Talk:Herbalism: Difference between revisions

The techniques to really use herbs in a radical and powerful fashion don't seem easy to come by. The books I've seen don't seem to be published with the power of wisdom and knowledge that I would expect, yet I can't be sure because my knowledge comes from Theology and not from Practice. Either the wisdom has faded with the rise of Western medicine (hope not), or it's simply latent and invisible to me. Perhaps someone can point out good references that are grounded both in experience and spiritual theory (like, for example: is [flower petal] color a reliable indicator of a specific healing element?). Pangaia (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject is interesting but content does not fit Appropedia[edit source]

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The subject of herbalism is a good fit for Appropedia, given the great amount of technical and scientific to back up its claims. Facts portrayed on the article must, however, be factually supported by any type of supported research. Perhaps a good way to do so will be by reviewing scientific knowledge on the subject or other types of documentation to reference, including articles already on Appropedia such as Herbal_medicine. --Emilio (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Learn how wikis work. You don't just go around proposing deleting content that is in the spirit of the wiki without any discussion. You are being too MASCULINE. The mission of appropedia includes much more than technologically-based solutions, "it is a green living wiki" (from your Help:About page), as such it should include answers from the divine FEMININE. If you want citations for everything, then you don't need Appropedia: you could use wikipedia. There are philosophical notions of "facts" that go beyond the science bias of "measureability". Do you not understand this? Pangaia (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refer to Appropedia:Rigor to see some of our guidelines on content. As a green living wiki, we strive to serve factual and scientific knowledge. I am simply following your request on your User:Pangaia page of letting you know if the content does not follow community guidelines. Let us know if there is anything we can do to support your research. --Emilio (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see there that that is a proposed policy, correct? I have written my objection and concern on the Talk page there. I do hope you will consider that your view of science has nearly destroyed planet Earth or will, including things like global thermonuclear war, excessive oil consumption and extraction from industrialism leading to depletion (and who knows what: Biblical Armageddon probably), new diseases that no one knows the cause or the cure for, etc. Some of what I just said, btw, is documented scientifically, for your perusal.Pangaia (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you would like this page to exist, please write it in a way that is factual and value added. Please keep in mind that there is plenty of room on Appropedia to describe useful aspects of herbalism, such as solar drying of herbs, identifying herbs, growing herbs, etc... without making wildly inaccurate and dangerous claims without validation. User:Pangaia I appreciate your enthusiasm and efforts, and I also hope you can appreciate the years of effort we have been putting in on this. Thank you, --Lonny (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are neither "wildly inaccurate" or "dangerous claims" at all. They are based on knowledge in the soul and founded on millennia of history, much of it poorly (incomplete or contradictory) documented, but being poorly documented doesn't make it invalid. In no way does this invalidate the value of science, but nor does it elevate it to the level of some kind of "absolute truth". The history of science is riddled with half-cocked ideas, some of them lasting to this day. By eliminating everything but what can be seen, you have eliminated part of the Divine Female. Surely, not in the spirit of the wiki....? Pangaia (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the knowledge I've presented I have banked by Holistic Doctorate degree (HD), so I'm backing up my claims/knowledge with my reputation, not merely trying to get attention. Western medicine is powerful and controls many minds, because you betrayed yourself (or were betrayed) as a young child, when you accepted the needle. Feel free to use my name if anyone makes some challenge to you about the knowledge presented, because most people are frankly dumbasses about it all -- hence the persistent, chronic, and destructive diseases that pervade this culture that your wiki, presumably, wishes to correct. "The problems of Mankind can't be solved with the tools that created them." (paraphrase of Albert Einstein).Pangaia (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry that you are in so much pain and have had problems with other communities accepting you. I would love to accept you here, but your contributions are contrary to the goals of this wiki and needs of the many communities involved. I am moving your pages to your user page in a compromise to keep you involved. That said, given your harsh responses and inaccurate/misleading edits, I am not sure if there is a good fit for you here. I am sorry for that, and I hope you find a community that does accept you for how you are and/or you can learn to compromise and not attack others. If you need resources for making your own wiki for the learnings you wish to share, please let me know and I can send you some links. --Lonny (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ARE YOU A BOT??? Because what you said is completely random. Perhaps you should withdraw your participation from the community of people wanting to make an alternative to the domiant paradigm, rather than control by A SINGLE (2 maybe?) INDIVIDUAL, ALL MALE. Pangaia (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pangaia, I strongly suggest you find a community that feels exactly the same as you, because you do not seem to want to compromise or have productive open communication without attacks. Appropedia has been running for over 13 years with over 400,000 edits with the focus on specific implemented solutions. If you have a solution that you have implemented in a community to share, please do describe it here. Please do not engage in speculative, prescriptive musings; ad hominem attacks...actually any attacks; soapboxing; assuming gender; etc. Please find the community and help you need, and let us know if you want to compromise. I am sorry that I do not have more time for this conversation. I hope you understand that I am everyday working on real solutions with engaged communities. I care deeply about this work, and while I do care about these conversations, I cannot dedicate more time to it (especially given all the other work, including helping to keep this site running which is an endeavor all on its own). Thank you, wishing you all the best, --Lonny (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]