|
User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XII
Mar '07Juxtlahuaca makes DYK, with drawingCJLL, just had to tell you that the Juxtlahuaca article with its drawing made the Main Page today. It was a real kick to see the drawing on the front page. Madman 18:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Mesoamerica pageHey Cjll - just wanted to bring to your attention a nice little revert war we've got going on over on the Mesoamerica page. I figured since you're now an admin, you might want to check in with it (i'm pretty sure we've got violations of that 3 revert rule or whatever). I'm staying out of it, but i feel like the two people invovled are bringing a geographic debate they've had elsewhere over to the meso page where, for lack of better words, its completely irrelevant. The article focuses on the Meso culture area and the archaeological societies therein, not whether "middle america" includes parts of north america, the caribbean, etc. etc. etc.. If there's anything you could do, that would be cool. Take care - Oaxaca dan 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
SpamHey Cjll - since you're the only admin I know, I was hoping you could lend a hand or point me in the right direction. There's an anon ip User talk:63.245.61.153 spamming a number of pages in the Tulum area (Tulum, Quintana Roo, Playa del Carmen, and Akumal). I've undid his/her additions three or four times over the last day and half - I just did it again a couple of minutes ago, but I think my changes are being reverted as I write this. I've placed warnings on the user talk page for the ip, but it doesn't seem to have too much effect. Is there somewhere I could report this? Or are you, as an admin, able to handle it, so to speak? Thanks in advance! -- Oaxaca dan 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at RfC at Talk:List of indigenous peoplesI appreciate that someone with experience in editing the article and formulating the criteria as a guideline for inclusion put in their two cents. I do not necessarily agree with your conclusions, though I do understand your point about not wanting to bring the debate about Palestinian and Jewish indigenous claims to the page. But that is precisely the problem. As a Palestinian who identifies as part of an indigenous community and who has worked in solidarity with other indigenous communities (primarily the Anishanabe of the Six Nations of Turtle Island), the recognition of our status as an indigenous people is of particular importance to me. Indeed, one could argue that it would be highly offensive to exclude inclusion of other indigenous peoples, on the basis that their colonizers find the listing contentious. It is true that this is highly politicized issue, which (in my opinion) partially acounts for some of the ambiguity surrounding the Palestinian relationship to the PF and WGs on indigneous issues. I believe the reticence to include Palestinians comes from a fear that by doing so, indigenous peoples will by tying their fate to the dynamics and outcome of one of the most intractable conflicts of the last century. I might note though, that the Palestinian case is one that requires closer examination by indigenous peoples everywhere, since it exemplifies the emptiness of "autonomony" arrangements that fail to outline the inherent land rights of the indigenous community in question, reducing autonomy to a merely local administrative body, ultimately dependent on their colonizers approval as regards land use. In any case, I thought I would share my own reflections on your comments here, since they are somewhat outside the scope of the talk page, but are important to the general discussion and context, nonetheless. Thanks for your food for thought, and the reasoned way in which you presented your comments. Looking forward to seeing more of you in the future. Tiamut 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem about the delay. We are not Wikipedia slaves and have lives outside too (to varying degrees on different days :). I do appreciate you responding to my comments. I also do understand why you and Johannes and others might be reticent about taking a strong position on what seems to be a mightily controversial listing to a page that had enjoyed relative consensus about who does and does not belong there. The whole “Palestine problem” does seem like a complicated issue to those do not keep up with events on a day-to-day basis. The Lebanese civil war was crazy to me before I delved into the subject a little bit, and I still have trouble understanding all the intricacies of the politics of identity debate going on there. But I digress. I have to be honest here and say that I do feel that Palestinians are being held to higher standard for inclusion on this page because of the efforts of “ideological opponents” to make it seem like such a listing is imminently ludicrous when it's not. In a careful re-reading of the discussion, it should be clear that Palestinian Bedouins of the Negev (who are actually citizens of Israel) are an indigenous people, without any shadow of a doubt, having participated in working groups for the Indigenous Peoples forum. This was agreed on by all (including “ideological opponents”. The only disagreement was how to list the entry, a problem never resolved because of the opposition of aforementioned “ideological opponents” to using the word “Palestinian” in the listing. This was not for the lack of a reliable source that met the page criteria. (See these links: [1] [2] [3] [4]). Rather it was a simple refusal to acknowledge how the Bedouin delegates to the indigenous forum identified themselves. That others who are “neutral” in this debate let them get away with denying the right of this indigenous people to self-identification in the terms they see fit is frankly deeply disappointing to me. As regards the listing of Palestinians in Israel (in other words Palestinian Arabs with Israeli citizenship or Arab citizens of Israel), the criteria was also met. There are multiple civil society groups representing these Palestinians who do increasingly identify as an indigenous people, before national and international bodies. For example,
