User talk:Carwil/Archive 2012

Kitten
 Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Wikipedia Education Program, Spring 2012
Hi, Carwil! I've been trying to locate your email address to communicate with you about your interest in joining the Education Program this semester. I've also created some Welcome Packets and need a mailing address for you. Can you please email me at jmathewson@undefinedwikimedia.org so we can talk about this semester? Thanks so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks!
Great to see someone doing quality work on Indigenous peoples. I have been meaning to add data from Gustafson to the Guaraní articles myself. Thanks for beating me to it! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Question
Hi Professor, I'm not sure if I should be posting this here or in the Discuss page of the Course. I was thinking of creating a new page of Free and Prior Informed Consent. Our Campus Ambassador suggested I expand on the article Consent of the Governed and create a section there about free and prior informed consent and how it relates to indigenous people. Do you suggest I do the same? Best, Rebeccaech (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
 * If I may butt in I think it would make more sense to write a section in Informed consent, because Consent of the Governed is about a political theory about relations between a state and its subjects, not about research ethics which I think is the topic you are wanting to write about. The article on Informed consent right now is written almost entirely from a medical science vantage point and doesn't really address social science ethics concerns and debates - and particularly not debates regarding indigenous knowledge. It should include that and it sounds like you might be able to do it. Its all up to your professor of course.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While both of these concepts are relevant to FPIC, I think there's a case for making an new and independent page: Informed consent began as a concept in medical/scientific ethics to protect the weak from systematic experiments, while Consent of the Governed is a concept about political obligations of a government. Starting (maybe) with ILO Convention 169, this concept has been taken in a different direction towards a right, under international law and various national laws, of indigenous communities to freely consent to or reject interventions in their land and policies that affect their future. I think that with a three or four independent articles on the topic, you could justify its notability and clarify how it differs from these other concepts. However, it might also make sense to create a section of Informed Consent addressing it first, as place to articulate the concept without debating its notability.--Carwil (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory
Thanks for your voice of reason and calming influence on the furor over Critical Race Theory. While we don't see eye-to-eye on much, I think that makes any consensus we reach all the more valuable. I've responded to your comments on my Talk page. Thanks. All the best to you. Davidwhittle (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Diaspora peoples
I was interested in seeing on your user page your interest in diaspora peoples. Have you ever considered the foremost example of a diaspora people in American history - the Mormons? Forced out of Kirtland, Ohio, driven from Missouri under an "Extermination Order" issued by the Governor, massacred (see Haun's Mill massacre), and then driven from their homes in Nauvoo, Illinois, thousands crossed the plains to settle in Utah and the unwanted lands in the West. Would love to collaborate on any relevant articles. I had at least a dozen ancestors who were driven from homes or crossed the plains, so I've studied it extensively. Davidwhittle (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

