Talk:Traditional healers of Southern Africa/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 00:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories

 * Category:Zulu words and phrases
 * This appears to be leftover from when the article was named Sangoma. Is it OK if I move the category to the redirect? Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved. The word "sangoma" is now properly categorized as a Zulu word instead of "Traditional healers of South Africa". Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions

 * Sangoma or sangoma. You've got both in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * sangoma - it's a (bad) habit of mine to capitilise nouns - I will fix on next edit Mycelium101 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thwasa or thwasa? Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Capitalize "Western-trained" and "Western medicine". Don't capitalize " western Bantu migration". Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Blockquotes

 * Your blockquotes should only contain quotation marks if the original quotes contain quotation marks. As far as I can tell from the material you are using, they do not, so they should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

 * For the Serer people's sacred place of worship, see The Point of Sangomar
 * I'm not sure why this is here or if it should be here. Can you explain it? Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only reason that I could see that it has been put here is if people misspelt Sangomar as Sangoma and vica versa, else it has nothing to do with Sangomas or Southern African traditional healers except that it looks like a sacred place for the West African Serer religion. I notice that there is a hatnote pointing to Sangoma's on that page too, however, apart from the similar spelling, they have little else in common.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycelium101 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is a typo hatnote then? As of 2011, these were discouraged, however if it is necessary, we use Distinguish or a form of Redirect-distinguish.  In other words, "Sangoma redirects  here.  It is not to be confused with Sangomar" or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Added Redirect-distinguish, however, I do not think it is needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I don't think it's needed either, however, I am unsure of the etiquette of removing it. Do we need to notify The Point of Sangomar?
 * No, but we probably should create a redirect for sangomar. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I created a redirect for sangomar and removed the redirect from this page Mycelium101 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

 * I'm not sure I understand the current structure of the lead. Right now we have separate paragraphs on types, roles, etiology, ritual, medicine, numbers, differences, contemporary practice, and terminology.  Many of these paragraphs can be merged together, for example, medicine and etiology; types, terminology, and differences; roles and contemporary practice, etc.  This is just an example.  The introductory paragraph should summarize the topic, with additional paragraphs drawing the reader in to the secondary topics. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Work in progress
 * Traditional healers of South Africa are shamans and practitioners of traditional African medicine in Southern Africa. They fulfill different social and political roles in the community, including  divination, healing physical, emotional and spiritual illnesses, directing rituals such as birth or death rituals, finding lost cattle, protecting warriors, counteracting witches, and narrating the history, cosmology, and myths of their tradition. There are generally two main types of traditional healers in South Africa within the Nguni societies of Southern Africa cultures: the Diviner, commonly known as a Sangoma, and the Herbalist, commonly known as an Inyanga. They are highly revered and respected in their society, where illness is thought to be caused by witchcraft, pollution (contact with impure objects or occurrences) or by the ancestors themselves, either malevolently, or through neglect if they are not respected, or to show an individual her calling to become a sangoma (thwasa). Estimates of the number of indigenous traditional healers in South Africa range up to 200,000, compared to 25,000 western trained doctors and are consulted by approximately 60% of the South African population, usually in conjunction with modern biomedical services.


 * For harmony between the living and the dead, vital for a trouble-free life, the ancestors must be shown respect through ritual and animal sacrifice. Traditional healers work in a sacred healing hut or Ndumba, where they believe their ancestors reside. They have specific coloured cloths to wear to please each ancestor, and sometimes wear the gallbladder of the goat sacrificed at their graduation ceremony in their hair. They summon the ancestors by either burning sacred plants (e.g. Imphepho), dancing, chanting, channelling or playing drums. Traditional healers will often give their patients Muti, medications of plant, animal and sand origin imbued with spiritual significance, often with powerful symbolism - e.g. lion fat is given to promote courage in the youngsters. There are medicines for everything from physical and mental illness, social disharmony and spiritual difficulties to potions for protection, love and luck.


