User talk:Ajwish/sandbox

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.”

    This peer review was very helpful in editing our final post. We like the idea of adding more charts for the other plants mentioned, and have done that and have taken it further in adding photos of the different types of plants we have mentioned. We have also added some information on how a tribe would prepare herbs in different ways to treat different ailments. Ajwish (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)ajwish Ljlight (talk) 21:01, 4 April 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 01:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

       I agree with the suggestion of going into further detail about the history of medicine men and their role, "spiritual, political, etc." in Native American society would improve the article, however, we feel that this is not the focus of the course. We are trying to focus more on the actual herbs utilized by medicine men as these herbs are their "drugs" and the course focuses on drugs. Since this is the main focus of the course, it was our main focus in our edits and so we did chose not to go into too much detail on this. Ajwish (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)ajwish Ljlight (talk) 21:01, 4 April 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. Ajdellinger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ariel, I definitely agree that expanding on the introduction is critical to moving forward. We've struggled to find reliable sources to use for this, but I believe that we can accomplish this. I agree that we should add some additional charts to make each herb have equal weight in our article, as well as providing a stronger connection between medicine men and these herbs. We've found it somewhat difficult to address the spiritual impacts of medicine man as many of the sources detailing this have been either unreliable or highly limited as this information is often kept those who do not specifically need to know, meaning anthropologists have often been unable to acquire information. I am very intrigued by your suggestion on analyzing the ways that medicine men are perceived in media, and if I can find established and reliable sources that present unbiased analyses I hope to add them in. Ajwish and Ljlight (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Medicine Man" Peer Review by 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). 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, 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. PN 14:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

At this point, we are deciding in what direction we want to move our article, whether it be Medicine Men or Native American Ethnobotany. Either way, we are proud of our work and think that it contributes to a deeper understanding of Native medicine. We hope to find a strong and verified link between medicine men and our edits, and to resolve valid concerns of others while adding more links within our article to other articles, refining and clarifying our figures and develop a more solid introduction that provides an overview of the role of medicine men and their connection to herbs and drugs for readers to have a comprehensive understanding of whatever we end up pursuing. Ajwish and Ljlight (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

General Response to Peer Reviews

Throughout the course of our experience editing this article, we have begun to blur Native American Ethnobotany and the Medicine Man articles together in ways that others in the Wikipedia Community have deemed to be too far a stretch. As such, we plan on focusing our edits toward the Native American Ethnobotany article rather than the Medicine Man article, unless further developments occur that point us back. We have responded to each review individually to best address the concerns and will shortly address them in our article. Thank you all for your constructive criticisms, we have taken them to heart and appreciate the feedback and direction. Ajwish and Ljlight (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Very good edits! Here are a few suggestions for your consideration.

1. I agree that what you have done may fit Native American ethnobotany better. However, that article is currently a List. It may be difficult for you to directly incorporate what you have written into there.
2. Great that you found some images on Wikimedia Commons to use in your article. If you'd like to adjust the size and location of the images more, see this tutorial Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
3. Some more terms could be linked to other Wikipedia articles like the symptoms etc.
4. Very good format of your references.
5. I have been monitoring the "conversations" you had with some other Wikipedians over your edits. From my perspective, I think you responded very appropriately. I hope the comments from Ian with Wiki Edu helped the other Wikipedians to reflect on the way they commented. And I hope you take the positive side of the experience from it. Because Wikipedia rules are so flexible, people sometimes take their own interpretations and hold it as the truth. And not everyone is considerate in the way they communicate and not everyone can think from others' perspectives. We need to take the positive advices out of it such as some sources they suggested but we also need to advocate for ourselves like what you have done. I totally agree that we do not have the time and energy to continue with that situation. Please let me know if you would like to chat in person to decide what you'd like to do with the final posting.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)