Talk:Traditional African medicine/Archive 1

Archive 1

comments

You're doing well. Generally, it's well laid out, although probably your maps of Africa are less than helpful. The issue is not where Africa is (or what the countries are), but how medicine is practiced. Your illustrations of the ceremonies and the tree with the stripped bark are very good, and more of those would be useful. When you talk about !Kung, you might give a location map of the Kalahari, that sort of thing.

• Re text. The large block quotations are disruptive. Can you paraphrase these and incorporate them in your own words into the text? Explain them? Who are these people you're quoting? Anthropologists?
• Your citations need some work. Probably check WP:Cite for some guidelines. You might also want to use the templates {{cite web}} {{cite book}} etc. to help you format them consistently. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I found this article to very well put together. I like how you organized it and it flows very well from topic to topic. There were a couple of gramatical errors that i found and changed. I am not the best at grammer but some of the sentences in Diagnostics seem to be a bit long (run-on sentences). That you may want to think about rephrasing. You have alot of refrences wich legitamize your artical. I know ruth doesn't think we should list things so perhaps putting the list of plants into a table will help. It's a good article though I hope this helps Kishwa (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have rearranged one of the block quotes, as a picture on the left side of the page was preventing the paragraph from indenting. --Banana (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For a first article, this is incredible! Well presented, well sourced and using the most obvious name. And comprehensive. It could actually do with being cut down, in fact, if anything: WP:SUMMARY. Great job though! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tag

I removed the orphan tag that was placed on this article. I linked it to several articles that I thought were relevant and hope that it can now be considered un-orphaned. Mitchel2 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. And there could be more links done as well. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

comments

This is much better. The plants in the tables should be linked to their wiki articles, as should the countries in the second table. Overall, you could do a better job of linking this article into the rest of the wikipedia, both ways (out to other articles and back to this one where appropriate). I've done a few as examples. The Helwig citations need page numbers. I like the way you've improved the article. And you might consider using the named ref template if you want. <ref name=Helwig2> goes before the first mention of Helwig, page 2, and then when you have another mention of it, use only this <ref name-Helwig2/> This is not required, but page numbers should be used. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I named and merged the references present on the page. Seems that all references had page numbers though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Traditional African Medicine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   ''In the Bight of Benin, the natives have been known to use the fat of a boa constrictor to cure gout and rheumatism, it also is thought to relieve chest pain when rubbed into the skin. although referenced, I don't have access to this journal. I find the statement somewhat surprising as boa constrictors are are a South and Central American species. Is it in fact another snake that is meant, such as the African Rock Python, which is a constrictor?

   I checked the source again for this, and it does say boa contrictor, so should I just remove that whole statement if it doesn't appear to be accurate?

   No leave it - I have checked this out and the African pythons are sometimes considered to be a subspecies of the boas. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

   They do not get the proper spiritual healing that their culture seeks, only biological treatments, which traditional African ideology. seems to be something missing here. which traditional African ideology what?

   I made a number of copy-edits.[1]

   The article is reasonably well written but there is a certain amount of repetition of themes, such as the spiritual nature of traditional medicine. This occurs in most sections and seems somewhat unnecessary. Once established, it does not need to be endlessly repeated and it begins to look like padding.

   The word "traditional" is also rather overused. A particularly striking example is the section Payments, where "traditional" occurs six times in four sentences!

   The tone of the article is not quite encyclopaedic, rather more resembling an essay. This can be a good article but more refinement and avoidance of redundancy is needed.

   One other thing, the title should be Traditional African medicine as per WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections. Shall I move it for you?

   I'm not sure how to move it, so that would be great, however, I also don't know how to redirect all the links I made linking back to this page and don't want to disrupt them.

   I have moved it, a redirect has been created and I have ficed links on the other pages that link to this article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References look good, but Edgerton, Horton, Mills, Okpako and Stanley are not used in the footnotes. Why are they listed. As experienced editor H1nkles said in the WP:Peer review/Traditional African Medicine/archive1, you would be better off using the {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} templates in the references section.  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not really focussed, see comments above. The article rambles a bit. Cut out redundancy. Once you have established something move on, no need to kepp re-iterating it.  Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Please leave any comments below this or below the specific points above. I am watching this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thank you very much for addressing these concerns. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations, I look forward to seeing you develop more articles on Wikipedia and bringing them to Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary Remarks

Geographical Limits

This article on Traditional African Medicine describes Traditional Medicine of Subsaharan Africa. Also in regard to Traditional Medicine, the parts of africa, north of the sahara desert, but also the costal parts, e.g. Somalia, Djibouti, Puntland in the east of the continent and parts of Ethiopia have different traditions. As african states and their borders stem from the colonial aera, the separation of these traditions (and their followers) and the adherance to TAM, as described here, separates also states, e.g. Mali, Nigeria Sudan. In Ethiopia even three different traditions (cushitic, amharic and arabic-muslim influences meet each other. ..

