Talk:Medicine wheel (symbol)

I'm sorry but, "Wouldn't be surprised if..." sure sounds like speculation/

☼ 20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan the Wikipedia article on Native American Church implies the group is indigenous run. So you should fix that if it is not.

As for this article the two sections seem to be in pov conflict (although not factual conflict), and I think we need a lot more explanation of the concepts are correspondences here and which ones are disputed, and whether the concept of the correspondences is disputed. It superficially appears hermetic but I don’t much knowledge on it and it’s history.

The implication nobody engages in this syncretism for nonprofit motives is the claim I consider most questionable. I think the phrase might be better worded as something like x groups do this and it has been condemned by y groups for this reason.

I see you removed the table at the bottom so was that table a manifestation of such groups and their activities? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced to a blog. -

☼ 22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

2 of the 4 sources do not support the claim that "Others using the symbol for profit have added in ideas from Ancient Greek and Persian philosophy, ideas founded in colonialism, teachings from Hinduism, what they claim is Celtic symbolism, or concepts from

New religious movements like Wicca" but instead are just generically talking about people attempting to profit off of it. The other two are book sources which are much harder to verify. I think we should probably just remove the claim altogether. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed this claim

Others using the symbol for profit have added in ideas from Ancient Greek and Persian philosophy, ideas founded in colonialism, teachings from Hinduism, what they claim is Celtic symbolism, or concepts from

New religious movements like Wicca.^[1]

Because 3 of the 4 sources I confirmed it was not present in, and the last one is explicitly titled only talking about Sun Bear (author). The only info I found attaching Sun Bear to Persian philosophy was this which is a clear copying of the text here https://www.biblio.com/book/seven-arrows-hyemeyohsts-storm/d/1530419227

I couldn't find any evidence of anyone relating Persian philosophy to the Medicine wheel at all anywhere on the internet, Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced. When you don't have copies of the book, the policy is to AGF on the part of the editors who wrote the article. I do not support removing the content. -

☼ 22:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not finding one of the points doesn't merit removing an entire section. -

☼ 22:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't want to remove the entire section, I just removed that one sentence. I found some sites about Greek http://www.greekmedicine.net/b_p/The_greek_medicine_wheel.html and Celtic https://firetreealchemy.com/workshops/celticmedicinewheel and Wicca https://witchcraftandwitches.com/witchcraft/shamanic-witchcraft-the-medicine-wheel/ but nothing on Persian philosophy or Hinduism. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan can you please just verify if that claim is found in "Shamanism: A Reader" instead of adding sources that the claim is verified to not have been in? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, two were online and I read them immediately. One I found a pdf of and it was not in it^[1]. The other just seems really suspicious. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Material appropriated from Hinduism is embedded in Wicca. -

☼ 22:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm with Corbie here in not removing content. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Immanuelle, you have expert input from the wikiproject happening right here. Two of us are talking to you now, and I've posted there, too. -

☼ 22:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Indigenous girl, I am with you and @CorbieVreccan in that I would prefer that it remain. @Immanuelle, for what it's worth, I have attended workshops on the medicine wheel that were led by Indigenous people who were including Western, Eastern, and new age teachings intermixed with Indigenous teachings (though I know that personal experience is not something that I can cite). Littlejohn657 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is right to call Wicca "teachings from Hinduism" even if it had influence. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am AGF that the editor who put it in checked it. I have read the source but it's been a while. I recall it seemed fine to me when he added it, and that was closer to when I read it, so I support the sourcing. -

