Talk:Dreamcatcher

message: The Lakota legend in this article has been pasted, verbatim, from this website, and it is not clear if this has been done by the original author, should the article have a copyright violation boilerplate placed on it?
redcountess 10:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hii how you Rose Girl101 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Olde Edit-discussions 

message: How is this related to a mandella? Comments by Knaggs on 11:05, 5 March 2007
:From the most generic definition of a "mandala" or a "mandella" being a "geometric design representing a cosmic plan", a dream-catcher sort of falls into that category.  There are other types of Native American "mandala" designs that also fall into this category.  (see http://www.whats-your-sign.com/Native-American-mandala.html)  However, I'm not sure how this information can be incorporated into (or even appropriate for) this article other than having a "See also" link provided at the end. CJLippert 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mandala]] 

message: I'm uncomfortable with the article's current name. Partly because "Dreamcatcher (Native American)" just sounds rather silly, and partly because I don't think a disambiguation is really necessary. The Ojibwe/Native American traditional dreamcatchers are where the term originated; other uses of it (e.g., to refer to books or songs or the like) are obviously taking their name from the object. My suggestion would be to have this page be named just Dreamcatcher, and to have a link at the top to a disambiguation page, Dreamcatcher (disambiguation) (the page that's now at just Dreamcatcher). Thoughts, suggestions, or comments? --Miskwito 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that change. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, or maybe the article could automatically to this page, and then have a link at the top for other DreamCatcher disabamguation (sorry, I don't know how to spell it, if I remember, I'll fix it later) SOTL 16:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support the change, as well.  It sounds so much more logical.  Miigwech Miskwito. CJLippert 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: We have a situation here where we have a POV statement being added by an anonymous user repeatedly and then a registered user removing the statement.  It is:
:"Further exacerbating this troubling development of cultural appropriation is when various groups or individuals poach aboriginal ideas of artistic expression, and then manufacture them by non-natives in countries such as China, for example, where copyright infringement is the norm."
and a citation of a legitimate site is given.  However, the site does not quite express this, though broaches the topic.  The anonymous user does make an excellent statement but needs to figure out a way to express this in a way to meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV.  CJLippert (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV statement repeatedly added and removed 

message: These special items that ward away evil dreams. Not exactly evil but bad, nightmares. They were actually called Sacred Hoops because, they are the shape of a circle, only because they were the shape of, the sun, the earth, the moon,and life. The circle was sacred to Native Americans. A symbol of strengh and unity. To carry that spiritual theme forward, the dream catcher's basic shape is a circle or hoop the web is woven around.
Starting in the 1960's and 1970's, dream catchers became popular with other Native American tribes. They came to be seen by some as a symbol of unity and as a general symbol of identification with Native American or First Nations (Canadian) cultures. You are suppose to hang the dream catcher in a window, because that's where the dreams most likely come through from, and then the catcher let's good dreams go by and catches the bad dreams.
A good thing for children and babies, is to put one over the crib for babies. And for Children I would put on in every window of the room, and one over their beds. I personally would put one in every window of my house, because you can fall asleep any where in your house.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan99998 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred Hoops 

message: Over the years, there have been many making this Article notable!  I'm new to the discussion and appreciate the good work. When improving an article, it is always important to not discard that which is good. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some nice work here 

message: , Dreamcatchers do qualify as sculptures, since they are hand-made three-dimensional abstract forms. I was trying to move specific (lower-level) articles from :Category:Native American art into appropriate subscategories, since "Native American art" is so vague, it should only include like broader articles like Alaska Native art or Northwest Coast art or articles that can really not go anywhere else. The religious category is debatable, since, while dreamcatchers as based on Dakota and Anishinaabe spiritual shields, those have their own names and dreamcatchers aren't inherently spiritual. They are more like Zulu love notes—popular iterations of culture created for outsiders. Ahalenia (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... I'm not heavily attached either way on the sculpture category, but they are part of some Indigenous spiritual cultures. Yes, they have also been commercialized by outsiders, and are now made, bought and sold by outsiders, but that doesn't erase the original meaning and usage. - CorbieV☊☼ 17:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: So I have done some research and have been collecting it for about a month now and do plan on adding new information. But a two things before that:
1) In the origins section the last sentence "However, many other Native Americans have come to see dreamcatchers as over-commercialized, offensively misappropriated and misused by non-Natives.[3]" I personally feel that it seems like it would better in the popularization section rather than the origin section. Mainly because logically it doesn't make sense to have something related to modern day and current beliefs in a section about the origin and where it was started.
2) The section titled "Dreamcatcher Parts" It sounds odd, maybe it could be renamed to "Different Parts and Their Meanings"
I understand that maybe no one will agree, especially with number 2, but I feel that number 1 is a valid topic
Twirlsie17 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating my edit summary here in more detail. What you posted was clearly cut and pasted, then only very slightly tweaked, from the St. Joseph's Indian School site. If you don't know why they should not be used as a source, please do more research. Even if you had used a reliable source, at WP we take copyright violations very seriously. See the notice on your talk page. The other things you added were either unsourced or repeated content already in article. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually hadn't copied and pasted I typed everything and thought I had changed the way things were phrased and said enough, but I will definitely look into my sources more and do more research. I thought I had added my sources in, maybe I forgot to put it in a few places, sorry about that, and I will reread the article to triple check I don't repeat anything in the future. Thanks. Twirlsie17 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit:. Text comparison. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your help, I am still very new at editing articles. Also what is some good criteria for making sure the source is credible? Twirlsie17 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, were you saying that what is copied and pasted was the stuff in the quotation marks? Because it was my understanding that that is a quote so I though you don't paraphrase quotes. I don't know if that makes sense. But I thought that if it is in quotation marks than it was okay. Also what was I missing/do wrong with the dreamcatcher parts section, did I not cite my source often enough? Twirlsie17 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