 * Although the word sangoma is a Zulu term that is colloquially used to commonlly describe all types of Southern African traditional healers, there are differences between practices: an inyanga is concerned mainly with medicines made from plants and animals, while a sangoma relies primarily on divination for healing purposes and might also be considered a type of fortune teller. In modern times however, due to a number of factors such as urbanisation, colonialism, apartheid, cross-cultural mixing etc. the distinction has become increasingly blurred and traditional healers tend to practice both arts.  Traditional healers can interchange these roles by fulfilling the role of doctor by diagnosing common illnesses, selling and dispensing remedies for medical complaints, while also divining the cause and providing solutions to spiritually or socially centred complaints. Each culture has their own terminology for their traditional healers, and Xhosa traditional healers are known as ixwele or amaquira in their own language. Ngaka and selaoli are the terms in Northern Sotho and Southern Sotho respectively, while among the Venda and Tsonga people they are called mungome. The Tsonga people also refer to their healers as n'anga.
 * Fair enough - I see what you mean. I will merge the paragraphs into a more concise and flowing summary Mycelium101 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Although there is nothing wrong with having sources in the lead section, by the time you reach GA level, you should have the most important information sourced in the body so that the lead is, for the most part, a summary of what is already sourced so that in many cases, you don't need sources in the lead except for controversial statements and quotations. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed "either malevolently, or through neglect if they are not respected, or to show an individual her calling to become a sangoma (thwasa)." because it doesn't make sense. Feel free to add it back in if you can make it work, but remember, the lead should summarize not go into detail.  That sentence was also much too long, so split it up if needed. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I just added the mention of neglect of the ancestors, and it looks fine now.  I also reinserted the terminology regarding the different cultures.  Culturally in South Africa, it's very important to reflect these terms and it needs to be mentioned very early on in the article (We don't have 14 official languages for nothing).  I removed some of the sentences from the lead (eg nbumba) and put them in the belief section.  The other details are not that relevant to the lead or article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycelium101 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs and tradition

 * First two paragraphs are unsourced, as are the last two sentences in the section. The general rule is at least one reference per paragraph at the minimum. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done Mycelium101 (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The philosophy is based on a belief in ancestral spirits (called amadlozi in Zulu. They perform a holistic and symbolic form of healing, embedded in the beliefs of their culture that ancestors in the afterlife guide and protect the living.
 * What does "they" refer to here? The sangomas or the spirits?  It isn't clear. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the sangoma that perform the holistic and symbolic form of healing etc. I have updated to reflect that. Mycelium101 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say "The philosophy is based on a belief in ancestral spirits", what are you referring to? The philosophy of the sangoma, the philosophy of ngoma, or the philosophy of traditional African medicine? Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sangomas are able to access advice and guidance from the ancestors for their patients in a number of ways
 * Shouldn't this say "Sangomas believe they can access advice and guidance..." We're talking about their beliefs, not asserting that their belief is "true". Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with that - I have updated Mycelium101 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The sangoma performs a holistic and symbolic form of healing, embedded in the beliefs of their culture that the ancestors in the afterlife guide and protect the living.
 * Could you please reword this? I'm not sure what that comma is doing there, and it should probably be two sentences. "Embedded in the beliefs of their culture is the idea that the ancestors in the afterlife guide and protect the living", or something like that.  You're missing something in the current version. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the 1st 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph to read as follows : A sangoma is a practitioner of ngoma,a philosophy based on a belief in ancestral spirits (called amadlozi in Zulu) and the practice of traditional African medicine. By drawing on the embedded beliefs of the Nguni culture that the ancestors in the afterlife guide and protect the living, the sangoma performs a holistic and symbolic form of healing. Mycelium101 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the 1st 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph to read as follows : A sangoma is a practitioner of ngoma,a philosophy based on a belief in ancestral spirits (called amadlozi in Zulu) and the practice of traditional African medicine. By drawing on the embedded beliefs of the Nguni culture that the ancestors in the afterlife guide and protect the living, the sangoma performs a holistic and symbolic form of healing. Mycelium101 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the prose, some wording has been written specifically vague to reflect the common practices and how things tend to be believed or practiced. Oral traditions don't have a fixed structure and are very much open to cultural and geographic interpretation. Fixed statements such as 'The Nguni believe that ancestors in the afterlife guide and protect the living' should be avoided as the Nguni people can also be christian, non practising etc. This is why we can talk about the Nguni traditional culture beliefs without suggesting that all Nguni people follow those beliefs. Mycelium101 (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a problem. We don't write vague prose based on editorial understanding.  You have to be able to communicate the nuances to the reader with explicit statements. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the current version of the article strikes an excellent balance between being factually correct and well referenced while still accurately describing the traditional practices for such a subjective and fluid topic. Thanks to your help, it is much more structured, well written and aligned to the standards of wikipedia. I can't see much more to improve from my perspective and I am very satisfied with the quality of the current article, whether it makes GA or not. I suggest a final review and let us allow the chips lie where they fall, so to speak.  I am deeply grateful for the time and effort you have spent on this article both in reviewing and assisting improving the quality. Mycelium101 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opinion and expertise, but we don't purposefully add vague prose to any encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. I am happy that you are satisfied, but we need to satisfy the GA criteria, not our likes and dislikes. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Drumming and ancestral dancing

