User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive VI



=Jul '06=

Category:Indigenous Mexicans
Hi CJ. I see you took Eight Deer Jaguar Claw out of the category in question with the summary that he existed well before the nation-state of Mexico. While this may be true, it is problematic for several reasons.

Most importantly, Mexicans consider the entire history of the country, from prehistoric times until the present, "Mexican history" and part of their cultural heritage, regardless of the fact that the use of the name "Mexico" hasn't been official since Independence. As a result, they consider all of the figures from Mexican history "Mexican". You see how it becomes problematic if we remove everyone who lived under the rule of New Spain, leaving only those people who were born after 1810? And what to do with the people who lived through transitional periods? Yet another complication...

If we were to remove all pre-"Mexicans" from the indigenous Mexicans category, we'd lose the entire subcat of Aztec people. Another problem.

Secondly, we do not yet have "by-ethnicity" classifications for all the different indigenous groups in Mexico. The only thing we have is Category:Indigenous Mexicans. When the time comes, we may want to differentiate between Category:Zapotec people (or Category:Zapotec Mexicans) and Category:Otomí people, etc., but for now, I think we should keep the indigenous Mexicans in one cat (except Aztecs) until there are enough of them that it is useful to differentiate between ethnic groups.

Further difficulty arises with the ethnic categorization of indigenous individuals of the Americas arises because of the lack of categorical organization for the ethnicity. It becomes conflated with the categorization of groups. For example, there is a Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas for groups, but no corresponding supercategory Category:Indigenous people of the Americas for individuals, which could itself be subcategorized either ethnically, or by modern political subdivisions, or both.

Until we can get these categories properly untangled, I think we should leave the individuals categorized as Indigenous Mexicans as such in order to facilitate future reorganization and categorization.