☼ 22:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, Immanuelle, what's with the template? Corbie and I are both from the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Are you bothered because you are not getting the results you want? What counts as expert in your cutest wikipedian opinion? What is the very specific content that is relying on the source that you are questioning? Indigenous girl (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was some kind of formal process for removing that template. I've normally seen it only being removed after a year or so of being present, not a couple hours. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways I think the current wording is good enough. Removing Iranian philosophy and Hinduism from the syncretism list unless someone confirms they are present in Shamanism: A Reader. I do think this article needs to be expanded to indicate what if any contemporary uses there are of this symbol, alongside updating the article on Native American Church because apparently it is not indigenous run Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the very specific content that is relying on the source that you are questioning? The NAC is Native run, that one org that linked to is run by non-natives and I've removed it. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indigenous girl the very specific content is the claim of syncretism with Hinduism and Persian philosophy. It is no longer in the article but was in the article beforehand. There were four original sources to the claim, of which all but "Shamanism: A Reader" I looked at and found to not mention any of the individual things it was syncretized with. I found sources for a few of the claims elsewhere. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle let me see if I have a copy. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions Greek, Perian, Hinduism, Celtic and Wicca. You can request a free copy of the book here, though I do not know how responsive Harvey is [1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42794406_Shamanism_A_Reader Indigenous girl (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I requested one, I'll take your word on it if you want to include it in the article now. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It never should have been removed. Policy is to AGF on book sources unless there is good reason not to, such as a disruptive user who is known to have fabricated citations, which was in to way the case with this stable content. You did not have consensus to remove it. I have now removed the awful websites you added as they may show examples of this appropriation, but the content is full of so much cultural misinforation I think it is a disservice to readers to have such dreck linked to on the 'pedia. -

☼ 00:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

☼ 18:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to read these articles more carefully. The Native American Church is Native. The one website you were using as a source is not. There are thousands of Native groups, and almost as many fraud groups. Until you know which are which, probably not best to edit war with those who know the difference. -

☼ 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Maintenance templates can be removed when they are no longer valid. It wasn't valid in the first place, project participants worked on this article. Participants are here addressing the article. The issue is no longer valid. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

☼ 18:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, the second edit improved it. Other editors, should we or shouldn't we link to those crap websites as examples of the misappropriation? Should we stick to the current text that is only about appropriation, or return to the original text about the eclectic inputs into the creation of the modern symbol? I think we should have both - text about eclectic inputs as well as appropriation. But I am hesitant to link to those horrid sites, even as examples of what is awful. -

☼ 18:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan Here are the only two quotes I saw in the source that mentioned the Medicine Wheel, plus two quotes I think are most relevant. I hope this does not run into copyright issues posting too much of the book here, but it's important for the discussion. I think @Indigenous girl was misremembering it

Sun Bear has also contended that criticism of his activities is ill-founded because he has arrived at a spiritual stew of several traditions — his medicine wheel is Shoshone, and his herbal and other healing remedies accrue from numerous peoples, while many of his other ceremonies are Lakota in origin —and because he's started his own 'tribe,' of which he's pronounced himself `medicine chief.' Of course, membership in this odd new entity, composed almost exclusively of Euroamericans, comes with a hefty price tag attached. The idea has caught on among spiritual hucksters, as is witnessed by the formation of a similar fees-paid group in Florida, headed by a non-Indian calling himself 'Chief Piercing Eyes.'

— Shamanism: A reader page 326

`And another thing,' Williams continues, 'Sun Bear hasn't started a new tribe. Nobody can just up and start a new tribe. What he's done is start a cult. And this cult he's started is playing with some very powerful things, like the pipe. That's not only stupid and malicious; it's dangerous.'

The danger Williams refers to has to do with the very power which makes American Indian spirituality so appealing to non-Indians in the first place. According to the late Matthew King, an elder spiritual leader among the Oglala Lakota, 'Each part of our religion has its power and its purpose. Each people has their own ways. You cannot mix these ways together, because each people's ways are balanced. Destroying balance is a disrespect and very dangerous. This is why it's forbidden.'

`Many things are forbidden in our religion,' King continued. 'The forbidden things are acts of disrespect, things which unbalance power. These things must be learned, and the learning is very difficult. This is why there are very few real 'medicine men [or medicine women]' among us; only a few are chosen. For someone who has not learned how our balance is maintained to pretend to be a medicine man is very, very dangerous. It is a big disrespect to the powers and can cause great harm to whoever is doing it, to those he claims to be teaching, to nature, to everything. It is very bad.'

— Shamanism: A reader page 326

The National Indian Youth Council fully supports your efforts to denounce, embarrass, disrupt, or otherwise run out of Colorado, the Medicine Wheel Gathering ... For too long the Bear Tribe Medicine Society has been considered repugnant but harmless to Indian people. We believe they not only line their pockets but do great damage to all of us. Anything you can do to them will not be enough.

