User talk:CJLL Wright/Archive XII



=Mar '07=

Juxtlahuaca makes DYK, with drawing
CJLL, 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)


 * And congrats, Madman- that's no more than it deserved! Thanks for doing those recent DYK nominations, I think they help raise the profile of WP:MESO articles. We should start accumulating those DYK mentions someplace...any ideas? Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just got permission from a spelunking Geology professor to add his photos of the 3 major Juxtlahuaca paintings to Wikipedia. They are in the article now.  Interestingly, the Prof suggested that we retain the drawing.  Anyway, these are a great authoritative addition to the encyclopedia.  I'm tickled.  Madman 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, they are an excellent addition to the article, and the drawing fits in most appropriately. Superb work, as always- you are the wp:meso graphics king, no question about it ;-; Makes you wonder who else out there would be kind enough to do the same, if we ask them- there's surely potential for more additions such as these. Thanks again, and cheers,--cjllw | TALK  03:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mesoamerica page
Hey 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)


 * Hi dan- thanks for the heads-up, I will look into it directly. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam
Hey 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)


 * Nevermind! He/She was blocked as I wrote out the above message.  Oaxaca dan 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi dan, glad it's worked out. If I'm around I'd be glad to help out in any future cases. If there's anything fishy going on and you can't raise me, posting a description of it to Admin noticeboard incidents should do the trick of getting some other admin to look into it. There are a few other places to notify incidents depending on their nature - eg WP:AIV for articles being repeatedly vandalised, but WP:ANI is a good general place to go. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  05:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at RfC at Talk:List of indigenous peoples
I 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)


 * Hi there Tiamut- apologies for the delay in reply, I have been offline this past week or so and am only now just catching up on how that discussion / RfC has been progressing.


 * I do appreciate your views and the temperate way you have been expressing them in the dialogue. I'd be willing to look into the situation vis-a-vis Palestinian 'indigeneity' some more, however on the basis of the discussion and the references to date I find myself more in agreement with Johannes' observations (see my response to Johannes below). Perhaps it is as you say (at Johannes' talk pg) that the "relative newness of efforts to be formally identified as such" accounts for the indistinctiveness of mentions and representations in recognised indigenous forums. I can't admit to being all that up-to-date on Palestinian or Israeli political practice and theory, so maybe I'm missing something; but I think it would be best to explore Palestinian / Jewish claims on better suited (or even purpose-built) articles- not as a way of minimising or silencing the issue but to place what is clearly a complicated and involved set of circumstances somewhere where the context can be covered better than a mere listing. And certainly not because the "colonizers find the listing contentious", since many of those who are more readily identified as indigenous peoples have that explicit recognition denied them by the state(s) they inhabit, or if not receive only lip-service to their aspirations. (also posted at your talk pg). Regards, --cjllw | TALK  09:27, 12 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:   ). 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)
 * The Mossawa Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in May-June 2005 in which they specifically define themselves as an indigenous group using the Cobo-Martinez definition.
 * Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights whose Democratic Constitution, a report to the Israeli government calls for the recognition of the indigenous identity of the Palestinian people
 * The National Committee for the Heads of the Arab Local Authorities in Israel (one of two regional Palestinian Arab representative bodies in Israel) produced this document entitled The Future Vision of the Palestinians Arabs in Israel which calls on the government to recognize “the Palestinian Arabs in Israel, [as] the indigenous peoples, the residents of the state of Israel, and an integral part of the Palestinian people, and the Arab, and Muslim, and human nation.”
 * And Mossawa again, in their latest submission to the Israeli government regarding the drafting of Israel’s constitution (it still does not have one) the first demand is that


 * Hi Tiamut, rest assured there are no hard feelings, and I appreciate the candour and detail of your response. I'll look through those additional refs and comments you have supplied, and respond once I've thought some more about it. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  06:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Taiwanese aborigines
Hiya cjll,

Head-butting currently taking place at Talk:Taiwanese aborigines (see recent history; the discussion is not located at the bottom of the talk page). I dunno if this will end up as an RfC or.... thanks! --Ling.Nut 05:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to have subsided; my expectations seem to have been wrong. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Ling.Nut - how did that study prep go? I'm just back from a week's leave of absence, so missed this post; glad to see things have been resolved. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of indigenous peoples
Hi,, 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)


 * (also posted at your de.wiki talkpage) Hi Johannes, apologies for the delay in reply, unfortunately from just after contacting you for your comments on the topic I have been offline from wikipedia the past week or so. I am very glad that you were able to add your knowledgeable and reasoned insights to the fray, and I appreciate the effort and care you have taken to explain what seems to confuse a lot of folks unfamiliar with the indigenous rights and peoples' forums and movements. Sorry that the experience turned out to be so exasperating, I can not think of any better way to encapsulate the main points than your responses there, and I am in admiration of your patient approach.


 * Catching up now on the dialogue at the talk page, it seems there's been a respite for the past couple of days now so we can hope that you've been able to convince or at least dissuade the protagonists from carrying out an inappropriate debate there- we shall see, and if things further develop then might have to reassess, though I'm at a loss to know how better to clarify the distinction between the specific concept and the general adjective. I'm surprised at how frequently I've encountered this confusion on wikipedia, which I suppose reflects in any case an unfortunate general lack of public awareness and appreciation of indigenous peoples' concerns.


