User talk:DHBoggs

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a  fist  15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Common Era
Please don't change the standard Common Era dating system to the inappropriate Christian BC/AD system. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't start a war over this issue. I'm going to say however that I am dissapointed that you chose to "fix" my insertion of the proper AD/BC abreviation for the Gregorian dating system. Questions about the term “Common Era” often arise among anthropologist working in colonial contexts with non western peoples (i.e. most of us). Some anthropologist and archaeologist have come to prefer the fairly neutral “Current Era” whereas others prefer the traditional AD/BC system for sake of clarity. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention strikes me as a particualraly egregious example. I find the use of “Common Era” deeply troubling. I'm no christian (perish the thought), but I have no moral problem using an age old dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting in my view, but if people feel that change is necessary, they should be at least as sensitive to what they are changing it to as they were to what they were changing it from. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. It tacitly assumes that Europeans, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter and there is nothing wrong with claiming an era is "Common" history/culture to everyone who now uses the dating system. I assure you that many people in developing non western nations who use the Gregorian calendar would not think of themselves and their history as having anything in common with Europe or to be participants for the past 2006 years in a commonality with Europeans except perhaps as colonial subjects. Therefore, using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term have ever considered it from this point of view.DHBoggs 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in discussing this with you, as you clearly have a fixed (and factually inaccurate) view. The Wikipedia approach is that both systems are acceptable, and that one should not be changed to the other unless there's a clear consensus among editors of an article to do so.  I don't go around changing BC/AD to the academically established BCE/CE, and it would be courteous if you refrained from the reverse. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy is policy. So be it. However, unsubstantiated accusations of factual inaccuracy are simply unprofessional. I have stated nothing that is not both connotatively and denotatively accurate. If there is an error, point it out to me, back it up, and I'll change my views accordingly, but drive-by accusations are particularly churlish. Further, while I can not speak for England, the BCE/CE designations aren't universally the "Academically Established" norm in the United States and an incresing number of younger scholars are realizing the naturalizing hegemonic view the term encapsulates and rejecting it. I do recognize that there is nothing inherently objectionable were the "C" to stand for "current" instead of "common" but that is not how it has been understood. Regardless, acceptance of these terms by some academics does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public does not use them or even know what C.E. stands for. Wikipedia is a tool for the public, not an esoteric journal for specialists. Just as I wouldn't for example expect hours to be given in military time except in a military journal, I should think an encyclopedia ought use the traditional and publicly familiar dating terminology, and not replace them with controversial terms.DHBoggs 18:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I say, I'm not interested in going over this again &mdash; it has been discussed at length in various Wikipedia forums. Given that you say that you're an anthropologist, you might check the new SAGE five-volume Encyclopedia of Anthropology, which uses the BCE/CE system throughout, as does every recent book in philosophy that I've seen, from both U.S. and other publishers.  As for "military time", if you mean the twenty-four hour clock, that is the Wikipedia Manual of Style preferred usage. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I see that, instead of responding to what I said, you've been correcting and expanding your earlier comments. Just to let any passers by know &mdash; my comments responded to earlier forms of DHBogg's comments, not to what's there now. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, as childish as I feel doing this I will indulge you and hope (honestly) it makes you feel better and/or satisfied. First, I said I wasn't interested in a war and I didn't respond because I was and remain perfectly willing to let you have the last word. Second I absolutely reserve the right to mull over and revise my own statements, to clarify, modify and adapt my own text to better reflect the thoughts behind it. In no way have I made any alterations that have anything to do with your statements and anyone can go back and look at what they were before if they are so inclined. If you feel that I have, you of course, are perfectly free to modify your own comments accordingly. The changes I made were primarily for my own reference. This is, after all, my discussion page, serving as much as a reference for me as it does for anyone else, and I might point out I have been nice enought not to put any new argumentative posts on your discussion page as I might have done.DHBoggs 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After comparing the new and the old and giving some more thought to what changes might have irked you, I am somewhat at a loss, but perhaps removal of the statement that the "Common Era" idea was initiated by a group of elitist academics with an agenda might have been it. By "elitist" I meant members of an elite group, which is to say, not "common" people, not meant as a value judgement, nor was I claiming they had nefarious or hidden agandas, indeed the agenda is well publicised, but I later recognized the ambiguity of the statement and removed it as unhelpul to the argument. Often I make straightforwrd statements meant as qualifiers not condemnations so let me say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being an academic or with having an agenda, both terms describe myself and colleagues. Beyond that, I still see nothing you have grounds for calling inaccurate or for complaining that I'm altering the substance of my argument.DHBoggs 00:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That was indeed one of the main inaccuracies to which I was referring, and whose removal left my comment looking much less justifiable. Note, incidentally, that a surprising number of editors do read discussions on others' User pages, and rarely if ever check the History just in case one of the participants has changed earlier contributions; what's on the page is what they judge. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Evangelicalism
This article is already confused enough without adding Catholicism to the lead paragraph. If anything, a mention about this much less commonly used sense of the term could be worked into the "Usage" section, but it would need to be cited. HokieRNB 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cambridge online dictionary defines evangelical as follows "belonging to one of the Protestant Churches or Christian groups which believe biblical teaching and persuading other people to join them to be extremely important: (my emphasis). In part this is an emic/ettic distinction in that many Fundamentalists use the term differently than non Fundamentalists.  Among Fundamentalists, the term Evangelical is used generally to describe more liberal Christian groups, but the terms evangelize is used as a synonym for missionizing.  Similarly, an evangelist is a traveling preacher.  I do agree that the "Usage" section would have been an appropriate place to mention the distinctions I added to the article.  Also I might point out that wikipedia has an article on evangelical catholics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical-Catholic DHBoggs (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture
Hi, I am here to solicit your help. As of a week ago, the culture article was just a total trainwreck. There was a GA and it elicited many reasonable criticisms. I recently did a major revision of the article, although my approach was conservative: I deleted redundancies, deleted fringe and tangential material, and reorganized what was left in an attempt to highlight distinct approaches and points of view. I explain all this in more detail on the talk page starting here (note: the two people who did the GA think my revision is bad and the earlier version should be restored). I admit that my revision has big holes, and i am hoping other editors can help fill them in.

