User talk:GlennMatthewE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, GlennMatthewE! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Welcome! Glad to Collaborate upgrading Ethnobiology article!

Hey GlennMatthewE .. I'm glad to see you've been tackling the Ethnobiology article!

I received a direct e-mail from Leslie passing on an invitation from you to comment and contribute .. and, yes please, I'd be glad to ! (This is one of a number of articles that I'd hoped might be expanded, grown, upgraded .. but I just hadn't got around to doing myself!!)

Maybe I'll have an initial look at the article tonight (approx 8 hours) .. in the mean time - please feel free to 'talk' either on this page (immediately below) .. or on my talk page. Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now made a few changes to the Ethnobiology article, removing clean up tag, uploading an image to demonstrate/illustrate the existence of the discipline in the world, some suggested reformating, and some 'See also' links.

I haven't actually identified and/or reviewed any new references/literature though .. and started to think some summary ethnobiological samples/example studies etc from various/each of the world's continents might be useful .. what you reckon? Bruceanthro (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now also sent a direct e-mail response on my own behalf, and on my partner Alicia's behalf, to Leslie expressing my/our agreeability to sharing info/ideas/experiences .. and, I guess, forewarning her of some of my/our more 'ethical' aspirations and biases!!

Otherwise, with regard to the Cosmological, Moral, & Spiritual I suspect Darrell_A._Posey's (Editor)(1999) Cultural & Spiritual Values of Biodiversity might be the right/good reference to go to? Bruceanthro (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you fairly recently added particularly to the Cosmological, Moral and Spiritual section of the Ethnobiology article. You'll find I myself have;

i. altered the intro somewhat.. preferencing the Society of Ethnobiology's 'definition' as an 'authoritative' definition able to be reliably referenced (as per Wikipedia standards)

ii. shifted the work you were doing closer to the top of the article to make it more readily accessible, rather than readers having to first wade through essentially a listing of sub-disciplines etc

iii. commenced early work on a history of ethnobiology, based primarily on Roy Ellen article (which I have a copy of), plus some intra-Wikipedia linking .. though I must admit I was the whole time conscious of your overriding concern to write/explain things well, in lay terms (ie plain English) for the layman ... and I fear I may not have quite got there .. but will keep trying?! Bruceanthro (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnobiology vs Ethnoecology

Hmm .. conflict regarding which is the parent of which?

I note ecology as a a 'new' science was well preceded by biology .. .and, just so with ethnoecology, I suspect it is preceded by ethnobiology (though I do note ethnobotany seems to appear in the literature before either ethnoecology or ethnobiology).

Perhaps, rather than necessarily determine which may be the parent discipline, and which the sub-discipline .. perhaps we could simply change the section heading and descriptions to read 'affiliated disciplines' .. or 'related fields of research' or such .. then have them all included!

I'll wait and see what you decide to do .. In the mean time, I'm not terribly certain about how/where to start tackling the ethnobiological 'methods' section you suggested in your last message ..

I'm also tempted to add just a little more to that history section .. perhaps explicitly crediting ethnobiology &ethnobiologists with valuing indigenous biological knowledge to such an degree that they've played an active and influential role promoting the concept of indigenous intellectual property through the Decleration of Belem, through the Rio Summitt for the Biological Diversity Convention .. on into the World Intellectual Property organisation? Bruceanthro (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that (and I'm OK with) you decided to stay with the discipline-subdiscpline strucutre/arrangement!

Following your last message .. I added a bit to the ethnoecology subdiscpline section you started up .. (I hope I didn't disturb or disrupt it too much?) .. though I note now the coverage in this article may be getting more detailed than in the main Ethnoecology article .. which defintely requires some attention!!

Otherwise .. stll intend to add Darrell Posey, international Society of Ethnobiologists, indigenous knowledge etc into the history part .. as previously signalled .. maybe tonight?!! Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get around to that extra ethnobiology history .. got distracted when looking at the ethnoecology article!!

I saw from your last edit, reference to the forward of an ethnobiology/botany 'methods manual' .. Seeing this, and knowing I have very little on ethnobiological-specific methodologies .. I think we should leave the proposed methods section of the ethnobiology article to you to start up? Bruceanthro (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Dilemma!

You may see that I've spent this Sunday night .. into Monday morning very early .. mucking around with the Ethnobiology article a bit ... most notably adding some pics plus an infobox at the bottom connecting together the various subdisciplines etc .. (I note I still haven't quite got around to bit more history..

Anyway .. in the process I started going through people identified as 'ethnobiologists' .. an dthough it is a small list .. several appear to fall outside the actual discipline and subdisciplines of ethnobioliogy .. instead falling closer to being actual practioners of alternative medicines .. even, it seems, being indigenous native american practioners of alternative medicines!!