 * Please source this section. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Almost the entire section can all be sourced from a single page from Africa in my Bones, however I included the reference at the end of the section, instead of for each paragraph.  Is this correct? Mycelium101 (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the placement of Cumes 2004, then yes, that's fine. If you are talking about something else, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I was referring to the placement of Cumes 2004. All good. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Divination, diagnosis and healing practices

 * Please indicate that the first paragraph is directly sourced. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and expanded. Mycelium101 (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The goal in healing...
 * Whose goal? Be specific and remember, every section should stand on its own as a self-contained summary. Don't assume the reader will remember what you said in a previous section. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One Swaziland family claimed that they found their lost daughter, whom they believed to be kidnapped, following the advice of a sangoma.
 * This sounds vaguely promotional and could be problematic. You should probably provide the exact page number and a quote of the context in a footnote.  Normally, I would delete these types of claims on sight as they are not encyclopedic without further context. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of these type of once-off examples either. I didn't write those notes (or that entire paragraph) and don't have access to the references, so I can't verify or rewrite it.  I am happy to have that sentence removed.  I am not in favour of the wording of "tend to complain" either however I haven't changed it as I cannot verify the reference to see whether that wording was used in the reference.Mycelium101 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By contrast, white patients tend to complain of problems that cannot be solved by Western medicine, like concern about money, help getting a promotion, or physical disease like high blood pressure and schizophrenia that are not easily managed by Western doctors
 * The first part is correct, however, the second part "like high blood pressure and schizophrenia that are not easily managed by Western doctors" will need an exact quote or context from the source in a footnote as it is bordering on an extraordinary claim. Western doctors seem to manage high blood pressure and schizophrenia, as far as I know. This passage suggests that an effort is being made above and beyond the sources to pit the merits of traditional healers over Western medicine.  The implicit but unstated claim here is that traditional healers can manage blood pressure and mental illness better than Western medicine, and I doubt the source says that. I'm very tempted to delete the entire paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I just mentioned above, I haven't been able to rewrite this as I don't have access to that reference and so I don't know what the original wording said. (Personally, I don't believe there would be a difference between why white or black people go to a sangoma) I could suggest:
 * Patients will see a sangoma for a number of broad reasons. Because the healing is not only physical but also social, most problems could be determined to be twasa, spirit cause, and treated by a sangoma. Patients tend to complain of vague pains, anxieties, and harm to their reputation presumed to be the result of sorcery. Others have illnesses that come from breaking social taboos, such as sleeping with a married woman, and they wish to remove the stigma. Young people also consult the sangoma to learn ways to gain good fortune for their future careers and families.? Mycelium101 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Medicines and muti

 * In South African English and Afrikaans the word muti is sometimes also used as a slang term for medicine in general.
 * That's the kind of statement that requires a ref. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See checklist comments. This type of reference would be in a travel guide for tourists on common SA slang.  I have found some pages on the web that might suffice. Let me know if it doesn't. Mycelium101 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this be better placed as a footnote instead of in the body of the article? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unsure on what you mean. Can you please explain or provide an example? Mycelium101 (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:EXPLNOTE. Not a big deal, just my opinion.  Feel free to ignore it. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with western medicine