A major hole involves material culture: I do not want to duplicate the archeology article ... I think Culture should be about "culture" and the different views and approaches to conceptualizing and studying culture. But clearly, archeology should be represented in this.
 * what do we know about the evolution of tool-use?
 * what is the relationship between material culture and symbolic or mental culture?
 * how do archeologists conceptualize culture? What are the main debates today among archeologists over how to define and study culture?

I know everyone has other things to work on - any edits you can make would be valuable, I am sure. You may also have suggestions about the organization of the article (e.g. should we have separate sections on cultural anthropology and archeology? or should we have separate sections on Taylor's categories, non-material culture, behavioral culture, and material artefacts of the preceding two?  Or something else?

Anyway, I appreciate any help you can give! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Better Late Than Never?
It's been two-and-a-half years since you made a revision to the article on Lewis Binford, but I only came across it in recent weeks ... and wanted to extend my appreciation for your revisions. I had the great pleasure of studying with Binford in New Mexico, back in the 70s, and I count myself very fortunate to have been able to do so. Based on that first-hand experience, I think your revisions gave a much more accurate prortrayel of the man, wis work ... and his disagreements. Mcwebeditor (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles L Clifford


A tag has been placed on Charles L Clifford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=30102. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and no worries. The text in question is mostly quoted from the site referenced. I thought this would be fine because it was written specifically for distribution to biographical databases, but I certainly appreciate the need to err on the side of caution. I may contact the authors and have them submit a piece for Wikipedia instead of me doing it second hand. DHBoggs (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Old School Revival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lulu ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Old_School_Revival check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Old_School_Revival?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)