Talk:Parfleche

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That was an external link. No copyright violation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Deletion of sourced content and images, tense issues

@NavBaj StudentEditor: I see you are probably still working, so I will not revert you yet, but be careful with these edits. Native cultures exist in the present day. Be careful of relying on outdated sources, written by by non-Natives decades or generations ago. Do not past-tense Natives, or replace content sourced to solid, contemporary Native sources with outdated content. Integrate your work with what is already here, rather than replacing it wholesale, otherwise your contributions may wind up reverted. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, since you continued to edit without discussing any of this, I've reverted you. The sandbox version you've written of this is not suitable to be substituted for what we have here, due to the issues I cite above. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss it, however I am working with a deadline for an assignment. In terms of resources, while some of them are older, some (such as Lycett) are very recent. They are also all peer-reviewed and academic.

I do not intend to put Indigenous culture or production in the past, however, I am discussing the history of the production of 'Parfleche.' I am not understanding how referring to the past and the role of rawhide containers for Plains cultures of the past is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavBaj StudentEditor (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have incorporated and expanded the information on the stub (which had only 1 reference). I have not deleted it wholesale, but expanded it.NavBaj StudentEditor (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I also acknowledge the modern day in sentences such as "Modern historians note the unfortunate truth, that while parfleche are collected and admired as art pieces today, their female creators (who would have been renowned in their own communities) remain largely unknown to us."NavBaj StudentEditor (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not your classroom. I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, but your deadline, and your assignment, has nothing to do with this article. Your contributions here are no more or less important than anyone else's. If you can't see how your style was incompatible, I suggest you back off and re-read. If you cannot see that you completely deleted other sources and images - which everyone can see in the page history - you are not paying attention. It is abundantly clear from a look at your sandbox that you think you can just import that here, but Wikipedia is not here for your school project. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment about "historians" commenting on the past being sufficient coverage of contemporary issues, along with you writing about this for a pre-1850 class, show that you misunderstand: Parfleche bags are still made by Lakota people. (As well as some related cultures.) You cut a source by a respected Lakota spiritual leader who discusses them. You cut an image of them. You didn't understand that I was talking about the living people who make parfleche bags and can choose whether or not to publish about their work, whether or not to photograph their work, whether or not to talk to other writers about their work, and who can vet the sources used in this article. This article can of course use expansion. And possibly some of what you've come up with can be used. But it's not fair to expect everyone else here to clean it up for you. I'll revisit this later when I have more time. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So this is about One source and One image. I can add them back. However it also seems your dicrediting my contribution (which is obviously imperfect but still uses contemporary scholarly sources and expands on the very brief 4 paragraphs).The information was largely unreferenced. NavBaj StudentEditor (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I also have no issue with someone adding info. on modern parfleche production. However I dont have that information as I didnt conduct that research. I can't believe I've been attacked so openly for wanting to add information. NavBaj StudentEditor (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not just that, which you would know if you read what I posted. Re-read what I said. You keep inserting the same content without addressing the issues with that content. The content you are adding is not appropriate. It is not appropriate for you to expect other editors to rewrite your contribs. You are attached to posting your sandbox here and refusing to accept that that is not what's going to happen. And if your sources think no one knows the names of the people who made the parfleche bags, they're not a good source. It means they're not part of the communities that have them. :) A little later today I'm willing to look through your sources and add some of it in. But not in the way it's been written so far. The text as you keep pasting it in has too many Cultural Bias issues. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done some integration and cleanup if you want to take a run at it now. Look over what I did and see the differences between how this is and what you were trying to do. These are living cultures. As I said on usertalk, you have some really good material interspersed in what you've put together, but you also had tense and tone problems. WP is for a general audience, including Indigenous people, and Indigenous people collaborate here. Take this as an opportunity to adapt and move forward in collaboration, which is how WP works. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Factual error in re: "fleshing"

"Creation began with “fleshing”, or the removal of the hide from animals..."

The article refers to "fleshing" as the act of removing a hide from a carcass. This is incorrect. Fleshing is the process of removing subcutaneous fat and bits of muscle and other tissue from the inside of a hide that has already been removed. This page gives more detail than you could possibly want in this context. I'd suggest adding link to the article on fleshing in the context of animal hide processing, but there doesn't seem to be one. The article on Rawhide (material) describes the process but does not name it. I don't have the time or attention enough to dig into a proper fix for the article at this time, but I hope that this comment can act as a signpost for someone who does. The simplest fix may be just to remove the reference to the word "fleshing" or replace it with "cleaning and dressing".

The use of the scare quotes around the word "fleshing" also seems odd. I haven't seen the usage around other technical terms on Wikipedia. I assume that there are stylistic guidelines for that. --198.147.1.9 (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)