— Shamanism: A reader page 328

`You can either respect our basic rights or not respect them,' Means went on. 'If you do, you're an ally and we're ready and willing to join hands with you on other issues. If you do not, you are at best a thief. More importantly, you are a thief of the sort who is willing to risk undermining our sense of the integrity of our cultures for your own perceived self-interest. That means you are complicit in a process of cultural genocide, or at least attempted cultural genocide, aimed at American Indian people. That makes you an enemy, to say the least. And believe me when I say we're prepared to deal with you as such.'

— Shamanism: A reader page 328

So vaguely related but in no way supporting the specific claims made. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the source. The source does not say this at all. The websites can be removed but in that case we need to remove the whole claim or provide a source that supports the claim. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_147#Shamanism: A Reader Here's documentation of me requesting the resource and it being delivered. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for where it was originally added and it seems to have been added originally here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medicine_wheel&direction=next&oldid=1017869623 before the article was split by @Littlejohn657 without a citation to Shamanism: A reader, but rather citing the other three sources which have also failed verification.

I'm in support of just removing the last paragraph. I don't think it is salvageable. There do not seem to be significant secondary sources on the syncretism. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to replace that paragraph altogether with what the source actually says. I don't think we will be able to find any reliable secondary sources on those kinds of syncretism. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle , it's been so long that I don't remember the details of it, and the book is checked out of my local library so I don't have access. The statement is sound though.

For example,

•the concept of the four elements is something founded in Greek philosophy, not Indigenous world views (at least according to the Elders that I have spoken with).

•the concept of four races as white/Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, and Australoid is based on a racial classification made by Carleton S. Coon in 1962, which was based on older colonialist and racist classification systems (e.g., François Bernier had four, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach had five, Arthur de Gobineau had three, Thomas Huxley had nine, etc.).

•in many Indigenous cultures, there are six or seven directions: the four cardinal directions, up, down, and occasionally the spot that you are at.

•the concept of mind, body, soul, and spirit/heart is arguably from Christian Platonists (and possibly from Ancient Egypt, though they considered seven parts).

•the classification of mineral, plant, animal, and human doesn't fit into many Indigenous language structures.

•the four seasons doesn't fit a lot of traditional Indigenous cultures (for example, the Ojibwe had five seasons and the Cree had six; the Lakota had four seasons, but there were not equal in length).

The list goes on. The challenge is finding sources that discuss traditional Indigenous perspectives before being polluted by the medicine wheel. Littlejohn657 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlejohn657 sourcing aside I think this is what the article needs. An explanation of what the issues are rather than a vague list. I think a section such as "Correspondances and their origins" or something similar would be good including all of those things.

The original issues I took with this section were twofold:

1. attribution of motives in wikivoice. This was fully resolved
2. vagueness about the actual concepts.

I tried to search through the sources to figure out what was actually going on with the introduced elements. Since it was unclear whether this was say external hermeticists doing this or if it got further in. There I found none of the cited sources.

I wouldn't object to the introduction of a section like that without sources if you're confident in being able to find sources later. This is enough information that it helps dispell misconceptions. The earlier text I found https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medicine_wheel_(symbol)&direction=prev&oldid=1154180283 actually asserted all of these correspondences as fact. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Littlejohn657 I really appreciate your new addition. It really explains things well. One part I am a bit confused about is this section.

The concept of the divisions of the mind, heart, body, and soul derive from the Ancient Greeks and Christian Neoplatonists.^[1]

Is this directly linked to the medicine wheel or just a general example of a western concept sometimes perceived as indigenous in origin? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Immanuelle!

Depending on who is teaching the medicine wheel, they might add mind, heart, body, and soul into the four quadrants. They might also use mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual instead. Littlejohn657 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle I'm wondering why @Littlejohn657 and I saw something different in the book than what you are seeing. I wonder if it could be because what you received was the article version and if that's the case, that is on me and I apologize. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indigenous girl, that's a good question, and I am a bit rusty on what I was looking at when I wrote the sentence in question. Going back to the original sources, I suspect what I was referring the following.

For supporting the claim was the section in Spiritual Hucksterism: The Rise of the Plastic Medicine Men by Ward Churchill where it states:

"...and Hyemeyohsts Storm (Seven Arrows, etc.) also cashed in, writing bad distortions and outright lies about indigenous spirituality for consumption in the mass market. The authors grew rich peddling their trash, while real Indians starved to death, out of the sight and mind of America."

