Talk:Ancestral Puebloans/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Requested move (February 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Pueblo Peoples → Anasazi — The current title is conjectural and not used in science. "Anasazi" is the name commonly used for that ancient culture. The argument that people who may or may not be their descendants don't like the word "Anasazi" is meaningless. And, by the way, take a look at the interlanguage links—none of the other Wikipedias use "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" (or something similar), because it is absurd. —bender235 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • STRONGLY OPPOSE. Wrongheaded and factually incorrect proposal. Some current Pueblo people (esp. Hopi, ims) object to the use of "Anasazi", a Navajo word meaning (roughly) "enemy ancestors". The current archaeological usage is "Ancestral Pueblo", if we want to conform to that. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of archaeological/historical terms that have a negative meaning, like Seminole (literally "wild men"), Maroon (lit. "fugatives"), Slavic (lit. "slaves"), Saracen (lit. "plunderers") etc. Yet we still use the names because they have been adopted into the language.
Search for "Ancestral Pueblo" on Google Scholar returns 483 results [1], searching for "Anasazi" returns 9,190 [2]. So could you please name the source for your claim that "Ancestral Pueblo" is used in archaeology today? --bender235 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment A search of Google Scholar, when trying to determine current archaeological usage, is meaningless unless you give the publication dates for the various hits. If the change is fairly recent, it wouldn't show up in items published 10, 50 or 100 years ago, would it? Skinsmoke (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. So here are the results from Google Scholar of scientific publications since 2000: "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" -> 17 returns. "Ancestral Pueblo" -> 326 returns, "Anasazi" -> 4030 returns. Strengthens my argument even futher. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Google results don't count -- they are simply a poll of computer geeks like us. Real scholarly opinion, your 'scientificly correct', is still mixed on the topic. 40 years ago, Anasazi was the preferred archeological term, 20 years ago, or so, Ancient Pueblo Peoples was preferred. Now things are slowly moving to Ancestral Pueblo or Ancestral Pueblo Cultures. But most publications I've recently read use Ancient Pueblo Peoples (Anasazi) which is the way this article is set up. I still oppose a change, as apparently does everyone but you. So concensus is................? WBardwin (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If you'd take a closer look, you might realize that Google Scholar is not "a poll of computer geeks", but a database of scientific papers and books. And it clearly shows that "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" is not prefered, neither in the past 10 years (17 results vs. 4,030 for "Anasazi"), nor past 20 years (23 vs. 6,320). --bender235 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's online - isn't it? i.e. computer geeks. Start tabulating from paper - professional publications, thesis, etc. and you'll get different numbers. Of course, that will take a research project in itself. Isn't it funny how shortcuts don't really work. WBardwin (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea what a bibliographic database is, have you? Those entries on Google Scholar aren't some Usenet entries by computer geeks. Those are scanned scholarly "publications, thesis, etc.", and just because they're available online doesn't mean they're worthless. --bender235 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - the page was originally named "Anasazi" and received an significant amount of comment on the current objections to the name. The issue was discussed, prior to my time on Wikipedia, and the page moved. Since that time, the issue of the name comes up repeatedly. This page currently addresses both names and the controversy, and should remain as is. WBardwin (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So we can't name this article scientificly correct (that would be "Anasazi") and still adress the "controversy" regarding that name? Explain why, please! For example, there is some controversy regarding the name of the country Macedonia (the Greeks complained it shouldn't be named such), yet the article is named "Macedonia" and there's a section explaining the "Macedonia naming dispute". Why can't we do the same here? --bender235 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (March 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Pueblo Peoples → Anasazi — The current title violates WP:UCN, as it is not used in science and is not used by anyone, including science. For example, compare a Google Scholar search for "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" with a search for "Anasazi". The name might be controversial, but so are the names of dozens of other peoples and ethnic groups (e.g. Seminole, Maroon, Slavic), who are nonetheless filed under their respective common name. —bender235 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be named Ancient Pueblo Peoples or Anasazi? --bender235 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move. See all the reasons above. Bender235, in my opinion, you should learn the concept of consensus -- learn to work with others rather than pushing an agenda. WBardwin (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, there was no consensus above. Also, your only "argument" was your misconception about what Google Scholar is. Please name any reason why this article should not be filed under its common name. --bender235 (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm-Hm-Hm. Tricky, very tricky. Guess what we call our stupid little image-stub over at Navajo-wikipedia? Yepp, that's right: nv:Anaasází. On the other hand, if a Hopi read it, he'd probably throw a small fit. I don't really care about this, but the politically correct who want to "not offend" anyone have to realize that someone will be pissed off. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The name Macedonia offends Greek people, yet we use the name because of WP:UCN (and address the controversy in a section within the article). So should we with this article. --bender235 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(shrugs) I was just reminding the concerned voices above that political correctness is probably futile here. For all I care, they're called Anasazi, that's what I learned in school and college, and that's what I call them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay. --bender235 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for the invitation, Bender. I hope the regular editors will be patient with my input as I am an uninvolved editor (I removed a "hi" that screwed with the format). I've noticed Google scholar being used in previous discussion and out of curiosity clicked on one of User:Bender235's links to see what resulted for Anasazi. On the first page two of the first three hits were climate articles and the third was referencing a software's efficacy in relation to eigenvalue problems. I'm just attempting to add a bit of perspective. I'm hoping to add more relevant input, however I'm a plodder and the discussion may close before my abilities can kick in. Regards Tiderolls 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Indeed, some of the "Anasazi" articles on Google Scholar are climate articles, which is because of the theory that the disappearance of the Anasazi was caused by a climate change in the 12th century. --bender235 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make (rather obliquely, I admit) was that the uses of "Anasazi" in the Google scholar hits were not directly related to the point in this discussion. Seb (an editor I respect and whose opinion I would trust in most instances) raises a valid point re: naming an article based on the common usage of a term or phrase being a standard convention on Wikipedia. However, there exists a redirect from Anasazi here and there is a section in the article outlining the naming concerns. IMO this is sufficient. I believe consensus will be difficult to obtain in this instance and that the status quo should rule without a more clear argument to the contrary. That's just my two cents and I'd be eager to see alternate opinions. Tiderolls 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • From above: "The current title violates WP:UCN, as it is not used in science." Huh?!? Common names frequently deviate from scientific usage. The point of WP:UCN is an extension of the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a scientific treatise or a realm for specialists (WP:NOTGUIDE #5). — AjaxSmack 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so let me put it that way: "The current title violates WP:UCN and is not used by anyone, including science." --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As this MoveReq discussion nears completion, I want to remind everyone that the only person objecting the move is WBardwin, and he has yet to name a valid argument (other than his perception of Google Scholar being a "poll of computer geeks") why we should not follow WP:UCN here. —bender235 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bender235, you should note that User:Tide rolls above asserts that we retain the status quo as do I. That makes 2 against! This article was not called "Anasazi" when I arrived here several years ago, so I do not know the original reason for the name nor do I have a vested interest in the present name. However, please see sections above: Use of Objectionable Terms and Commons category name controversy. The first extended discussion contains the viewpoint expressed by some of our readers. As indicated in this discussion, among residents in the Southwest this issue seems to have become more heated in the last ten years. The second talks about the history of this article and related issues on other Wiki sites.
We "..redirect from Anasazi here and there is a section in the article outlining the naming concerns" (comment by User:Tide rolls, above) in the article. In my opinion, if we rename to Anasazi, much of the regular editors' time will be spent responding to objections regarding political correctness. To my knowledge, although many scholarly journals continue to use Anasazi, there is no common concensus on an appropriate name among scholars or among tribes in the American Southwest, including tribes considered descendents of the culture by anthropological evidence and tribal tradition. As to my concern about using Google counts -- only certain types of references get placed on the internet. The very nature of the internet weights it in favor of modern media summaries, speculation, blogs, and opinion pieces. Scholarly works without copyright status, i.e. old, on the net will inevitably use Anasazi as the type name. And newspaper articles consistently use Anasazi. However, tribal groups have a minor web presence as do some categories of modern social science conferences, and their usage/opinions would not be counted. Most modern thesis methods, which would reveal the most recent usage pattern, do not yet include internet publication. So, I assert, that the Google count, and related internet methods, are only one measure of term usage and should not be exclusively used to make this decision. WBardwin (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Again you demonstrate your inability to understand what Google Scholar is. Those are not "scholarly works without copyright status, i.e. old", but very new ones as well. In fact, there are 364 using "Anasazi" from 2009 and 2010 (and 2, yes two, using "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" in that same period of time).