Dynamics in Traditional African Medicine

TAM was, and is, no static uniform system.

• Near the borders of different medical systems some kind of mixture will be generated.
• Along trading routes also knowledge of systems is trnasferred.
• Migration of groupes (e.g. migrant workers)or entire parts of any given population induces due to political or economical resons exchanges of traditional medical knowledge.

Aspiration of Traditional African Medicine and Reality

The holistic view of Traditional African Medicine implicates also some overlaps and elements of superstition. Thus Traditional African Medicine brings also dangers with her, such as pursuit of Albino persons, genital mutilation or missing the application of conventional (western) medicine in time, up to mistreatment of HIV/AIDS due to superstitiously misunderstanding the background of illness. ..

AfB (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Boa constrictor???

I highly doubt the traditional medicinal use of Boa constrictor in the Bight of Benin, as it does not naturally occur in Africa. The source may not be the most reliable one for a correct species identification. Maybe it was pythons, not boas... --Marco Schmidt (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Traditional African medicine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Thanks for reviewing this article. I recognise that a number of users have put a lot of effort into this article, however I and other users (see talk page) do have some concerns about this article:

1. Firstly, the article makes extremely broad generalisations about African medicine ("In African cultures, the act of healing is considered a religious act. ")
2. Secondly, the article fails to recognise the broad diversity of cultures and beliefs that exist in Africa
3. Thirdly, the article relies on a number of older sources, and is written in an essay-like format with a lot of examples
4. Fourthly, although it is hard to substantiate, I find that the numerous overbroad characterisations do impact on the article's neutrality

I would like the opinion of another editor, but I do not think that this article meets GA standards, particularly relating to comprehensiveness, neutral, and point of view. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments originally posted by QuackGuru at WT:MED

have been removed. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

and can be read in the original diff here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've said this elsewhere, but I repeat it here for the convenience of anyone looking at this article later:

• These refs are formatted correctly per WP:CITESHORT (now that I've undone QuackGuru's improper merge of the separate section headings).
• The WP:Good article criteria don't require proper citation formatting, and therefore you cannot de-list an article over ref formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a comment on another page suggesting that the refs might be reformtted (despite being exactly the format used in the example at WP:CITESHORT). If someone is interested in doing that, then I remind you that WP:CITEVAR requires that such a change be discussed in advance on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What I noticed in skim-reviewing

Some obvious points:

• Article does not discuss evidence for effectiveness - this is a MAJOR question one might ask about ATMs
• Relies heavily on four sources, two of which are now dead links.
  • Another is bound to be rather out-dated (publication in 1979).
  • One of the dead links does not state the name(s) of its author(s), which is generally desirable.
  • Maybe one or both of the dead-linked sources can be found in a cache somewhere?

I think these points offer sufficient basis for delisting and should be addressed as a priority. I would also encourage citing more directly from primary sources rather than a small number of secondary ones (although secondary sources are acceptable, relying heavily on a small number of sources of any kind generally is not). Samsara (FA • FP) 09:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may add a few drive-by comments:

1. A book written in 1979 is still a WP:RS and fine for an article like this. For a FA, perhaps this would be an important thing, but a GA is all about presenting the fundamentals in a clear and informative way. Had it been 1879, this would be more of an issue. I see no problem with it whatsoever.
2. 4 sources, provided no copy-vio, is no problem whatsoever.
3. Dead-links can be retrieved (usually) and are not a reason for delinking. Ditto the authors - they are not always given in the website themselves and is certainly not something that should affect an article's quality rating.
4. Please read the guidance on WP:RS - primary sources are OK as quotes, but are emphatically not what articles should be written from. That would be WP:OR which we should all try to avoid.
5. I agree that effectiveness should probably be treated, but I don't agree that this is sufficient in itself for delisting.

Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've delisted this article and left reasons on the reassessment page. There seems to be some consensus for this (see comments and comments below) --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Modern period

I have tagged this section as essay-like as it currently appears unbalanced and vague. For example, the weight given to a single 48-bed hospital is surely undue in the context of a short section covering the entire continent. The concluding sentence ("However, the highly sophisticated technology involved in modern medicine, which is beginning to integrate into Africa's health care system, could possibly destroy Africa's deep-seated cultural values.") also seems to provide a single point-of-view on a complex question, with both societal and public health dimensions [present, for example, though currently not much discussed in Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa]. 86.164.164.123 (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly the wrong tag. "Essay-like" means that it's a personal reflection or about the author's personal feelings. Perhaps you wanted a tag like {{unbalanced}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"essay-like" seems right to me, for this and other sections. The article has inadequate sources for a GA and, whatever merits and scientific interest some herbal remedies used no doubt have, the magical aspects and reinforcement of traditionalist social and cultural attitudes seem considerably underplayed. No mention that I saw of female genital mutilation for example. 3/4 of the main sources are now dead links, which is by itself enough to justify GA removal. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there good sources linking the topic of this article with female genital mutilation? I am trying to work out why Category:Traditional African medicine was added to the FGM article—that's the first suggestion I have heard that FGM is part of traditional medicine, and I was planning to remove the category. Re the "Modern period" section: some of it might be salvageable, but the majority should be removed as unsubstantiated POV pushing. I fixed one ref that was a dead link. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also curious at the justification of linking FGM and Traditional African Medicines? Mycelium101 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it should be categorized, and also covered. Is it Traditional? Yes. Is it African? Yes. Is it medical (in intent anyway)? Yes. Why ever not? This search may help you. Or this one. Yours, puzzled, Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I take your point, however it's important to recognise that the vast majority of African societies have significant differences between traditional cultural and healing practices. The question is one whether FGM is practised as a cultural practice or whether the motivation is one of healing. It is entirely feasible that traditional practioners do perform FGM operations, so there is a justifcation for a tenuous link between the 2, however I don't think it's a central theme of TAM. As a case in point, Xhosa in South Africa practice male circumcision, but it is a cultural practice and is performed by elders of the tribe, not by their amagqirha (traditional healers). Similary, FMG is practised in only certain societies in Africa, so it cannot be called an African phenomenon, just as in South Africa, the Xhosa practice male circumcision, but the Zulu don't - therefore male circumsision cannot be defined as a traditional South African cultural practice. It's a traditional Xhosa cultural practice. Mycelium101 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you clearly don't take my point. You (both) clearly want to define "Afican traditional medicine" very narrowly to the stuff that is potentially acceptable to Western medical thought, and exclude the stuff that isn't. That won't wash. Your ideas of what a definition is, and what the role of WP categories is, are both very strange. It is certainly true that "FMG is practised in only certain societies in Africa", but that is true of almost everything in Category:Traditional African medicine, which is not a problem. FGM is common in I think over 20 African countries, far more than most things in the category (Yombe maternity figures, Yorùbá medicine, Traditional Hausa medicine). Any article on particular African male circumcision practices should go in the category. Just try removing the main Circumcision article from its many medical categories (Category:Circumcision, Category:Cosmetic surgery, Category:HIV prevention tools, Category:Male genital procedures, Category:Surgical removal procedures) and see how far you get. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnbod: FGM is a cultural tradition unrelated to traditional medicine. Your search terms include a lot of spurious hits because FGM is traditional, has medical complications, and occurs mainly in Africa. It appears there is no specific reference justifying the category. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FGM is a medical procedure. When it is performed in a modern hospital (including in the West) it is done by a surgeon in an operating theatre under anaesthetic. That it is more typically performed with a rusty blade by a traditional practicioner and the "patient" held down by force does not alter this at all. It "appears" you have not looked at the references at all. There is clearly a WP:Walled garden operating here. I shall take the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any source claim a connection between African traditional medicine and FGM. Egypt has medicalized many FGM procedures, but that was an effort to increase the safety of the procedure—FGM is not performed for a medical reason. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not impressed by the claim that a procedure done with no health-improving intent is medical. However, I wouldn't object to a passing mention with verifiable, uncontroversial information like "Some TAM practitioners also perform FGM". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

From the article "The most common reasons for FGM that practitioners have cited in surveys include social acceptance, hygiene, preservation of virginity, marriageability, enhancement of male sexual pleasure, and religion" (my bold). Compare Male circumcision, Cosmetic surgery and so on. Are these not part of medicine? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jewish medicine does not mention circumcision and we're not going to add a "Traditional Jewish medicine" category to circumcision—while medicine has been involved in male circumcision for 150 years and people discuss health benefits associated with circumcision, it is primarily a traditional custom. When a few hundred people are asked why they perform FGM, they are going to mention lots of different things but there is no reason to think that "hygiene" is a code word for a medical purpose—it's more likely a question of aesthetics. At any rate, no known source shows a connection between traditional African medicine and FGM. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

People take showers for hygiene purposes. Women use vaginal douches for (purported) hygiene purposes. Are those "medical procedures"?

