enjoyed reading the content of your edits and I think that a few improvements would put this entry over the top. Your concise definition of what a medicine man is was very helpful to me, as someone with very limited knowledge of nontraditional medicine. I think that your introduction would be better served if you expanded upon it. Because your other additional sections are fairly detailed, in comparison, the introduction seems incomplete. I would consider adding more about the history of the role of "medicine man" and exploring the ways in which they are still used today. I would also consider being more specific in the geographic origins of medicine men. You mentioned that they were prominent in Native American tribes in North America, but I would be curious to read where they were more specifically. Were there medicine men in all Native American tribes? Also, I would consider including information on their roles in those societies. Were they higher class? Were they held in the same regard that we hold doctors today? Were they considered spiritual or religious leaders? Did they take on any political roles? I would also consider researching how medicine men were/are used in various cultures and societies across time. I believe that the introduction section is the best place to give context. I think that the inclusion of sections of common herbs used by medicine men was very smart. I especially like that you included tables that show what ailments that the herbs treat. I think that these sections could be improved by including photographs of what each herb looks like. Also, I think that these sections could be improved by including where these herbs can be found today. For example, echinacea can be found in tea form in various natural grocery stores. Njoyner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the fact that you past-tense medicine people, and that the author doesn't know the difference between Indigenous "medicine" and ethnobotany, leads me to conclude you are not familiar enough with the subject to be giving any sort of review here. The edits this user has suggested are not usable. This editor doesn't appear to understand the basic meanings in the article, and the fact that you got the impression these living cultures should be spoken of only in the past tense is quite disturbing. I have found this to be disruptive to the 'pedia, not helpful to it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 04:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources provided for botanicals indicate community use, not use by specifically or only Medicine People. The author clearly is not rooted in basic knowledge of indigenous people nor did they bother to do further research or they would have known that the Iroquois are a confederacy [[1]] not a tribe. The six Nations making up the confederacy are all distinct Peoples who have their own way of doing things, this includes harvesting. Indicating that the use of botanicals is an activity participated in by those who are in an established role in community is not beneficial to the article, it portrays the editors assumptions rather than fact which is established when one peruses the links as they indicate community use. Wikipedia is not the place to insert our assumptions regarding indigenous peoples nor is it the place to rewrite tradition. The use of http://www.powersource.com/cherokee/herbal.html shows that the author either does not care about or understand the issue with fake tribes There are three federally recognized bands of the Cherokee. It is not beneficial to the article to include such a ref. A large number of Nations have ethnobotany pages on the pedia already which are extremely well sourced and well written. There is also a general Native American ethnobotany page [[2]] that while it needs work is far more honest and better sourced. Ljlight, I would suggest that you double check on what you have listed as the 'area' of certain tribal communities because there are inaccuracies. Njoyner, regarding your choice to past tense living cultures, we continue to have Medicine Peoples operating in our Nations, this practice never stopped and I am not sure why you assume it did. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan and Indigenous girl, please discontinue your aggressions against myself and my project, as well as those commenting. You are harassing me and others and are making large accusations. I was highly receptive to your initial comments and I worked to resolve them, however both of you are not satisfied with that which is disappointing and frustrating. I feel mocked, rather than supported in developing an article that is clearly important to both of you. Though you say my contributions are meaningless, I do not see consensus in that opinion. I am enabling readers of this article to better understand the herbal aspects associated with the article in ways that are not present as is. There are many ways for this article to inform, and I am developing a new one. I find it frustrating that you tag-teamed to deconstruct the existing article to fit your own perceptions without warning or discussion, and rather than editing portions that should have been improved upon you deleted them. There is a place for quantification of healing in this article, as was touched upon in the former section on Effectiveness. You have no reason to come into my space and tell me that I have no right to work on this, and to go to my professor and attempt to publicly embarrass me. You clearly are interested in improving articles related to Native Americans, so rather than push away others who want to contribute why not steer them in a more effective direction? My developments may or may not be published in the end, but you are not representative of the entire Native or Wikipedia communities so I ask that you please stop harassing me and discuss with the larger community how to move forward on this article. Ljlight (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You came to the talk page and asked for feedback. So it was given. To be a Wikipedian involves working in collaboration, not ignoring the feedback of experienced editors. This is not your private page. All pages here are open to the Wikipedia community. These "peer reviews" (by other students in your class) also show a serious lack of understanding of how WP works. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ljlight this is a talk page. This is where we talk about things that concern us. Part of what comes with editing the pedia is being open to criticism. I've been criticized on both contributions and edits. It comes with the territory. I have not read your sandboxed article in a few days. A few days ago it was problematic. I am not sure how pointing out that there were gross inaccuracies and a failure to disclose and acknowledge that botanical use is something that is community wide and simply not relegated to medicine peoples is mocking and embarrassing. The pedia is about accurate unbiased representation of knowledge, it is not about preserving the feelings of specific editors. I've done nothing to mock you. If you were embarrassed that I posted on the page for your class it was not done to attack you, it was done to preserve the integrity of an article due to concerns about what was being presented and the reaction to warranted criticism on the article talk page and in your sandbox. I have not reported you because your changes have been relegated to your sandbox. I I have not yet called attention to your proposed changes in the wiki project indigenous though that does not mean that I will not. If you plan on continuing to edit when your class comes to an end I suggest you develop think skin and understand that it's not about you, it's about the pedia. To continue on something that CorbieVreccan mentioned, not only do your classmates lack an understanding of how WP works, it also shows what happens when inaccurate information is presented on a topic that the general population is not particularly informed in. People take inaccuracies and run with them simply because they have trust that due diligence was used in researching a topic. I have previously questioned the reliability of one of your links. I also question the use of http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/12_4%20North%20American%20Medicine.htm as the cited sources with in it have been highly criticized by the actual indigenous community. For example, Sam Gill has been considered unreliable since the 1990s by that community he is supposedly an expert in. He has actually been banned from the Navajo community. If you are presenting on a topic the references need to provide factual information. It is disingenuous to provide sources that work to present your personal biased views, for what ever reason, rather than authentic information. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan: - while this is a talk page, it's also a sandbox in user space. We normally cut people more slack here. It is customary to respect someone's request to be left alone on their own talk page (see WP:NOBAN), and I think the same courtesy should apply to a sandbox. After all, if someone is feeling harassed by your comments - whether you intend them to be harassing or not - it's highly unlikely that your feedback will function in a constructive way. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Also "it is not about preserving the feelings of specific editors" isn't true. "I suggest you develop think skin" is rude - it's not in keeping with the spirit of WP:CIVIL and it's rather WP:BITEy. "I have not reported you because..." is bullying - Ljlight hasn't done anything wrong - as you yourself point out - this is a sandbox. As for "It is disingenuous to provide sources that work to present your personal biased views, for what ever reason, rather than authentic information" - not only is it unacceptable to call someone "dishonest", you're also asking someone to trust you over what seems to be a reliable source. It might be true - Gillis' reliability may be in doubt. But just like everyone else here, the onus is on you to provide reliable sources to support your position. You can't expect to make pronouncements and expect people to jump based on your say-so. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a mess. The identification of tribes doesn't even match up correctly, the Oglala are not Dakota, the Cheyenne do not live in Colorado. We have very few editors at WP:IPNA, and having to straighten out yet another totally ignorant set of edits pushes our limited resources. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Medicine Man" Peer Review- Instructor