And further, you still don't understand how we deal with "controversy" on Wikipedia. Look at the article of Macedonia. This country is universally named "Macedonia", except in Greece, where the people believe "Macedonia" is part of their country, and therefore the country Macedonia should be called something else. Now from your perspective, we should rename the article Macedonia to whatever Greeks prefer. But of course we do not, because it would be ridiculous. The article is still named Macedonia, but the controversy is discussed in a section within the article. We can do it the same here: rename the article "Anasazi", and then add a section regarding the controversy (about that small group of people who may or may not be their ancestors and don't like the name).
WP:UCN is very clear on this: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. [...] Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common." "Anasazi" clear passes this test. --bender235 (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Bender235: I do understand what Google scholar is -- I don't appreciate your implication that I'm an idiot! It is simply inapropriate to change any Wikipedia entry based on one gathering device - electronic, paper, or individual. And citing WP:UCN incessently is simply wikilawyering. You seem to have taken this minor issue as a crusade. Have you done any major editing on this or related articles? Not according to your contribution list. Do you have a background in Southwestern archaeology? Do you have current written sources addressing the controversy and political issues related to the use of Anasazi? If not, what in the world are you basing your obsession on? You seem to be a type of editor, seen all to frequently in my years here, that says -- "Do it my way or I will make everyone's life miserable." This kind of argument is simply a waste of time. And I don't want to waste time in the future answering political correctness complaints about the use of a controverial term in this article. For all of our sake -- get serious, write articles and produce the encyclopedia! WBardwin (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... that wasn't really an outburst of nicety, either. // Anyways... I realize I am seen as being in one camp here, but I sort of wonder why this seems to be English&Finnish against the rest of the world (see interwiki-links)... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
WBardwin, is it just me or did you start argueing ad hominem after you've realized that there's is no reason at all why this article should not be named "Anasazi"? --bender235 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Again -- a waste of time. I've stated my opinion. A dated controversial term as the title, which is slowly changing in usage in academic circles, will lead to wasted time in answering objections based on political correctness and changes in usage. And you, Bender235, will not be around to answer them. You will have gone merrily on, causing indigestion on another article. WBardwin (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
A dated controversial term as the title, which is slowly changing in usage in academic circles...
And for the umpteenth time: not true. You have yet to prove this claim. --bender235 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Both names are used in sources and a redirect already exists for anyone searching. I see no good reason to name an article using a term that some may find offensive, when a perfectly valid, neutral term is available. Our manual of style recommends giving weight to how groups refer to themselves over descriptions used by outsiders. --RexxS (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all it's an ancient culture, so they can't refer to themselves by any means. And second, the current name "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" is not, I repeat NOT used in sources. The name is purely conjectural. Answer the following question: will we have to move Republic of Macedonia to some conjectural name (you decide!) now, since the Greeks consider the name to be offensive? Will we have to rename Persian Gulf because Arab countries consider the name to be offensive? Do you even realize that you're trying to turn WP:UCN upside down? --bender235 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The present peoples who object to the use of the name are descendants, so they do refer to their own group. The phrase "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" as well as "Pueblo Peoples" in the context of antiquity does exist in sources, as you've already stated above. Anyone can do a GScholar search and see that. Your fixation on this question is obvious to the extent of pushing falsehoods, and I suggest you strike that untruth from your comment. I don't care about your own obsession with Macedonia, and don't find it relevant to this discussion. WP:UCN is merely a default position, when no other considerations are present, and has many exceptions: WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) and WP:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) document consensus to use other than "common names" and there are good reasons in each case. In just the same way, there is no good reason here to use "Anasazi", a term coined from an outside group in the last 200 years, when the article is about the Pueblo peoples during the period 1200 BC to about 1400 AD. In what way would the encyclopedia be improved by changing the current, perfectly descriptive article title? It would not be an improvement and the only effect would be offence to the very descendants of the peoples in the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