text: When I looked at that 2nd one to see what matched, it looks like most of it came from the quote said by the spirit, so is using the same quote from the legend copyrighting, or is it not actually a quote for some reason? Twirlsie17 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible edits to be made 

message: Here in Germany, these crafted objects are also known, even though virtually no Native Americans live here. --Laber□T 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Even in America, many of the "dreamcatchers" sold are made overseas, in places like China. In those senses it is usually made and sold as a decorative object and/or a good luck charm (though some Native groups other than the original(s) that do also seem to hand-make and sell them as tourist stuff, which is at least a step up from "made by some mass-manufacturing group in China"). However, these sales do not support the cultures from which the dreamcatcher originated. Anybody who would like one but is wanting to support the original cultures, rather than people copying their folk art, should take care to check that the one they are interested in is made by a Native American group, particularly the Lakota (also called Dakota or Sioux) tribe/Nation, or most especially the Ojibwe/Ojibwa tribe (also called Chippewa and variants on that, by others). Those are the groups that seemed to practice it first, with most people I've seen who seem in the know attributing its origins directly to the Ojibwe in particular. I do recall there was at least one website I had found at some point that claimed to be selling Native art made by Natives, and I'm sure there are groups of artisans from those cultures that have Facebook pages these days, etc. It's usually just a matter of making sure you know you're buying it more or less directly from the artisan who made it. 108.188.199.60 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural appropriation 

message: A student editor tried to add content from a page that is clearly copyvio. Ironically, the copyvio goes both ways. A good bit of the unsourced text on the commercial site that was added is lifted from this WP article. Then the user copied more from that page and put it here, resulting in a blatant copyvio. Keep an eye out for this stuff, folks. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to find a reliable and credible source on this culture because it is a prominently oral culture. With the help of a research librarian on my campus we found that the government site was the most credible source on this Lakota legend.  There are several sources with the same information but the government site is the most credible source we found. I am going to try one more time to add my information and I would like it known that I am not plagiarizing, I am paraphrasing the legend, you can see this if you go to the site. Twirlsie17 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Twirlsie17. Which culture is a predominantly oral culture? There are many credible sources available on and off the internet regarding indigenous peoples. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

text: What you claim is "from the government site" was simply an archived pdf of someone's informal newsletter. I have no idea why it's being stored on that server but it's not a document produced by a tribal gov't. It looked to me like someone's auntie copying and pasting unsourced apocrypha from the Intarwebs. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvios 

message: In my edit that you have reverted, I removed multiple instances of the Ojibwe-language term for the language itself, as this is the English-language Wikipedia. I removed all but two links to Ojibwe language, the first one was in the first sentence occurring due to the template , if you have overlooked that. Please explain why we need more than two or even more than one links to the language, and to use the name for the language which is rarely understood by English speakers? Idell (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look it over again, but the duplicated links I saw were when different forms of the word were used. On articles that use Indigenous languages, we don't generally cut terms because they're not familiar to English-only speakers; we use it as a chance to educate. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't call Mandarin Chinese "Guanhua" or Dutch language "Nederlands", just as we do not call Ojibwe "Anishinaabemowin". We should also avoid switching back and forth between the two terms. There are only 8–10 occurrences of that difficult word on :Ojibwe language (an article whose very subject is the indigenous language under discussion) compared to the 238 total instances of "Ojibwe". See also Guarani language whose native name is mentioned only up to 5 times in its English-language Wikipedia article. My understanding is that duplicate links are not allowed within one paragraph (WP:DUPLINK). Idell (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language links in lead