United States Education Program/Courses/Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Carwil Bjork-James)
Hello - I recognize it's late in the semester, but if you could use an additional OA, I'd be glad to assist your students. I was an OA last semester but because I joined the Teahouse project in January, I wasn't sure about splitting my time commitments. I'm quite passionate about your course subject matter, however, and wanted you to know I'm available to assist students with article review. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Niran and WP:Legality
You're not allowed to alter the boilerplate WP:Legality of Israeli settlements text, yet for some reason you did so here yesterday. You need to revert the edit, or else obtain consensus for your new proposal.—Biosketch (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Carwil. Are you open to any form of compromise that will attempt to satisfy both sides or is it zero sum.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Biosketch: The edit was a bold attempt to address the SYNTH and OR concerns raised by JJG and others. You're more than welcome to revert it and explain your concerns with the change, or why it is not a transparent improvement.
 * Jiujitsuguy: I've tried on a number of occasions to work through alternatives. On OR and SYNTH, I think particular citations (like the one discussed above) help a bit. On NPOV, I would be open to minor qualifiers on "international community" ("nearly the entire…") but others have persuasively argued that the RSs support the general phrase not our modification. I suspect that some qualification about future legality comes closest to dealing with pro-Israel editors objections to imbalance: i.e., "the United States and other countries insist that the status of the settlements should be determined by bilateral negotiations," which is true and largely explains the US's post-1982 silence on the legality issue. In those cases where the US position is against maintaining a settlement or outpost, the text could read instead, "the United States and other countries view [the expansion] X settlement as an obstacle to a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreement," which also reflects the US response when asked about legality.--Carwil (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I'll look over your suggestions with an open mind and I'll try to formulate something over the weekend. I realize that both sides are oceans apart on this but I don't think that the gaps are unbridgeable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Carwil. Would you view this text "the United States and other countries insist that the status of the settlements should be determined by bilateral negotiations," satisfactory in lieu of the current text that is the subject of much discourse. If so, I would have no objections and we could present it as a joint proposal in compromise to absolutist positions. I hope your answer is positive. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I would feel comfortable with the following:
 * The international community considers Israeli settlements in the [West Bank OR Gaza Strip OR East Jerusalem], including [name of X settlement],[1] illegal under international law;[2,3] the Israeli government has consistently challenged this judgement.[3] The United States and other countries* insist that the future$* status of the settlements should be determined by bilateral negotiations.[4]
 * Citation describing X as illegal, or all settlements as illegal in the context of discussing X
 * "The Geneva Convention". BBC News. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
 * Wedgwood, R. (2005). "The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the limits of self-defense". American Journal of International Law 99(1):52–61. ISSN 0002-9300. (or another relevant law journal citation)
 * We need a citation here.
 * Three notes: * "and other countries" feels weasel-ly to me, can we tighten this? ** I've added "future" since the implication that negotiations could retroactively legalize the settlements doesn't seem to be the intent. *** As I mentioned above, some settlements (e.g., outposts) don't have this ambiguous status backed by the US, but are instead described by it as "obstacles to peace" in international diplomacy. We can't use this sentence for them.
 * Are you willing to accept this as a collective boilerplate, with the "bilateral negotiations" sentence removeable in the cases I just mentioned? If so, are there things to be changed about this wording?--Carwil (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let me just say that I appreciate the fact that you are attempting to help solve a seemingly intractable problem. Obviously I as well as 22 others who commented on the thread object to any standardized boilerplate on policy grounds. There are two problems with your suggestion. First (and this is the main problem) it still contains the controversial boilerplate text. Second, lengthening of boilerplate text by adding additional sentences just exacerbates the existing problem especially as it pertains to stub articles, where proportionality is an issue. I would however be willing to entertain or consider something like this from today's New York Times in lieu of the existing boilerplate. While Israel considers the West Bank as disputed territory, the Palestinians and much of the world consider all the settlements a violation of international law. (emphasis added). While the same policy objections to mandatory, boilerplate language exist, at least we solve some substantive problems. The United States never said that settlements were illegal hence the word "much" as a qualifier. Moreover, since it is a sourced statement from a reliable source, you can't say that that the current formulation is any better than this one. I eagerly await your response and I think this issue is solvable. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm appreciating this attempt at Wiki-collegiality, while trying to remember that in a contentious area like this one, no one can offer a compromise without a reasonable chance of convincing others of it acceptance.
 * My survey of responses suggests that objections to "the boilerplate language" breakdown to some objections to any boilerplate text and some objections to a perceived POV text. Bringing those folks on board with a compromise is my goal in this discussion, but I remain bound by the facts on what can and can't be included.
 * Your suggestion that a NYT formulation is equivalent to the AFP and BBC boilerplate formulation is debatable, but not unreasonable. However, the 5 peer-reviewed or Law Review articles cited at the top of International law and Israeli settlements which use the "international community" phrase, are the highest level of reliable sources for Wikipedia. I don't see how this argument can be ignored in reaching a new consensus.
 * To my mind, the unfinished and expanding nature of Wikipedia and the fact that more material could be added to all the settlement articles makes the proportionality issue not as crucial. I've tried to add material to the settlement articles I've edited, including Niran and Psagot. A fleshed out settlement article can handle two sentences.
 * The US position is really the crux of this discussion, and is difficult to summarize on the international law question (leading to a rather lengthy section at the ILAIS article). It is easier to summarize on the future status subject to negotiations issue. I don't see why this position (which is shared by Israel) shouldn't be included in the legality/conflict sections of settlement articles, and it could help balance the perceived POV of the IL debate. I would ask you to entertain this, maybe with a proviso that it not be added to articles without broken out sections, so at least we can move towards a workable option here.--Carwil (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response and I see you're making a good faith effort to bridge the gap but I am too. It would take a good deal of convincing to persuade the other 23 editors (actually it is now 24 as Cptnono has now expressed concerns with the current status quo) to accept the New York Times text noted above but I am willing to give it a conditional try. I sincerely hope that you consider the NYT text which is very recent and RS. You and I both agree of the need to break this detrimental impasse. There's also the risk that an uninvolved admin may remove the current text in its entirety. Basically its give and take and I think I moved a lot in your direction. I hope we can move forward.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Brown people AfD
Hello, I saw that you voted on the deletion of the article Brown people / Brown race back in January 2007 here. As you probably know the result of the voting was a slight keep, so the article is still there. I found the article recently and considered it unacceptable, so I nominated it for deletion again. Could you please visit the article or deletion page and cast your vote? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. FonsScientiae (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this. I was kinda new back then and did not know canvassing was unallowed. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

personal matters
Re this, I hope everything works out for you and yours. Best of luck and take care,  nableezy  - 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for rewriting the Brown people article. I have to say I am very happy with your edits to the article, it is now of a quality worthy of an encyclopedia article. I appreciate all your work and thank you again. Best wishes. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

white people/black people
Hi Carwil - the other editor has now gone ahead and created what appear to be two new WP:POVFORK pages, White (skin color) and Black (skin color). Much of the material is basically just a copy and paste of what he previously added to the "black people" and "white people" articles or argued for in the rfc.

Note the intros:


 * "The terms white or light-skinned are used as social descriptions for humans who have light-coloured skin[1] or are marked by the slight pigmentation of the skin.[2][3]"


 * "The terms black or dark-skinned as descriptions for people are used to describe various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin relative to other lighter-skinned groups represented in a particular social context.[1][2] The term describes belonging to or denoting any human group having dark-coloured skin[3][4][5] The term is specifically used for dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Australia, and Oceania but the general definition of the term "black" extends to any humans characterized by dark skin[6]."

It is literally the same skin color-based classification scheme that he has been arguing for all along on the respective articles. This is despite the reached consensus that the "white" and "black" social constructs are independent of skin color and are to be discussed on the "white people" and "black people" articles, respectively; the biology of human skin coloration would likewise be dealt with separately. It unfortunately doesn't end there, though, because he has also apparently created a Template:Skin colors, where he links to these fork pages. I have commented on this latest development on the rfc. When and if you have the time, your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Soupforone (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
You are being contacted because you participated in this RfC in February about the scope of the article on Indigenous peoples. The discussion has now been revived at Talk:Indigenous_peoples and your input would be appreciated. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)