So the two stances seem to be: Pro-Ancient Pueblo People – This term is used in some of the current Archeological literature and the current descendents of the people in question don’t like the term “Anasazi”; Pro-Anasazi – This term is used in the majority of current and historical Archeological literature. Correct? Xkyzero (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. Although with a question mark behind "Ancient Pueblo People [...] is used in some of the current Archeological literature", because WBardwin has yet to name any. --bender235 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This GScholar search produces 105 hits and this one produces 1,630 hits. Take your pick, but that demolishes the myth that the term isn't used in the literature. Essentially, Xkyzero has summarised accurately: use the term in the majority of sources; or use a term that does not offend the descendants of the article's subject. As long as "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" accurately describes the subject, I believe that it is as good as "Anasazi" and has none of the latter term's negative connotations. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, how about renaming Cimarron people to Former African slaves in Panama, because the name was "coined from an outside group" and has "negative connotations" ("Cimarron" means "runaway slave" in Spanish)? From your perspective that would be a great idea. Wikipedia just making up names. Great. --bender235 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move. Although it appears that a change is coming in the way we reference the people in question, we are far from a definitive answer as to what that name will be. A review of recent writings continues to confirm this. Worldcat searches, book.google previews, amazon non-fiction searches, archeological websites - even considering publications in only the last few years - indicate that the term "Anasazi" is still dominate. There are several alternative terms but they are not used consistently. I believe and hope (for what that's worth) that eventually "Anasazi" will be replaced but currently that is not the case. If this were a situation where living people were objecting to a term referencing themselves I would support a speculative change, but that too is not the current case. --xkyzero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
The last Move Request was closed due to lack of response. That wasn't my fault. --bender235 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Bender235 has not presented a good argument for moving this article to a disputed term, and the user just proposed a move last month which failed. The question at hand is, which term is used by scholars in the current literature? When you do the research you find the terms "Pueblo archaeology", "Pueblo peoples" and "Pueblo culture", not "Anasazi archaeology", or "Anasazi peoples" or "Anasazi culture". Has Bender235 actually done the necessary research, or is he wasting our time? For the record, the U.S. government discourages the use of the word "Anasazi" and uses the term "Ancestral Puebloans".[3] This seems to be the current term in use. Perhaps we should consider using Ancestral Puebloans instead. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe you just wrote this. I mean, did you even read this discussion? The question at hand is, which term is used by scholars in the current literature? That's correct. And now, please compare: "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" and "Anasazi". That is 23 vs. 6,390. You do the math.
The user just proposed a move last month which failed. And again for you, the last move request was closed "w/out consensus", because there weren't enough people to oppose WBardwin's bogus arguments, calling Google Scholar a "poll of computer geeks" and stuff like that. --bender235 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That isn't remotely true, bender. The use of the variant terms "pueblo people" and/or "puebloan people" in the context of "ancient" history are numerous. You need to revise the way you perform searches. Also, I suggest you visit a library or gain access to specialized databases reflecting current scholarship onthe subject. Can you in any way show that current research prefers the old term? No, you cannot. Selectively linking to bad searches and not knowing the topic are poor ways of arguing. Please take a break and do the actual research and then come back here with something to show us. Otherwise, this discussion should be closed for a second time. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rexxx et al. Redirection wins out here. Tony (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Backwards copyvio

Content from this article is reproduced in Ancient Pueblo Peoples Anasazi, self-publisbed by Sohrab Chamanara in 2010. For instance, page three includes the following:

Terrain and resources within this massive region vary greatly. The plateau regions are generally high, with elevations ranging from 4500 to 8,500 feet (2,600 m). Extensive horizontal mesas are capped by sedimentary formations and support woodlands of junipers, pinon, ponderosa pines, and yellow pines, each favoring different elevations. Wind and water erosion have created steep walled canyons, and sculpted windows and bridges out of the sandstone landscape. In areas where erosionally resistant strata (sedimentary rock layers) such as sandstone or limestone overlie more easily eroded strata such as shale, rock overhangs formed.

This content has been evolving in this article for years (see, for example, [4]) and cannot have been copied from this 2010 book. The book is published under full claim of copyright and not released under Creative Commons, as is required for derivtive works created by utilizing Wikipedia's content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

Should this be "Ancient Pueblo peoples" with a small "p"? -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Reconstruction of weapons, costumes, appearance, armor

Do you know of any books or articles where scientifically sound reconstructions of the Anasazi (Chaco etc) weapons, costumes, appearance, houses, tools etc have been drawn or painted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancestral_Puebloans/Archive_3&oldid=1090471079"