Please let me know what you think about this.--Rockero 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Rockero, thanks for your note- you raise some valid points. I do agree that the categorisation of individuals (such as by ethnicity/nationality) is somewhat inconsistent and problematic, both in this particular case and in general. I've a few ideas but no real solution at this stage, FWIW here are some more points to consider:
 * First of all, it seemed anachronistic to categorise "Eight Deer Jaguar Claw" as a Mexican (depending, I guess, on what one means by 'Mexican'). It would similarly seem odd to call Uaxaclajuun Ub'aah K'awiil a Honduran, or Hasaw Chan K'awil a Guatemalan.
 * If we were to interpret 'Mexican' in the sense of meaning "someone from one of the mexica-related peoples (ie Nahua, as it can sometimes be loosely used), then that may be inappropriate as well, given this figure came from the Mixtec culture.
 * As you note, naturally enough Mexico and Mexicans maintain their connections and cultural heritage through to pre-Columbian times, and of course there is no clean division or cutoff-mark which divides pre- and post-Columbian eras (or at least, none which are not rather arbitrary).
 * Even so, I think that there is a need, or at least it would be useful, to have some way of distinguishing between figures of pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial/more contemporary history. That is, it would be useful to group together individuals by era, and also culture, while however maintaining some link between the categories.
 * As part of a still-in-progress exercise of standardising a category scheme for Mesoamerican-related articles (see here and here for some outlines) I'd set up a generic for such figures, with scope for further breakdown by culture/civilization (eg, ) as well as by chronology (Preclassic, Classic, etc), although am unsure at present how best to do the chronological era subdivisions. There would indeed be scope for such as  and  to be defined as subcats of.
 * This still leaves open for resolution whether or how to include "post-Columbian" figures in these by-historical-culture cats, and how to tie these in with divisions by nationality.
 * Perhaps categories like and  could be used for figures of the modern and predecessor states (which for Mexico could include New Spain, ie pre-1810 but post-European arrival) with particular ethnic or cultural backgrounds, and these can be subcategories of the ' people' categories.
 * Note that there's also (which would be the 'individuals' cat for Category:Indigenous people of the Americas.
 * Like I say, thoughts on these points are not quite there yet, I'd welcome any further comments you may have. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  06:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good talking points. I would definitely support an ethnic/tribal categorization system for Pre-Columbian individuals, which could (possibly) overlap with a national-ethnic system for people from colonial times and on.
 * I just wanted to use as a holding place until we could get more specific categories, but since there is work underway to create those categories, I will follow whatever guidelines we come up with. It seems reasonable enough to have one cat for each tribal affiliation and one cat for the indigenous individuals of each modern nation-state, unless further specification is needed because of category overpopulation.
 * But note that as per the definition of Native Americans as Native Americans in the United States (I'm pretty sure that's why they're doing it), indigenous non-United States people have been being removed from and its subcats (Rigoberta Menchu is the example that comes to mind). Which is what I meant about the individual/group categorization problem. We need a supercat for  to hold subcategories based on political divisions and ethnic/tribal affiliations. Please let me know if I can be of any help in this regard.--Rockero 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have noticed your project-work on the Mesoamerican articles. I have been trying to contribute where I can, but, to be quite honest, while I the templates and rating/importance scales are useful and aethetically pleasing, I find that my time is better spent actually making the recommended improvements to the articles. Of course if I notice anything that is incorrect.
 * About super-: I wish I could think of a better name, too.--Rockero 15:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I hope that once the rating system is up and running it will help to prioritise which of the "core" articles are in need of the most work, and otherwise assist in knowing which areas we are presently strongest in, and which need a more determined effort.
 * Re the super-cat, we may have to go with that name if nothing better occurs, it could always be modified later. Will see about setting the cats up in the next little while. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article work for WikiProject Writing Systems members
Hello WikiProject WS members, it's the ikiroid again, spamming for help.....this time, it's for working on an article. We're trying to bring the article about the International Phonetic Alphabet up to featured status, and it would be great if anyone from our project would be willing to lend a helping hand. You can make suggestions about what to improve in the article here, where we're keeping track of the article's renovation. Thanks for reading. Feel free to ask me any questions about the article's improvement.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mesoamerica article rating
Thank you very much for your excellent work on the Mesoamerica project. I wanted to let you know I changed the ranking of Izamal from "low" to "mid" importance, with a short note of why on Talk:Izamal. I want to check if you think I should have handled this differntly (eg, proposing the change on the talk page first). Thanks and best wishes, -- Infrogmation 16:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, Infrogmation, and I agree with that reassessment- in ploughing through the initial batch of assessments I'd overlooked the relative significance of this site; I am sure there are others in need of second opinions, so please do correct these as/when you come across them. Replied in more detail re thoughts on procedures, etc, at your talk pg. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK  00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay
Hi CJLL,

Regarding the "Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay" article, just wanted to clarify that the NIOT did not actually make almost any of those claims that were stated in it. They merely reported their findings and in fact in more than one article in newspapers and magazines suggested that the so-called "site" was natural and not artificial in all likeliness, and also that they were planning to make more investigation in the future. Also conventional historians and leading scholars - both Indian and European, like Iravatham Mahadevan and Asko Parpola felt the same. All that hype was roughly between the beginning of 2002 and the start of 2003 during the reign of the BJP. Nothing was either done or even reported about this whole matter in the last three and a half years and it has since died a natural death. There were two such incidents in the state of Gujarat and two more down South, and all four have since vanished. Thanks to politicians like Joshi and pseudo-scholars like Hancock, such incidents portray the authorities and India in a very negative and poor light.

On the flip-side I do believe in the realm of earlier civilizations - though not per se. I find many a remarkable things in the scriptures and texts. But for anything in that realm to be revealed, we do not have to resort to falsities and exaggerations. Rather, we would have to work honestly and diligently and the last we could do is not to resort to lies.

Regards, Anup.(User:Anup Ramakrishnan 12 July 2006.)