Not every surgical procedure is medical. Purely cosmetic surgery is not medical; it's aesthetic. The involvement of a licensed healthcare provider in making holes in your skin doesn't actually make something medical. Otherwise, ear piercing would be a medical procedure, because there are pediatricians that do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Similary to the above comments and examples, I don't think there is anyone that would claim that Foot binding (which is/was a traditional chinese cultural practice that causes/caused medical issues and deformaties) is a part of Traditional Chinese Medicine and should be categorised under the category Category:Traditional Chinese medicine. Mycelium101 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

For what it's worth, I would also suggest that the gaping hole in the Modern Period section is the collaboration between traditional healers and western medicine in the fight against HIV/AIDS which is a more widespread concern than FGM. There is troves of documentation done on this, such as this from UNAIDS which can be summarised. I can do it in the coming months, however there seems to be considerable interest in this page all of a sudden, so if there is anyone that wants to improve the page, I would suggest that the HIV/AIDS slant and how it has impacted traditional practices is a central place to start. Mycelium101 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Essay-like tag

{{essay-like}} says this:

This article [or section] is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic.

The typical list of basic feelings is "sad, mad, glad, and afraid". (Some sources add ashamed and disgusted.) User:Johnbod, since you said this tag is appropriate, can you point to any sentence in this article that tells us whether an editor is sad, mad, glad, or afraid of this subject?

"States the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings" (emotions) is not the same thing as expressing an opinion. We've got lots of POV-related tags for that situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WAID, apologies for hastily choosing an inappropriate tag (based on common usage of "essay" rather than WPjargon). As regards the substance, I fully concur with Tom's independent comments transcluded above. 86.164.164.123 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's a common problem caused by the poorly chosen name for the template. Someday we should WP:MOVE it something more sensible, like Template:Personal feelings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

FGM and tradition

Just an illustrative anecdote... Some years ago, an friend from the evidence-based medicine community told me he had been in Kenya on a completely secular mission to discuss such practices with Maasai chiefs. To them and their people the matter was of great importance because of their attachment to tradition and preservation of their identity. It turned out that they were quite happy to agree to conduct the ritual symbolically, without any surgical mutilation (cf a subsequent project [2]). 86.164.164.123 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

broken link, mis titled ref?

reference number six is apparently to a pdf titled "Medicinal Plants and Natural Products", but th link is dead to the original site, and archive.org has the pdf, but it's titled "Overview on Medicinal Plants and Traditional Medicine in Africa". Is the source referring to this, just with the wrong title, or is this not the right pdf? I haven't looked through it yet to see if all the things in this article cited to it are indeed supported by this source, but it would be helpful if anyone willing to could do so. I'll get to it on my own eventually, though, but I guess I'm being lazy at the moment... :P SarrCat ∑;3 01:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have just also noticed that dead link. From a quick perusal, it certainly looks like the on Medicinal Plants and Traditional Medicine in Africa is the correct source. Just as examples, the Table of comparisons of ratios of Doctors:Patient vs TMP:Patient is taken directly from that source. So are the statements in the colonial era section, so I would say it's safe to assume. I'm happy to go through the source in more detail in the next week or 2 and ensure that the statements are correctly attributed, reword statements that aren't directly supported or add supporting sources as appropriate.Mycelium101 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just making some notes. References a-g in Ref 6 can be verified directly from the archived pdf mentioned above. That's currently as far as I have got. A copy of the article exists at pambazuka which can also be used as the source once all is verified. Mycelium101 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

All references for reference number 6 can be accurately verified by the source. I am going to change the broken link to the article on Pambazuka and leave the one at archive.org as a backup. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traditional African medicine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060914164630/http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=2524&NLID=166 to http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=2524&NLID=166