Overall, this article is in the spirit of the course assignment, and the authors did good job in researching the topic and learning how to put together an article or a section of an article. The milestones for the first assignment have been achieved, and the precise placement of this section, and further edits/improvements will be the subject of the future assignments. As noted, your work may potentially be suited for the other articles (i.e. Native American ethnobotany). Importantly, the outside critique was addressed to the degree appropriate for the current stage of your project. In my view, terms like "mocking and embarrassing" are not contributing to the productive conversation, and should be avoided in this particular case. It is often hard to identify the roots of medicinal practices as modern medicine represents a blend of knowledge and techniques. With this regard, it is useful to trace down the specific practices of various cultures and give proper credit for important discoveries. For example, I will take liberty to claim that the use of Echinacea is not something commonly shared by all cultures and its use is quite specific to North America, and that it was discovered by Native Americans. Of course, there has to be a link to Medicine Man practices for these additions to be included to this specific article. However, this project is being done for the student educational purposes and the identity of the article where this information will be included is yet to be determined. As of now, there is nothing "mocking and embarrassing" about this entry. especially considering that there might be a link (albeit controversial) between Medicine Man and discovery and use of some very important herbs such as Echinacea:

http://www.avogel.ch/en/avogel-world/avogel-stories/lakota_medicine_man_and_echinacea.php PN 14:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagornyp (talk • contribs)

Ben Black Elk was not a medicine man, his father was. Ben was an interpreter, rancher, educator and actor :) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N4APyM6Uja8J:www.sdshspress.com/index.php%3F%26id%3D1634%26sub_action%3D1%26vddnosgz%3Dvddnosgz%26action%3D960+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://www.travelsouthdakota.com/newsroom/press-releases/south-dakotas-great-faces/ben-black-elk Indigenous girl (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Medicine man" Peer Review by Ariel Dellinger