In Plastic Shamans and Astroturf Sun Dances: New Age Commercialization of Native American Spirituality by Lisa Aldred, though it doesn't discuss the medicine wheel (and mentions Storm only in a note about Indigenous activists saying that their "sacred spiritual practices are not for sale"), it extensively discusses the incorporation of new age practices into and outright appropriation of Indigenous culture.

In A Theft of Spirit by Christopher Shaw, I was likely referring to the part where it says:

"...[Storm] has been widely criticized by Indian activists who consider him a false teacher, an ersatz Indian who has commercialized and distorted Native spirituality through his books and seminars."

In The Medicine Wheel as a Symbol by Timothy C. Thomason, I think that I was referring to this section where the author talks about things that Storm added to the symbol when he came up with it:

"[Storm] used the wheel as the basis for an extensive mythology, and the contemporary view of the medicine wheel as a philosophical framework originates with Seven Arrows (Jenkins, 2004).

Storm (1972) advised readers to think of the medicine wheel as a mirror in which everything is reflected. The stones of the wheel can represent people, animals, nations, or ideas, and the wheel as a whole is the universe, containing all things. The lesson of the wheel is harmony with all the elements of the universe."

In Shamanism: A Reader by Graham Harvey, I think that I was likely talking about how Storm has cashed in by selling distortions and outright lies about Indigenous spirituality (from a table of contents that I can find, it looks like Ward Churchill's article from above is included in the book, so that might have been it too).

@Immanuelle, I'm wondering if I was being a bit lazy at the time with the part about "Others using the symbol for profit have added in ideas from Ancient Greek and Persian philosophy, ideas founded in colonialism, teachings from Hinduism, what they claim is Celtic symbolism, or concepts from New Religious Movements like Wicca." I seem to remember it being really late when I finished the original edits (it wasn't a complete article when I created it, but I didn't know about drafts at the time) I've since added those details as a new section in the article. One of the struggles is finding current accurate content that reflects culture before Storm came up with the medicine wheel or content prior to the medicine wheel that discusses these same topics (I've tried using a few Google search tools, which is how I found the one about sacred medicines, but it's slim pickings).

Littlejohn657 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

This article lacks the modern ways different tribes use the symbol and is currently entirely about plastic Shaman uses. Examples: Lakota Medicine Wheel, Navajo Medicine Wheel, Ojibwe Medicine Wheel etc.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that should be a section in

☼ 23:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan, I would suggest that it should stay here with this title, but perhaps have more sections added to the article, such as details on its use by Indigenous nations as well as by new age proponents. The symbol is essentially the same either way, just used in different ways by different groups, and keeping it to one page will help people to understand the nuances and contexts of how it is used.

I had originally written it on that page, but because it has a distinct history, origin, meanings, and uses from the Medicine Wheel sites, I felt that it could be confusing and should be a separate page (and thank you for the quick response with edits on it at that time).

Littlejohn657 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This article was originally a section in the

☼ 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it should be here. That page is about ancient monuments and these contemporary teachings are modern adaptations based on old and new ways of thinking. This page regardless of the title can't be absent of real Native tribes that have adapted it for their modern needs.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes that have adapted it are not new agers, though. I don't understand why this article has to be written from a Eurocentric point of view -- it shouldn't. It should also reflect the new/old traditions tribes have created around the symbol and merged with their own cultures.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we include contemporary Native uses we should lede with that rather that the appropriators/ceremony sellers but at the same time make it VERY CLEAR that woo is woo. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I suggest totally separate sections on Indigenous uses, with subsections on specific cultures, and then a whole other section on Newage/appropriator stuff. And I'd REALLY rather not use St. Joes as a reference. -

☼ 23:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The

Akta Lakota Museum works with Lakota artists to curate and organize their collection. It's not exactly the same thing as the boarding school. The whole article needs to be rewritten with Native teachings first, definitely.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Oncamera, for what it's worth, I am Indigenous myself, this subject is something that I learned about from an Indigenous academic (it was a topic that she was grilled on in her thesis defense), and it's not well known. I tried to be respectful in how I wrote the article while also being accurate about its history, noting both it's use by many Indigenous groups and its grounding in traditional teachings along with the criticisms from some Indigenous groups and documenting its non-Indigenous origins. It's a tough balance to achieve for a symbol like this that has been adopted by so many Indigenous groups where it is highly respected yet also criticized by some Indigenous groups and the facts of its origins. It seems that I might not have fully accomplished that balance and I am saddened that some people see it as written from a Eurocentric perspective, and I am glad that there are editors who can help to strike that balance. Littlejohn657 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a section on design variants may be good too. Or perhaps a gallery of different variations instead of just displaying a single authoritative version at the top.