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating

- Supplement made according requests especially on Genital Mutilation

- The table on patient/healer ratio should also be updated

Bussakendle (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of points

• The general consensus of FGM and is that it is a traditional cultural practice and not practiced for specific healing motivations, and therefore isn't practiced as part of TAM - See the talk in Modern Period above [3] and further discussions on WikiProject Medicine at [4]. So before adding this, you will need to provide references that explcitly link FGM or GM to TAM, else it is simply WP:SYNTHESIS. I will revert the bits about the FGM until decent references explicitly linking TAM to FGM are provided.
• The other concern that I have is the structure of what you added. You added a bunch under the heading of Conflict. Conflict of what? It's too general. You created subheadings with single lines, that can and should be added to other relevant sections. eg. Anything to do with efficay or comes froma Western perspective should be in the relationship with Western Medicine section. Mycelium101 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• I also removed the statement of the TAM being between $60-$100 billion trade for 2 reasons. a) I couldn't find it in the source provided, and b) the GDP of South Africa is only $350 billion - Are you suggesting that TAM comprises a third of the GDP of South Africa? Mycelium101 (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fist: Thank You for your work.

Answers to

- traditional healers taking part?: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/research-data/view/3634

...Traditional surgeons and nurses registered with the health department ...

- Conflict: o.k., a good measure. I did not want to stray

- Economy?: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/99247/2/2009%20Honours%20Project%20-%20Saner.pdf

... The hidden economy surrounding the medicinal plant trade in South Africa is estimated to be worth approximately $60 to $100 billion per annum ...

Further topic to discussed: Albinos

--Bussakendle (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications.

• Regarding GM - Your reference is to a study on male circumcision in Xhosa boys called Ulwaluko in Southern Africa. This has nothing to do with Female GM, as per your edits [5], which is prevalent in Eastern & West Africa. Once again, these practices are cultural and indiscriminate against a subset of the population, in this case Xhosa boys, as part of their initiation rites into manhood. Healing practices (TAM) are specific, based on ailments, diagnosis and treatments. As said in previous discussions on the topic, it would be acceptable to add a sentence regarding traditional surgeons can be called on to perform genital mutilation surgery, however this still doesn't demonstrate that it is a subject that belongs under Traditional African Medicine and not part of traditional cultural practices.
• Regarding the $60 billion industry. Ok, I see from your edits that your references merged multiple links to SAH2 [6]. A more reliable reference from the Health Systems Trust [7] quotes the industry at R2.9 billion per annum. With a exchange rate of about R15 to $1, that puts the estimates at just under $200 million per annum. That's a far cry from $60-$100 billion, so I suggest we need to find more reliable sources for any quoted estimates.
• There are already full pages on Albinos and the persecution thereof, which is once again, mainly an Eastern African phenomenon, so you can start there for references and links. The topic, along with Muti Murders is serious enough to warrant it's own sections which can be summarised from the mentioned articles. Mycelium101 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything worth merging?

The mis-named article Ancient black influence in early medicine seems likely to be deleted shortly as almost all of its content is a fork of Ancient Egyptian medicine. However, there is one short section that is not about Egypt, and I wonder if it might be appropriate to this article. I copy it here for editors of this page to consider.

Zulu people are known to use traditional effective healing remedies produced by various types of plants. Charles Finch elaborates that “Ouabain, capsicum, physostigmine, kola and Calabar beans” are some medicines used to treat against pain, Toxin, and diseases. For example, Finch explains that a drug could be given to decrease the risk of producing newborns with deformities when giving birth, also known as abortions. Another form of treatment he mentions is herbal remedies that would alleviate inflammation, muscle, joint pain, infections, and stimulant that would fight against toxic venoms from Reptile like snakes. This vast amount of medical remedies found were effective drugs, used by traditional doctors to alleviate different cases of medical complaints in patients.

References

--JBL (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding more on HIV/AIDS

I am doing research on African traditional healers and HIV/AIDS. I see that some of this information has already by mentioned in the "Importance" and "Traditional African women and medicine" sections.

In the latter section, I feel there is an unbalanced view, with the sentence: "The HIV/AIDS epidemic revealed a criticism of traditional healers’ methods in healthcare from those of modern medicine." The rest of the paragraph seems to lean on a Western medicine viewpoint, or at least provides more information from that perspective without including other perspectives.

Therefore, I would like to add information that gives other perspectives on traditional healers and HIV/AIDS, such as programs like THETA (Traditional and modern Health practitioners Together Against AIDS).

Edward C. Green has a book called AIDS And STDs in Africa: Bridging the Gap Between Traditional Healing and Modern Medicine .

I also hope to include research by African social scientists as well.

Sora360 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Fix up Comment

I started fixing some of the missing language references and found that several of the refs are not working properly. I've decided to copy this page to my sandbox and fix it from there. If anybody has anything that they feel I should add please let me know. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS sections

@Sora360: Hi. I notice you are busy updating the sections on HIV. Shall I leave sections 5 and 6 as they are until you are done? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith:Hello, thanks for asking. You can go ahead and edit. Thanks for contributing.