 * Zulu children may have up to three enemas a week.
 * Deleted unsourced statement. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I wanted to delete it previously as I didn't believe this is correct, but I wanted to give the person that wrote it an opportunity to source it Mycelium101 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First paragraph in this section is completely unsourced. There should be at least one reference per paragraph if needed, and I think it is needed. (HIV claims, etc.) Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree - as a lot of research has been done in this area, I see no problem in being able to find references to these points. I will dig some up and include them.Mycelium101 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Western-style scientists
 * Is there any other kind of scientist? Viriditas (talk)
 * Changed western-style scientists to botanists and pharmaceutical scientist Mycelium101 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the recent edits added to this section. They were off-topic and far from neutral.  Further, we do not cut and paste large bullet points from sources like that, not to mention that they had little to nothing to do with this specific topic.  If they are added back, I will fail this article, tag it with maintenance tags, and raise the issue on additional noticeboards, including the neutrality and COI noticeboards.  Sorry to come down hard on you like this, but you crossed a line.  Please keep in mind, I have no objection to you taking this material, rewriting it in your own words in a paragraph that represents the relevant topic and paraphrasing it in a neutral manner, but that is not what you did. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that you don't approve of the bullet points, however, please explain how the points made by the World Health Organisation regarding western health practitioners working in conjunction with traditional healers is off-topic, non-neutral or a conflict of interest, especially in a section discussing the Relationship with western medicine? I tried to keep it neutral, showing both the main for and against arguments and kept the COI out of the discussion by purposefully providing the wording of the WHO, not my own words.  I am happy to summarise that whole section in a neutral manner as you suggest, however I am surprised that you think it is off-topic and non-neutral.  I believe those bullet points (both for and against) represent the crux of the discussions that currently occur between western and traditional healthcare practises in Southern Africa. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the material in a manner that I believe is neutral, as you suggest which still shows both sides of the debate regarding public health services collaborating with traditional healers. Please let me know whether you still have concerns with the manner in which I have written it. Mycelium101 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lack of communication here, probably because you are a new user who focuses only on one topic. As a result, you probably aren't exposed to our policies and guidelines.  You're still writing in a promotional, not an encyclopedic manner, and you're not accurately representing the sources.  As you well know, this particular source is not specifically about traditional healers of South Africa, it is about Traditional African medicine.  This is the first problem with your edits. When we write articles we must stick to relevant sources about the subject and stay on topic.  That's a GA criteria and it isn't negotiable. Essentially, this source is only helpful for page 18 and Table 1 (traditional healers in South Africa) and for talking about AIDS prevention. Second, you appear to be using this source to promote the services of the subject above and beyond the source. I'm going to delete it again.  Feel free to work on it here or find a source about traditional healers of South Africa.  The problems are too many to keep in the article.  You have continued to closely paraphrase cherry picked portions of the source which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia.  You have to write it in your own words and it needs to be relevant to the topic.  You can't copy and paste like this.  You've cited this to p. 10, which is about health policy and traditional medicine in sub-Saharan Africa in general, not South Africa in particular.  It's best covered in the article about traditional African medicine.  Further, this is a suggestion by WHO which is probably not even significant enough to add to this article.  The bottom line is that you aren't able to paraphrase this in your own words nor have you been able to show it is relevant to traditional healers practicing in South Africa, therefore it should not be added back in until those two things are fixed. Start with p. 18, 43+ (Table 1) which  has additional information about the relationship between traditional healers in South Africa and Western medicine in the relevant context of HIV/AIDS prevention.  I think it is best if you stop adding this material at this time unless you are able to paraphrase it in your own words and write about it in the appropriate context of AIDS prevention, not in the promotion of traditional healing.  If you can do those two things, 1) paraphrase appropriately, and 2) write about AIDS prevention by traditional healers in South Africa (and/or their contact with Western medicine in that context) then we won't have a problem with the material or the source. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to realise that the technical standards that are demanded here for a GA quality article are starting to conflict with contextual information that is very relevant to South Africa, traditional healers and the complexities that arise within the cultural content of South Africa, Southern Africa and Africa as a whole. The information presented in Collaboration with traditional healers in HIV/AIDS prevention and care in sub-Saharan Africa(p=10-11) and other areas are extremely relevant to the current South African context, especially with western medical doctors/nurses and hospitals that are increasily having to work with traditional healers and patients who see both traditional and western serivces and wish to gain a better understanding of traditional healing practices. I have no agenda, except to provide as much relevant material as possible and merely trying to show both sides of the debate, especially as the reference is online and therefore anyone that wishes to look further can read the original work. Yes, the Collaboration review does deal with Sub Saharan Africa as a whole, but this does not imply that it is not relevant to South Africa.  (Mercy Manci, a South African sangoma is explicity thanked for her contributions in the acknowledgements).  The inclusion of this information and other information that has been removed are more than sufficient for a c-class or even b-class and I am beginning to think that it would be much more beneficial to wait for future collaboration with other users that are more sensitive/aware of the cultural content of the article before it is re-nominated for a GA quality article.  Can you please fail the GA review and once there is further contributions and collboration in the article by other interested contributors, it might be nominated for a GA quality article again?  For future reviews and 3rd party interest, the paragraphs that were deemed promotional, irrelevant and off-topic (which is referenced to pg 10-11 of the above link) is :