Should specialist practioners who are themselved expert in one or more alternative traditional knowledge systems .. though not necessarily trained or committed to the more western, 'scientific', knowledge systems .. be identified and considered 'ethnobiologists???' Is ethnobiology wholly and exclusively defined by it's 'method', and the knowledge system from which it originates??

Should we be seeking to expand the article, and the defintion of ethnobiology .. to include alternative knowledge traders and practioners .. and even original informants and/or indigenous specialists themselves as kind of 'honorary' ethnobiologists .. recognizing their standing and the contribution they can/do make to the discipline/field?? Maybe we should check the memberships of the Ethnobiological societies???

What do you think and/or suggest???? Bruceanthro (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dilemma continues, in a different direction this time. Again, dabbling around on Wikipedia . .I've found a number of people with articles who are identified as 'ethnobotanists' .. but, it seems, their primary activity is in looking for, researching, and exploring the general effects of .. psydelic and/or hallucinogenic and/or other such mushrooms, fungi and/or plants.

It would seem there may be a fairly 'wild brother' branch to ethnobiology that didn't appear in the Roy Ellen and other 'histories' I was looking at .. but, perhaps, shouldn't be overlooked or shunned? If you're interested, check out the 'ethnobiologist' category (avalaible at the end of any/most ethnobiologists pages .. as I've now included a couple there .. along with the scientific ethnobiologists, and the altenative medicine practioners?

Again .. what do you reckon??

[edit] Nancy Turner "ethnobiologist" biography

Thanks for suggesting the above article.

For Wikipedia's purposes all that's needed to create and keep a biography is some good sources that discuss the person and/or reviewing their works (especially positive or notorious reviews).. and are sources independent of that person, the person's own institution/s, and/or their own immediate family etc.

It does not actually seem too hard a test/criteria to meet .. and I've often seen some Wikipedia users/editors quote a motto "Wikipedia is not paper" (ie no space limitations, favouring inclusion rather than exclusion of articles!)

See here if you'd be interested in a fuller discussion of the notability guidlines .. and think it might be useful to start up a few others ...

In the meantime .. I'm sure a biographical article on Nancy Turner will meet the test .. and I would be interested and glad to start up an article on her .. as it is all a useful learning experience!! Bruceanthro (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Cultural Knowledge Experts

I think it is a grand idea to introduce a whole new class of knowledge experts into Wikipedia's coverage of ethnobiology and ethnobiologists!!

It would be good, proper and very appropriate to include include a new section within the ethnobiology article just to discuss, identify and explain ethnobiology's (and ethnobiologists) close dependency upon other people's lores (and local experts in such lores) .. giving a little more credit where credit is due!!

Over here local Aboriginal peoples who have encountered a very western thirst for knowledge .. have described themselves as 'knowledge givers', and anthropologists and others as 'knowledge takers' .. though I'm not sure I'd find a reliable source to reference this view of the world (maybe Darrell Posey's particular emphasis on the emic and etic distinction comes close?))

I would also be keen to identify and/or create some articles on some particularly knowledgable indigenous experts .. who have made particularly notable contributions to the ethnosciences .. particularly the ethnobiologies .. but:

• I'm not sure the indigenous experts and/or the extent of thier contributions are always explicitly identified in the ethnobiological texts .. at least to the extent that may be necessary to be able to create articles naming those experts & getting such articles about them above Wikipedia's 'notability' requirements?1

• I'm not sure those texts that will be available will provide background information on key contributing experts .. to create the necessary/desired articles from a distance (recalling Wikipedia guidelines, plus editors who discourage 'original or primary research

Perhaps you are aware of, or have access to some texts identifying key experts who have 'given' knowledge to Nancy Turner and/or other ethnobiologists .. sufficient to create an article?!!

Anyways .. should we find enough articles, or be able at least to creat a few that will stay on Wikipedia .. then I'd suggest creating a additional class within the ethnobiology infobox at the bottom of the ethnobiology/ethnobiologist pafes .. entitled "cultural knowedge experts", or "indigenous knowledge holders" or some such?!! Bruceanthro (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gitxsan v. Gitxsan Nation

Hi; didn't examine the context of your reversion just now, but just to advise you briefly that the Gitxsan article is the ethnographic one, "the people", while Gitxsan Nation is meant to be for the political organization; it's a wiki convention for BC and it does get complicated; the idea is that something like "Ulkatcho First Nation" is the name used by the Indian Act government, as well as meaning in the pure ethnographic sense; so "we" for the ethnographic sense just use the plainjane name, with +Nation or +First Nation for governments; traditional governments are part of the ethnographic context/article....that's probably not very clear, so fire away with questions if you need to; see Skwxwu7mesh vs. Squamish Nation for an example.Skookum1 (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)