Sora360 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sora360: Thanks. Will do. Wyatt Tyrone Smith Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Western Medicine vs Science-based medicine

I have a problem with referring to modern medicine as Western medicine, as that is very America-centric and ignores the contributions that Europe and Asia had made and continue to make. Science-based is the more accurate description of modern medical practices. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of changes made

IMPORTANT NOTE: Somebody added mentions of Peltzer et al but without any reference(s). I have flagged those with citation needed. Could that person please add those references or delete the text...

1.1 Colonial era:

• Rewrote section 1.1 Colonial era to more accurately reflect the content of sources referenced. For instance, no mention is made of science considering traditional healing to be backward; one ref says medical practices were outlawed, the other says the practitioners were considered witches and outlawed; I've stuck to the facts that some practices were outlawed. Owuanibe mentions a war on witchcraft but that isn't substantiated in any other reference - I've removed that.

1.2 Modern period:

• Reworded this paragraph totally and removed phrases like "In recent years", "interest has recently..." as they become dated very quickly. Corrected wording that implied homeopathy, iridology etc are accepted Western treatments. Also removed the term Western, because the hospital includes TCM, which is eastern. Removed Owuanibe's comment about medical technology destroying African cultural values - not relevant to this page.

2. Diagnostics:

• Cleaned this up a bit and used Helwig as the major source. Kept the bit about incantations by Owuanibe.

3. Treatments:

• Shortened the intro to this section, cleaned up and combined sentences. I listed the treatments for easier reading, as the run-on paragraph was very info-dense.

3.1 Medicinal plants:

• Fixed the reference - Stanley2014: "Recognition and Respect for African Traditional Medicine"
• Cleaned up and combined some sentences throughout this section. Used the lang template throughout.
• removed the discussion of Securidaca as none of the references mention it.
• Was going to rewrite the section about the ACE Inhibitor Activity study as it was copy-pasted directly from the ref, but instead went to the original paper and worked from that. Converted the table for the study into a list. The table was taking up a lot of space and was breaking the page up. This feels more natural and no info has been lost. - Descriptions of the plants limited to appearance and common name for consistency. Removed the additional information about the medicinal uses that was present in only some of the descriptions, again for consistency.
• Rewrote the bit about aloes to reflect what the reference said. Also mentioned what the palms were actually used for.
• Rewrote the Dold and Cocks study since most of it was copy-pasted directly from the ref. (Used the lang template here as well.)
• Removed section title 3.1.1 Recent discoveries - becomes dated quickly
• Replaced medicalxpress.com ref with three citations it used.

3.2 Sprituality:

• This had to be be rewritten as most of it was a direct quote from Onwuanibe. Took out the map and the description of the tribal dance, as not relevant.

4.0 Traditional Medical Practices:

• Minor changes and reformatting

4.1 Payments: & 4.2 Learning the trade:

• Fixed refs and re-formatting mostly

4.3 Importance:

• Removed the table in section 4.3 importance, mostly because it doesn't add much of relevance. The data are outdated and the gist of the information is presented in the text before it. Converted the book ref into a citation and couldn't save the other ref as the website ownership had changed.

5.0 Traditional African medicine in relation to women

• Found references to replace Nelms (as it needs a subscription)

6.1 Role:

• Converted refs to journal & book citations

6.2 Criticism:

• Reworded, fixed references, removed duplicate ref

Saftey:

• The last section on safety was extensively reworded. The impression given was of imminent successful application of TAM to cure HIV and anything else while the research quoted made no such claims. Statements about probable mechanisms were taken out of context. In quoting those papers that weren't literature surveys no mention was made that the active ingredients on the TAM was tested, not the plant itself. This gave the impression that it was the plant that could be used "as is". Mention is made of the failed attempt to find a cure Ebola and Marburg but neither reference is related to them, so I removed that sentence.

General:

• I decided to mostly remove Onwuanibe from the biliography and use it in only a few places as a reference. The work is from 1979 and is appropriate for its time but not an accurate reflection of the current views, opinions and data available regarding TAM. The opinions expressed about the colonial period are also dated and misleading, while the views about the technology of the modern period (1970's) are typical of the time, but no longer relevant. I left some of his quoted comments in where there was nothing else.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Somebody added mentions of Peltzer et al but without any reference(s). I have flagged those with citation needed. Could that person please add those references, or delete the text...

Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)