“The Arab minority be recognized as a “national minority” and an “indigenous population” whose distinct collective identity should be protected through historic, linguistic, religious, and cultural rights.” In the end, it was the issue of self-identification that JohannesRohr and others “neutral” to the debate found lacking in the case of Palestinians (it was conceded that every other criteria under the definition was met). Evidence provided above supporting the fact that Palestinian citizens of Israel, including Bedouins identify as an indigenous people really got lost in the fray, and no one moved forward to add these two listings. I know you noticed how intransigent most opponents to the inclusion of Palestinians - who were subsequently advocates for the addition of Jews as a kind of WP:POINT - to the list were, and how they exhibited a complete lack of respect for consensus and logic. It was noted by others that their contributions seemed to be designed to be disruptive. Sadly, in my opinion, they were aptly rewarded for their efforts. People were intimidated into leaving the issue of Palestinian indigeneity to burn like some hot coal in the corner. And it (sing!) burns baby, burns … But we’ve gotten used to it and hardly feel the flames anymore. :) That’s just my fifty cents. Thanks again for your comments. And I hope there’s no hard feelings over the directness (and excessive length) of my reply. Tiamut 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hiya cjll,
Hi, CJLL Wright/Archive XII, you asked me to add my comments to the ongoing discussion regarding Jews and Palestinians. However, I'm about to loose patience: The contributors have shown little or no signs of understanding or accepting what the concept of "indigenous peoples" actually means. They insist, that the literal, adjective English meaning of "indigenous" was the sole relevant criterion. If so, we could also add, say, Germans, Slovaks, Czech, or Vietnamese to the list. Just everyone who has been living for some time where he used to live. I've put considerable effort into trying to explain what the Martínez Cobo definition is about and why it is relevant, but it all seems to fall onto deaf ears because those guys are trying to force their personal views on the Middle Eastern conflict into this article by all means available. If you have any suggestion how to proceed, please contact me. Thanks, --Johannes Rohr 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Calico HillQuite a site you have here. My goodness. User:Madman2001 has worked up a good article on Calico Early Man Site and he and I have been working out some editing. But we reached a point where he suggested I ask you. The first sentence refers to it as a possible archaeological site. I contend that the application of archaeological method makes it an archaeological site regardless of whether anything human or possibly human was found. You can put down a site anywhere, at the bottom of the sea if you wish. He contends that it does not earn the name archaeological site unless something human is sited there, if I understand his view correctly. You can read it in the discussion. He wants you to decide. As we seem to be on pretty good terms so far it is a question of usage only. Ciao.Dave 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Missing ref tag on CricketI think that was my fault; thanks for fixing it. When I started working on the article, I didn't realize it was already on the main page, so I got sidetracked in vandal reverts, and failed to doublecheck my work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Many ISO codes for a single language infoboxI'm needing to talk to someone about how to handle cases where there are many ISO codes for a single language infobox. Who maintains the infobox structure? Specifically what I'd like to be able to do is to include instead of (or, where appropriate, besides) a single code or a complete list of codes a link to somewhere else. E.g. on the Nahuatl page it would make sense to have something like "ISO 639-3 nah, (more at Nahuatl Dialects)". When I try to put it in the structure I get weird results. (I noticed that User:tatapelu asked for similar help with Mixtecan languages, where the situation is even worse. Your response is what prompted me to write you, hoping you know whom I should be talking to.) I'll watch for a response here, or you can use my talk page.--Lavintzin 22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Check your wikiproject's categories for deletions!Apparently User:Voice of All has taken it upon him/herself to do a mass-deletion of categories, including at least one from WP:ETHNIC. I'm trying to establish whether or not he/she notified anyone of this action (it doesn't seem so...). Meanwhile, check your cats. Perhaps some of yours were deleted as well...--Ling.Nut 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject structureHi CJLL Wright, this Anas. I, along with a few other Wikipedians are planning on launching WikiProject Syria, and I would really appreciate if you would allow us to borrow some of the concepts you have used in designing WikiProject Mesoamerica. I ran into the project's page the other day and absolutely fell in love with the portal-like design so I hope you don't mind. Please tell me if you do. - Anas talk? 09:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Minor Category Overlap?Hey Cjll, I noticed that you created a new cat, Category:Mesoamerican diet and subsistence - I was going to enthusiastically start adding pages to it, but noticed that one for Category:Agriculture in Mesoamerica exists - the latter exists as a sub-cat under a variety of places, and they are both sub-cats in Category:Science and technology in Mesoamerica - since agriculture is a type of subsistence, should we perhaps move it under Meso diet and subsistence (at least within that listing)? Dunno - i find that categorization can get a bit discombobulating at times. Anywho, I just wanted to bring it to your attention -- Oaxaca dan 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!Hey Cjll, thanks for your words - I've been tinkering here and there, and mainly trying to get a slew of articles that haven't been cleaned up or wikified to at least stub status so we can remove those and the project banner attention tags. Fun stuff. Yeah, I talk to Chun/DH pretty often - obviously we worked together at chun, and he and I, along with the core members of the project have been working on papers, articles, and what-not. We're both working on our disses now as well, but i think he just procrastinates in a different way then I (whereas I spend my free time here). I'm sure he'll be back, and I have noticed him posting on his anon ip address, so he's around occasionally. Cheers -- Oaxaca dan 13:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The article Mayan languages is currently nominated for Featured Article. You might wish to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mayan language.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC) {disputed} tag on Aztec societyCesar Tort wants to know why you dropped a {{disputed}} tag on the Aztec society article. Could you explain your reasons on Talk:Aztec society. --Richard 08:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