From the symbolism section there's this excerpt

New Age writers tend to center the idea of the medicine wheel as an individualistic tool of personal development, and use a stylized version with the circle divided into colored quadrants, with various personal qualities assigned to the colors and quadrants.

Which implies this design variant is different than the traditional design but doesn't specify much further. The Navajo one is particularly different in design, and the Ojibe one has a green section in the middle.

I've seen political use in Canada which may be worthy of a section as well Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle, a section on design variants might be a good idea. The symbol that I added is one that I commonly see used by my nation here in Canada and that I had readily available to upload, though I know further north, some have switched the black for blue (one of my friends developed an addictions recovery program around this model), some have the quadrants rotated so that the axes are vertical, some have added a symbol at the centre, etc. Littlejohn657 (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle Not all Anishinaabe communities utilize the green center. Not all Diné have a blue quadrant. The new age version is the appropriated wheel utilizing the colors in manners in which they were not intended to be used.

@Littlejohn657 care needs to be taken with variants, as I mentioned above for example, different Anishinaabe communities are using different wheels. Care needs to be taken to ascribe an example to the very specific community, not as a blanket symbol as Immanuelle suggested. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a one with a green center without making any claims about its origin. The Navajo one will be very tough though. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this article as if I'm someone who doesn't know anything, it's very confusing with the "Recent invention" section and then the variation section speaking about Indigenous peoples' use of it. I think the article will need a re-write so it's less about new agers and more about the tribes' uses. I think a subsection for different regions of tribes would be good so people can get an deeper understanding of how different tribes have adapted it. Once that is done, the "Recent invention" section will need a re-write so it doesn't seem like a total contradiction. And a lot of tribes have it in their flags as well, so there are contemporary Indigenous images we can use in the article, rather than Eurocentric ones like that Toronto image.

There's also Native designers who have commented on the pan-Indian use of images like the medicine wheel and when it's appropriate to use it. Maybe that can be expanded upon in the critic section.

[https://www.commarts.com/columns/decolonizing-native-american-design

https://www.commarts.com/columns/decolonizing-native-american-design  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is important to highlight early on that it is a recent invention and how it was invented. Many people believe that it is an ancient symbol that predates colonization, and it leads to confusion about traditional teachings, especially when people are using it as a pan-Indigenous symbol. Many Indigenous nations do use the medicine wheel, my own included, but I believe that we have to be careful to protect our teachings grounded our identity, culture, values, and language and to recognize and understand where this symbol comes from. We have already lost so much of our culture due to colonization. Littlejohn657 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed,

☼ 23:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Littlejohn657 your recent additions are absolutely beautiful. What program did you make them in? Do you think you could make svg images instead of png images? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle, thanks! Believe it or not, I made them in PowerPoint (I don't have fancy software, and I have gotten pretty good with making graphics in PowerPoint over the years). I didn't realize that PowerPoint had the ability to save images as .svg until I just checked. I can see about changing them over, but for what it's worth, the images are 8,192 × 8,192 pixels and measure in at a bit over 2 m. Littlejohn657 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a preference on inline page numbers vs. shortened footnotes for citations? I collected all of the citations into the reference section to make the process of reading the wiki code easier and to make adding page citations easier. I started using the list-defined references, but I am worried that the citations might be a bit cluttered. I was wondering about switching to the shortened footnotes using {{sfn}} and not use the Notes section (with the reflist code in the References section, sfn does work), but it can still get cluttered with all of the different citations if multiple pages are cited in one reference and finding the reference in the list can be a bit annoying at times. So I was wondering if anyone has a preference. Littlejohn657 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No preference here as to style, just that we move towards eventual consistency. As you're doing the heavy lifting, I say go with what you prefer. Excellent improvements in content as well as sourcing! -

☼ 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Any suggestions on how to artistically represent this would be appreciated. Littlejohn657 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]