 * In 1994, the World Health Organisation (WHO) offered a number of observations and guidelines regarding biomedical health providers collaborating with traditional healers, suggesting that upgrading the traditional healers skills made more sense than training new groups of health workers.


 * An ongoing public health debate continues regarding investing the efforts required for partnering with traditional healers. Those in favour of collaboration argue that traditional healers provide a client-centred, personalised health-care service that is culturally appropriate and posses many effective treatments and treatment methods. Research has shown that traditional healers abstain from dangerous practices when educated about the risks. Numerous studies have shown that traditional healers demonstrate enthusiasm for collaborating with biomedical services. They are generally well respected health care providers and opinion leaders in their own communities who often have greater credibility than village health care workers, especially in respect to social and spiritual matters. The difficulties and concerns that have been raised argue regarding the lack of institutionalised practices and officially recognised licensing procedures, thus making it difficult to provide standardised training, quality control and monitoring of healers activities. It is claimed that traditional healers generally lack detailed anatomical and physiological knowledge and some may engage in harmful practices or cause delays in referral to biomedical facilities. Despite the limitations outlined above, many public health experts have concluded that it makes sense to attempt collaboration, given the vast health needs in Southern Africa and the numerous practical and realistic advantages of partnering with traditional healers.
 * Many thanks. Mycelium101 (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says nothing about South Africa in that context. You added that yourself to make it relevant.  On Wikipedia we call that original research and it isn't permitted at any assessment level, so this has nothing to do with a GA review.  Are you familiar with the policy against original research and how we use sources?  The source you are using does not support adding that material.  Since you think it is relevant, you should be able to find at least one additional source that makes this relevance explicit and clear without engaging in original research.  You say that a relevant sangoma is thanked in the acknowledgements, but that avoids addressing the underlying issue.  Sources must be used carefully and editors must avoid close paraphrasing.  Can you acknowledge the problem at hand?  Your request for me to fail this article doesn't make any sense if you acknowledge the problem, because all you need to do is use the source carefully and in context, and write it in your own words.  This is very easy to do, and I'm willing to help you, but you need to recognize the problem.  In at least three separate instances, you've copy and pasted content directly from the source and you can't do that.  You've also copied content that has nothing to do with South Africa, but you added the term "South Africa" to make it seem like it did.  You also can't do that.  Now, to address your concern:  you say that this particular source is "extremely relevant to the current South African context", however, as editors, we can't interpret a source, we have to use it explicitly.  When we do, we see that only page 18 of the source in question is relevant to the current South African context, with additional relevant content available in an appendix.  You know this, and you've cited the material on page 18 at least once (footnote 62).  However, your argument, "western medical doctors/nurses and hospitals that are increasingly having to work with traditional healers and patients who see both traditional and western services and wish to gain a better understanding of traditional healing practices" needs to be supported.  And, there is content that does apply to the topic that you can use, and there is a correct way of doing it.  For example, the source material about the intersection between Western medicine and traditional healers in South Africa says they found "75% traditional healers believed they could cure AIDS before training, none after."  And, another project reported that a "survey found traditional healers had high knowledge about AIDS, were treating symptoms of AIDS; and concluded that, "traditional healers are a force that cannot be ignored in the fight against HIV/AIDS".  This is all relevant to the topic of traditional healers of South Africa because this research/project was conducted in South Africa.  It's very simple; just use the source correctly, accurately, and in the context it was intended.