 * FWIW I think at least that Tiamut has acted in reasonable good faith in the debate, and has at least understood the concept and attempted to back up claims with references. Although my knowledge of indigenous peoples' issues is much less direct than yours, I think your observations are quite apposite and agree that Palestinian representations to "indigeneity" cited are more so relevant to statehood aspirations than throwing their hands up as indigenous peoples on a par with Sami, San, and Sioux.


 * Once again, thanks for your help, I at least have a better and more nuanced appreciation for the concept from your explanations. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  09:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Calico Hill
Quite 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)


 * Hi there Dave- thanks for your post, unfortunately I've been offline this past week and am only now catching up on this discussion. Looks like the question and phrasing has in the meantime been amicably resolved, FWIW I don't see anything amiss with the 'possible arch. site' description. I've commented a little further at Talk:Calico Early Man Site. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  04:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing ref tag on Cricket
I 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey no probs, Sandy. They can be mischievous little buggers to track down....--cjllw | TALK  01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many ISO codes for a single language infobox
I'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)


 * Hi Lavintzin - there should be a way to do something like that, I'll have a look around and get back to you when I get a chance. Regards, --cjllw | TALK  08:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for eavesdropping. I never did take your talk page off my watch list. I have seen this done before, though I forget where. I'll try to remember.. and if worse comes to worst, I could always simply make a new template or amend the current one to add new options (being careful not to break existing instantiations). But... we'll see. In any event, we can work it out. :-) --Ling.Nut 22:27, 14 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)


 * Hi Ling.Nut, thanks. Actually I had noticed that one of the WP:MESO cats had been deleted- I presumed that it was in error (I suppose that Betacommandbot had simply compiled a list of empty cats, however of course project cats can be validly empty at times), so I undeleted it. If there are any others of yours which need undeleting, let me know. FWIW I'd say VoA was acting in good faith on the basis that the list was a valid one- sure, a notification would've been nice but when doing that kind of cleanup work, nine times out of ten the category's creator is long gone.


 * ps. I'd noted that you've put Taiwanese aborigines up for GAC - it's a great article and should have no probs this time around in passing- I'd pass it myself only given we've discussed it before it might appear to be collusion. Kudos for an excellent article anyways, and all the best for your resumption of studies- hope that's going along fine! Cheers for now, --cjllw | TALK  22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ... I really need to stop logging in to Wikipedia, to be honest... --Ling.Nut 10:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject structure
Hi 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. - An as  talk? 09:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I noticed some mistakes in the links. Under participants, where it says "Details and areas of interest/expertise...", the link directs you to a wrong sub page. This is the same in the "Related" and "Guidelines and Conventions" sections too. Warmly, An as  talk? 11:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there Anas. Of course, no problems whatsoever if you use the WP:MESO design as a starting point for your new project- I see you've already made some handy developments for WP:SYRIA. You needn't have, but I appreciate you letting me know. And thanks for picking up on those couple of link errors- as I'm sure you'll find it is a neverending job keeping it all up to date, and no doubt you'll be able to make further improvements to the benefit of your project. Thanks again, and good luck with it all. Regards, --cjllw | TALK  00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi CJLL Wright. Thank you so much for your kindness. Good luck to you too. Regards, An as  talk? 00:21, 26 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)


 * Gidday dan. Good point, I've moved under . And yes, the whole Mesoamerican category scheme does need another good working over- I've been doing this in a somewhat piecemeal fashion over time, but at some point we should take stock of the whole shebang and see if it still makes sense.


 * Often a lot of the cats when first set up are kinda like placeholders, until they accumulate enough articles to allow for a more logical breakout to be performed. "Agriculture" was one such, but now we're getting a few more articles we could think about some other subcats, eg for domesticated plants. It's been in the back of my mind for some time to properly redo the WP:MESO/CAT project page, to reflect firstly the category scheme / tree as it currently is, and secondly as somewhere to note down proposals for advancements and changes. One of these days....--cjllw | TALK  04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured as much in terms of the development of cats - like anything else, they evolve and change over time - I'll be happy to lend a hand where i can, and will take a look at WP:MESO/CAT to see where to start. -- Oaxaca dan 05:13, 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)

Mayan languages FA nomination
The article Mayan languages is currently nominated for Featured Article. You might wish to voice your opinion at Featured article candidates/Mayan language.·Maunus· · ƛ · 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

{disputed} tag on Aztec society
Cesar Tort wants to know why you dropped a tag on the Aztec society article. Could you explain your reasons on Talk:Aztec society. --Richard 08:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that was some time ago. Probably should have noted it down then, but there were and are still a number of factual and overgeneralisation concerns. May not have time right now to document these, but will make some reply at any rate, probably tomorrow if I get the chance. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. According to WP policy all tagged articles require an explanation in talk page. —Cesar Tort 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

END OF TALK ARCHIVE PAGE