 * Hi Anup, that's fine, if you think the article could be more clear about the role of NIOT, and that of the other parties you mention who exaggerated the claims beyond what was published by NIOT, then by all means go ahead. As you can see from the article history and the discussion on the talk page a couple of months ago, much of it had been rewritten by a geoarchaeologist contributor who did I think a fine job of detailing the lack of any convincing evidence that this is a man-made site of great antiquity, and citing sources which debunk such claims. Perhaps it could be criticised for being written in a somewhat technical style, and it may not be clear to the general reader that (as you note) the only basis for thinking that the "findings" have anything other than a natural origin are one or two sensationalist claims which somehow have been picked up on in the wider media, but otherwise the idea that it is a genuine archaeological site are universally dismissed.
 * However, I don't think that straight deletion of the paras is the way to go- maybe reword them if you think they can be made clearer. And as for NIOT's role in all this, perhaps as an institution they have been more cautious, but the quoted paper by their chief geologist Dr Badrinayan does explicitly call their findings "genuine artifacts"- whether he is on his own here or is (or was) supported by others in the institution, I do not know. (also posted at your talk pg)--cjllw | TALK  23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi CJLL,

I am late in responding. Maybe you were right that the article was actually suggesting that the "site" is natural. But my point is that it was the NIOT that said that the site was natural while certain political elements were trying to imply otherwise.

I just wanted to get it across that the NIOT was the one suggesting that it was natural, at least that was their offical stance, despite what the one individual you mentioned claimed. I would be obliged if you would take your time out to rectify accordingly. I just did not want a legitimate Government-run body to be made to look in a negative light which is what I felt the article did when I first read it.

Regards, Anup. (User:Anup Ramakrishnan 27 July 2006.)


 * That's fine, Anup. Will be happy to review the article and make any necessary adjustments, but will first have to do a little more research to find just what was officially published by NIOT, and what was perhaps just the personal view of Dr. Badrinayan- so it may take a little while to redress. If in the meantime you have access to such information, by all means feel free to do the rewording yourself. (also posted at your talk pg) Regards, --cjllw | TALK  23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alfred V. Kidder‎
I noticed the kudo in your edit summary on Kidder's article. I like fashioning 19th and early 20th century biographies, and enjoy giving these lesser known people a little attention. However, these obscure topics don't get noticed much by Wiki editors. So thanks for brightening my day. WBardwin 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, WBardwin, it was praise well-deserved. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the archaeology and cultures of the American Southwest, a little bit at a time, for quite a while now. But, occasionally I venture farther south as well.  Will look over the project.  Best.........WBardwin 08:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Article quality and importance rating scheme
Hi,

The article quality and importance rating scheme is up and running for WP:AZTEC, thanks to your assistance. I think this scheme is a bit of overkill right now since there are only about 30 articles in the WP:AZTEC project but I imagine that the number of articles will grow over time.

An even more appropriate candidate for this scheme is WP:CATHOLIC. I have left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism to propose using this scheme for that project. I have taken the liberty of suggesting that you might be willing to help that project implement the rating scheme if there is a consensus that supports it.

I'm wondering if you would teach me how to set up the rating scheme so as not to put all the work on you every time I run across a project that would benefit from using it.

Thanks.

Richard

Regarding discussion of Aborignal land claims
Well, I'm sorry you've been so disillusioned because you've been stuck in your ivory tower for so long. You know, there's actually a world out there, but I guess you wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. You don't know who the person is, maybe the person was younger, but in any case, the language that he/she used as totally appropriate; for her/his culture, [s]he's a young person, could you expect any more of her/him?

I noticed [& I checked] that you removed my comment, I'm sorry but that's so shady of you. If you were an honest person, you obviously woudln't have removed my comment, now I have to make a new one. Righteous people don't hide their mistakes; when they make a mistake they acknowledge it, & don't cover it up.

You're very low.

68.148.165.213 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your earlier comment here was only a copy of the one you left in the much more public space of the article's talk page, which was left intact, so that's hardly sweeping it under the carpet. Under such circumstances there's no issue in removing it, particularly when it contained personal attacks when I've not made any such against you.


 * Neither do you know at all who I am or what my experience is, so it seems rather inconsistent of you to uncritically extend the principles of Assume Good Faith to that earlier anon despite their unhelpful tone, and then to write in such a self-convinced fashion about what you perceive to be my character and motivation.