 * However, you cited research and conclusions that did not have anything to do with South Africa specifically, while ignoring the ones that did. For example, you wrote that a "conclusion from a review by UNAIDS in September 2000, regarding collaboration with traditional healers in HIV/AIDS prevention and care, found that modern and traditional belief systems are not incompatible, but complimentary."  That material does not seem to have anything to do with South Africa.  That's troubling because the material that does have to do with South Africa says "prevention training was successful, but collaboration was not...it was advised to discontinue work with traditional healers’ organizations to avoid political conflicts...more work needs to be done to eliminate the tenuous and strained aspect of the relationship between traditional healers and biomedical practitioners."  Make of that what you will, however, we are only concerned with the final assessment on p. 18 which says, "The assessment concluded that the first generation of trained traditional healers selected and trained their peers for the second cycle more effectively than the western-trained trainers of the first generation, as the traditional healers' selection was less politically directed and the training more culturally appropriate."  That material is entirely relevant and on topic.  However, you added material that was not, specifically material that said "it makes sense to attempt collaboration, given the vast health needs in developing countries".  As you are well aware, you changed "in developing countries" to "in Southern Africa" even though p. 11 is not about Southern Africa.  You just can't change source material to make it relevant.  That's original research.  You have to use sources about the topic, such as the source material on page 18, and you have to write it in your own words.  It's better you learn this now rather than later.  So to conclude, you're essentially asking me to fail this review because you want to be able to do things that aren't allowed regardless of a review.  I think you misinterpreted my comment about the GA criteria.  While it is certainly strict, failing to meet that criteria doesn't allow you to copy and paste content directly from a source, alter that content so that it becomes original research, or fail to meet the neutrality policy. What I'm going to do is finish copy editing the rest of the article and then ask you to tell me what's wrong or missing in the article.  Perhaps I can help you add material in a policy-compliant way that also preserves a GA rating so that it's a win-win all around. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the likelihood of more close paraphrasing in the article may be high, as I was only able to find the offending material through spot-checking, so I'm going to fail the article due to this problem and the inability of the nominator to fully understand the problem at this time. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the reference, - The final chapter of the book is called Ancient meets Modern (pg151-164).  The entire chapter is interviews with traditional healers and health professionals from southern Africa.  The health professionals range from government health officials, clinical psychologists, doctors and hospital nurse workers.  These interviews entirely support the above collboration debate from the UNAID report and contextualises it entirely within a Southern African context.  It is difficult to reference as they discuss their personal experiences and points of view.  The UNAID report summarises these discussion points very suncinctly, however can be referenced by this entire chapter. Quotes such as
 * ...Years ago it was not acceptable for the medical community to work with the traditional healers. Now we [the medical community] are reaching out to them, we are visiting their clinics.
 * Most of the rural and even the urban women will pass through a traditional healer before coming to my offices. We, the medical profession, know that we are the back-up health care delivery system.
 * There are many examples of healers who have developed cooperative relationships with modern doctors. Good traditional healers and doctors both concentrate on the patient.  ..... We must continue to improve sanitation, hygiene, living standard, especially in the rural atreas.  Through our professional healer organisations and the government departments of health, we are introducing our traditional healers to these standards.
 * The medical side must come round to working with the healers and the healers must continue referring to the medical side. Today we healers are referring patients for cholera, HIV testing, early childhood vaccination programmes and much, much more.  We seek and incorporate what the medical profession has offered us.
 * When I began my life as a healer, 36 years ago, we were scared to visit the Ministry of Health. We were not allowed to visit our patients in the hospital.  Today we are invited to accompany our patients to hospitals.  Today I can ask a medical doctor to provide a specific service such as blood work.  That doctor will comply and not give additional services but send the patient back to me first with the results....We healers are learning how to cooperate with the medical side.  From our own experience and from training, we are learning what we can and cannot cure or what diseases are best treated by help from both sides.
 * The cooperation between the medical profession and the healers is much better than when I first started practising 14 years ago. More information is available and we have regular opportunities to get together with other healers to discuss treatments and specialities.
 * Standards of treatment, dosages, hygiene, sanitation and sterilisation at the traditional clinics are needed. There must be some group that guarentees, that oversees, this standard.  It is only then that the cooperation between these two systems, traditional and medical, can move in an institutional way.  Nhlavana Meseko, the president of THO, has often told me that the healers need good clinics.  They are in dire need of a clean, reliable running water supply, good roads, and a decent means of communication.  Most of these are not health problems, but basic infrastructure problems.  THO is trying to raise the infrastructure standard because they know this will impact the health care standard as well.
 * I accept that the information requires further paraphrasing and contextualisation, however, I think its unhelpful to not allow editors to contribute whatever information they can, so that future editors can help refine, conextualise, reference, expand and debate the aforementioned information. I would prefer to leave the article at a non GA standard so that people are welcome to add whatever they can, regardless whether it is interpreted as off-topic, own reserach or unreferenced or non-neutral, in good faith that other collaborators can help develop it further, instead of having it immediately deleted.  If a GA standard article requires everything to be referenced to a T and split-hairs on every word and nuance, without the flexibility to allow for future growth and development, then my preference is to keep this article at a c-class for now, so that others are welcome to contribute what they are able to, in good faith that it can be evolved into something further. I will further paraphrase the UNAID review so that it is not deemed plagarism and the quotes outlined above support a lot of what is said exceptionally well within a Southern African context. (The sections that cannot be referenced from the above chapter (like being a holistic approach etc.) can easily be referenced from other details that are in this article.) Once again, thnks for your contributions and your assistance for helping clean up the structure and prose of this article and getting it to this level.  It is appreciated.  Mycelium101 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Merged mutiple references