Primarily, I would say that this group did a good job at addressing the cultural context of medicine men and women in North America. The original article does is successful in explaining the basic essence of a medical man or woman, and ties together different worldly views, but is biased at times. The editing does a good job at adding new and unbiased material; however, I feel like the original work would benefit from a basic editing of content, specifically in describing how other cultures view Native American medicine men/ women. Although herbal remedies are hyperlinked in the introduction, I find that the new section addresses how Native American medicine men/women implement them in their specific ceremonies. I think that there could be a little more added to the introduction, considering it is one of the shortest sections in the article. A basic overview of the history of medicine men/women (in terms of when they were first noted to appear or who becomes the medicine man) might add another dimension. I like that the table used to describe Eschinacea outlines how different tribes use this flowering plant, but I believe that if it is used for one of the main examples, there should be an additional chart for sage, witch haze, and willow. In general, I am a little confused at if these plants are used specifically by the medicine man/woman, or if the tribe uses them collectively for their medical needs. Some of the common uses for Eschinacea include colds or coughs, so does that mean that no one in the tribe outside of the medicine man/woman can prepare these herbs? I would be more interested in see how these herbal remedies are used with spiritual issues. In general, the article focuses more on physical treatments rather than spiritual treatments, and in my understanding, both are extensively implemented by the medicine man/woman. I would recommend that the article also expand on the difference between those who employ ethnobotany and medicine men/woman, because they appear similar to a non-expert reader to myself. Furthermore, I think the article would benefit in the addition of the role of medicine man/woman in South America, if there is a main distinction between healers in North America and South America. Another potential segment could be how medicine men/women are represented in mainstream media. Are there movies that represent them in a way that supports the different views listed (as shamans, or witch doctors, etc.)? In general, the contents of each section justify its length, with the exception of the introduction, and there are terms that are properly hyperlinked to provide additional information on the different herbs and chemical compounds. The content does not appear to be on other Wikipedia pages, specifically in the description of medicine men/women in North America. The table was easy to read, but I would recommend expanding it for the other included herbs to balance out each segment. When I cross-referenced reference 13 on “Native American Herbal Remedies”, I see how each tribe uses each herb, but it does not outline specific uses by the medicine man/woman. I would recommend they find more reliable sources detailing their role directly. Overall, I understand that this article is not easy to address. There might not be an abundance of information available, and it is hard to address a sensitive topic, such as culture’s spiritual practices without have an extensive background. However, I do think that this articles change does have some merit, at least in the detailing of specific herbal remedies and in the removal of biased phrasings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajdellinger (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Ajdellinger (talk)

See comments above:[3] This is appalling. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Medicine Man" Peer Review- Emma Heiden

Overall, the group did a great job of enriching the introduction with a clarification on the role of medicine men/women in terms of both health and spiritual issues. Adding a completely new focus on herbal remedies, featuring a relatively detailed, easy-to-read chart on the various tribal uses of Echinacea, especially reinforced the fact that these nontraditional remedies are more common than a reader might think. With the potential addition of more charts for Sage, Witch Hazel, and/or Willow, as well as eliminating some of the subjective/biased content from the original page titled “Medicine Man,” this article would be even stronger. While the introductory section is very accessible for non-experts, it might be even better to expand on why understanding the role of a medicine man is important to those even who are not in a Native American tribe. The given list of healing practices is great, but could be improved with brief explanations on how some of these practices work. I found that the contents of each section justify their length, and as an amateur on the topic, I felt it was helpful that the hyperlinks on important terms like tribes, drugs, and chemical compounds were linked to additional Wikipedia pages. In terms of the highlighted examples, I particularly liked the example of the Menominee tribe using Witch Hazel for sore legs of tribesmen who participate in sporting games. Perhaps the editors could also include a more specific case of documented, proven improvement for a member of a tribe? The content is not duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia that I have been able to find. I really liked the table on Echinacea and its uses within various tribes. The table definitely seems like original work, given the formatting that Wikipedia provides. The table was simple, easy to read, and highlighted the ubiquitous yet subjective nature of a medicine man’s ability to use one plant in so many different ways. I might just add some hyperlinks within the “uses” column, so that the reader could potentially research other ways to heal similar symptoms besides Echinacea. From the brief additional research I have completed, the table on Echinacea seems to be accurate. Overall, the references are complete, and all appear reliable, relatively recent, and objective. The edits are relevant to the article that is being edited, and especially relevant to the mission of the class. In terms of potential for drug development, these edits touched on an important alternative to traditional biomedicine, which pertains to the class nicely. I think adding a section on Effectiveness was truly necessary to improve the original article. I think the editors did a great job of maintaining an objective view in the “Effectiveness” section by only proposing views that are cited with primary evidence. The changes/additions to the introduction were also justified, especially in that they clarified what terms some other cultures use for medicine men/women, which would help international readers. For the most part, the article corresponds to the Wiki standards in terms of language, content, bias and sources. However, I would delete the following section from the original page and find a way to make it less subjective: “The 1954 version of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language reflects the poorly grounded perceptions of the people whose use of the term effectively defined it for the people of that time: ‘a man supposed to have supernatural powers of curing disease and controlling spirits.’”

If more time was available, to make the entry more interesting to the reader, I would also suggest adding pictures of some of the herbal remedies or medicine men in action, and/or adding columns similar to the one presented for Echinacea, as this was a great way to quickly synthesize and skim information. To be more gender-inclusive, I am also wondering if the title of the page could be changed to “Medicine Man/Woman” instead of just “Medicine Man.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaHeiden (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

See comments above:[4] This is appalling. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)