 * It seems rather ironic to be given advice on civility from an ip account which has made uncalled-for remarks such as this one. Yet in other edits you've been concerned enough to make adjustments for gender-neutral language and see that indigenous peoples are referred to by their own, rather than external, collective name. I suppose that none of us is entirely free of contradictions.


 * In any event, enough of this, I'm sure we've both got better things to do. --cjllw |  TALK  23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish architecture, nominated for Collaboration of the week
Hello! I write to you because I have seen the you are in the Wikiproject Spain. I have just nominated the article Spanish architecture for WP:CotW, and ask for your support to the election. Thank you for advance! --Garcilaso 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, Garcilaso. Happy to lend my support, but I'm focussed in other directions at the moment and so may not be able to contribute. Will see what I can do, Regards--cjllw | TALK  23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Project Catholicism 101
I received the following message on my Talk Page. Perhaps you could join in the discussion.


 * Template:Project Catholicism 101 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
 * I know that you have put a lot of work into this, but your personal rating system breaches NPOV and can be read as implying a Wikipedia rating of articles. As such it is unacceptable for use. The template has been proposed for deletion. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

--Richard 00:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Richard, thanks for the heads-up. I've added my comment to the TfD discussion, looks like there'll be no issue in keeping it the way things are going. Perhaps the nominator has misunderstood the rating scheme's purpose, though I really can't see the justifications behind some of the deletion proposal reasons. Regards, --cjllw | TALK  01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...
then WP:AZTEC should make you feel pretty flattered. I went to check how WP:MESO did something and was floored by the complete makeover that you executed there. So, I copied the layout over for WP:AZTEC. It took a bit of work but I've pretty much copied over the entire layout, adapting it as necessary for WP:AZTEC.

If you have time, please review WP:AZTEC and make any suggestions for improvement that occur to you.

--Richard 00:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard, I've made some suggestions at your talk pg.--cjllw | TALK  03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

colhuahca:n
Hi. Responding to your question about colhuacan on my talk page: "col" is a root that means grandparent or ancestor, and colhuahqueh are rightly interpreted as "those who have ancestors". There is also a word "coltic" that means crooked or bent, or humpbacked but I think that it is probably derived from the world for grandparent. Words with -tic can be understood as meaning "like an x" so coltic would mean like a granparent, that is bent over by the weight of the years.

Maunus 20:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Maunus, that's precisely the information I was looking for - much appreciated! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kudos
CJLL, I noticed your little "kudos" remark upon your edit of the Codex Borgia talk page. Many thanks. Coming from such an accomplished Wikipedian as you, I consider it high praise. Madman 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem Madman. It's a pleasure reading your well-crafted articles on Mesoamerican codices and other topics in the field, nicely done. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mictlan
Hi CJLL, thanks for your note. Obviously you know far more about this area than I do, and I am happy to remove the template and remove Mictlan off the template entirely. I came across the Heaven template for the first time a few hours ago and noticed that it had a lot of unsuitable entries on it. For instance, they had Tomoanchan as the Aztec Heaven. They also had some other (I thought) silly or unrelated entries. Anyway, I was trying to tidy the template up and add a few more suitable entries, and I assumed Mictlan would be an okay replacement for Tomoanchan. Anyway, I am happy to remove it. Bwithh 03:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please contribute to improving the template if you like. I was mostly removing the incongruous items and trying to reorder things... it could do with more of an expert look at it. See: Template:Heaven. Bwithh 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Bwithh. And I agree with you that that template's purpose and contents seem rather ill-defined, and it is in need of an overhaul at least, though you've made a good start to it. I might get around to it, but it's not high on my priority list at the moment. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06


WatchlistBot
Actually, those cities were added intentionally, since they are in Category:Ancient mints. Ingrid 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for the explanation, regards --cjllw<font color="#DAA520"> | TALK  00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

<CENTER>END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE</CENTER>