 * I was finding it difficult to manage the references, and so I have merged all references from a single book into one referene with the page annotated. This cleans up the references considerably. Mycelium101 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Image gallery

 * There are sections without images. Why not merge the images there? Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of those images could be added to the article (eg the sangoma in the ndumba), however some of the images, especially of the sangoma working, deepens the understanding of the whole article, as images of sangomas at work are quite rare. Very little is actually known about sangomas and how they work and there are a lot of misconceptions regarding their practises in South Africa, even amongst the communities that they practice in and so images that remove these preconceptions and show them for how they are would be very valuable to the article.  This is why I wish to keep a gallery sections so that others who have knowledge/experience of other regions can add images of sangomas of other regions / tribes / practices of South Africa, who can sometimes look quite different to the images I have put up.  Therefore I have tried to be mindful of not overloading the article with my images.Mycelium101 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the gallery and inserted the pictures in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycelium101 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the second image from the lead and moved it to the last section. One image in the lead should be enough. Also, I changed "Image" to "File" and made all the images thumbs as image size is controlled by preferences now. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good to meMycelium101 (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Notes and references

 * This will not impact the review, but the formatting of your notes and references is very poor. Consult a citation guide (Chicago, APA, etc.) and pick a format and stick with it.  Or, just use citation templates. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? I thought the majority of the references was using the standard citation template as per  Help:References and page numbers? Mycelium101 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you forgot to use that template in the "References" section. Instead, it was added manually (nothing wrong with that when it is done correctly and consistently) and uses italics for titles (not common) instead of italics for publishers (common) . (Strike that, your formatting is just fine.  I'm having a problem with my browser.  Italics are commonly used for book titles and you have used them correctly.)  Second, the notes section does not consistently use the citation template nor the same format, for example Janzen 1991, Dauskart 1990, and Connor/Keeney 2008 do not have citation templates so the format isn't consistent.  However, this will not impact this GA review (as it is not part of the criteria for a GA) but will present you with problems should you choose to nominate it for A or FA class in the future. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I understand what you mean now, and I have updated most notes and references to harvard notation using {snf} template. It will be good to have a standard that future edits will align to. Mycelium101 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose has grammar, typos, misspellings and punctuation issues
 * Do all foreign words need italics or not?
 * My preference is that the very least is that it is italicised the first time it is mentioned, however not required after that. What are your suggestions?  (I do think there is inconsistency in the article with using italics which I will try to fix.) Mycelium101 (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to be consistent with the italics as much as possible as per above reasoning. Mycelium101 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relevance and placement of image gallery should be made explicit per WP:Galleries; otherwise, add images to other sections or add new Commons cat
 * See also consisting of duplicate links removed per WP:SEEALSO
 * See WP:LEAD for some ideas on how to present a summary
 * Recommend removing two external links
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * "The Xhosa term is igqirha (pl. amagqirha); as reflected in the lyrics of Miriam Makeba's Click Song" -- That observation is bordering on original research. Do you have a secondary source?
 * First paragraph of "Relationship with western medicine" needs sources for claims like "Public health specialists are now enlisting sangomas in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS" etc.
 * First two paragraphs of "Beliefs and tradition" section are unsourced.
 * Last sentences of third and fourth paragraphs in "Beliefs and tradition" section are unsourced.
 * "Drumming and ancestral dancing" section is unsourced.
 * "First paragraph of "Divination, diagnosis and healing practices" section is unsourced.
 * Paragraphs are now sourced.Mycelium101 (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the same way, sangomas will interpret the metaphors present in dreams, either their own or their patients." No source.
 * Done - Now sourced Mycelium101 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "In South African English and Afrikaans the word muti is sometimes also used as a slang term for medicine in general." No source.
 * This kind of reference would come more from a travel guide for tourists to South Africa, as it is a colloquial aspect of SA culture. I found some website that list common SA slang such as
 * Trip Advisor:South Africa Important Phrases
 * South African Car Hire
 * The Guardian - World Cup 2010 Travel Guide
 * I went for the Trip Advisory to South Africa as it is the least commercial Mycelium101 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "A trainee sangoma (or ithwasa) trains formally under another sangoma..." No source.
 * Done - Now sourced Mycelium101 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "At times in the training, and for the graduation..." No source.
 * Done - Now sourced Mycelium101 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Recent edits to "Relationship with Western medicine" section have put the neutrality of the article in doubt and make me question whether there is a COI
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Not stable due to repeated addition of closely paraphrased material
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Note: it is difficult for the layperson to determine if these images best represent the subject
 * 1) Overall: Putting on hold until major issues are fixed by nominator.
 * Pass/Fail:  Unfortunately, I have to fail this article at this time due to several reasons explained here, including the repeated insertion of closely paraphrased content directly from the source. Additionally, this material is not about traditional healers of South Africa, but was altered (likely in good faith) to make it appear as if it was. It is possible that given the nominator is a fairly new editor, they are not familiar with the policies and guidelines.  I've attempted to explain how to fix this, but the nominator does not seem to understand what I'm talking about.  Subsequent reviews should endeavor to compare the source material to the prose and to look very carefully for any signs of close paraphrasing and whether the material is about South Africa or some other topic.  I've left a template explanation of the problem on the nominator's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:  Unfortunately, I have to fail this article at this time due to several reasons explained here, including the repeated insertion of closely paraphrased content directly from the source. Additionally, this material is not about traditional healers of South Africa, but was altered (likely in good faith) to make it appear as if it was. It is possible that given the nominator is a fairly new editor, they are not familiar with the policies and guidelines.  I've attempted to explain how to fix this, but the nominator does not seem to understand what I'm talking about.  Subsequent reviews should endeavor to compare the source material to the prose and to look very carefully for any signs of close paraphrasing and whether the material is about South Africa or some other topic.  I've left a template explanation of the problem on the nominator's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)



Thanks for the review so far, I will fix up the lead, try to fix as much prose and spelling as I can and will notify you once completed.Mycelium101 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The only source I can find for the Miriam Makeba reference is another article about The Click Song - However that article is unsourced. I do not know enough about Xhosa culture to know whether this song is relevant to traditonal healing practices Mycelium101 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be quite simple to find references for the Relationship with Western Medicine. I will search for some in my reference material and include them.Mycelium101 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)