User talk:Seb az86556/archive36

Talking to Pueblos
Hey Seb, the conservation is off topic of the page move discussion, so I figured I'd reply here. Yes, of course, I believe if one wants to know about an ethnic group, talk to members of that ethnic group. I'm continually amazed by the knowledge people have here about long abandoned pueblos, etc. Coming from relocated tribal backgrounds, I can see the difference - how much gets lost in forced relocation. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * My point was more about the inevitability of systematic bias here; we are, like it or not, writing for white people from white people's point of view. That's simply because the vast majority of books is written by white people (and maybe some Asians). So... procedurally, bender is right to request this move, and that's why I support it: we go by what white people write. Otherwise, you'd indeed have to present every creation story as truth, and the word "myth" would have to be abandoned. Interestingly, that debate is only re-occuring for Genesis, the white man's story. "Morally," if you will, you are right of course &mdash; but then you'd have to make radical changes to almost every anthropological article. They're all written by white people, and therefore all junk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes, definitely don't see things that way. Good night. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Template
Don't template the regulars. See WP:DTTR. Bender IS behaving like a troll. I'm calling it for what it is. You don't have to agree. Montanabw (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A "regular" should know how to behave; you don't; thus, you're a newbie. Do not attack others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Now THAT is an attack. I've been around here longer than you have. And calling someone on their crap is not an attack when it happens to be the truth. If it's undiplomatic, well, give me a trout slap.  Montanabw (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifth world in Navajo beliefs
I know that at least some Navajo believe this is the Fifth world (and I am trying to fix that article which was all copyvio and bad), so why doesn't our article on their creation story reflect this? Raised it at Talk:Diné Bahaneʼ. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for correcting the spelling, I don't participate in writing that article as I believe it shouldn't exist at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that? It's a subject discussed in clearly reliable sources, and we can keep the fringe stuff out or at least at a bare minimum. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal conviction. I believe it should not exist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, we all have our personal convictions. Thanks . Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read your userpage before. I was there in April - Canyon de Chelly, Monument Valley, etc. I was looking for an article on Changing Woman and found Asdzą́ą́ Nádleehé. Now I don't think that a search for Changing Woman should lead to a Buffie Sainte-Marie album but I'm guessing you don't agree? I was hoping to find a decent and respectful article on her but there isn't one. Do you think that the current article is what should exist? If you prefer, you can email me. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect should be a disambiguation I'd say. The short thing has been improved from a few years ago when it said she was a lesbian and the talkpage linked her to the LGTB-project. The minimal information given is OK, anything else would turn into junk since all sources are written by people who aren't knowledgeable about the topic; one would have to engage in original research to make it accurate, but then again that's against the rules. This is where systematic bias kicks in big time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Griqualand East
Hi Seb, I wanted to ask about the issue of the Griqualand East Annexation Act & the Pondo majority issue supposedly not being relevant for Griqualand East's history. Surely it's incredibly relevant? It could be portioned off as a separate article though if that's what you prefer (see the Griqualand West article). I was actually in the process of adding the references when you deleted the work, so I've reverted you deletion simply to add these references. If you still disagree with its presence there, please lets discuss. You did create the page so I'll defer to your judgement here! Abu Shawka (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

On reflection I want to add, I think it might be better to remove some of the stuff on the annexation to a separate article, similar to this one for Griqualand West: Griqualand West Annexation Act. Pls let me know what you think. By the way, seeing as you're interested in the topic, there's loads of stuff on the details of Griqualand East's history & annexation here at the UCT archives in Cape Town. Obviously it's all very much from the Cape Colony's perspective, but many self-proclaimed Griqua writers such as Zoe Wicomb (who I was privileged enough to actually meet last year) have recently been weighing in on the Griqua side! Abu Shawka (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking; I'm afraid I don't have much time right now to extensively discuss this. It just seems to me that the sources you consult are (naturally) exclusively written by the British colonizers who of course want to make the invasion and disenfranchisement look just(ified) and appropriate. I see that you restored the quote by Adam Kok; that's a good start for balance; I am extremely skeptical about the claim that Kok asked for being invaded. I might be able to get back to the article in a few weeks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not realise that the quote had been removed. Apologies if that was me, it was definitely not intentional.


 * I agree about your skepticism, and the consensus I've been exposed to here in CT seems to be that there was AT LEAST misunderstanding (and more likely horrific dishonesty) on the part of the Brit colonisers. Although it was not uncommon historically for leaders to agree to annexation by a larger state in exchange for military protection from their enemies as well as political titles for themselves, Kok's quote makes this seem very doubtful here.


 * My chief concern is to differentiate between the initial British takeover, and the later annexation by the semi-independent Cape Colony after Kok's death (the annexation was not popular in the Cape parliament at the time - they really didn't want to be lumbered with the expensive territory and many MPs at the time seem to have suspected that not everyone wanted to be annexed!) I also wanted to incorporate some of the legal material on the Cape's annexation which is available here. At the time, the Cape and the British disagreed a great deal about the geopolitics of southern Africa so the sources here will reflect that disagreement, it's getting the Griqua view in as well that will be the challenge, as you said. There's also the aspect that the Griqua themselves were a tiny ruling minority over a voiceless Xhosa majority, the Xhosa view of this annexation will be even harder to unearth.


 * A final point I was trying to include was that, although the Griqua would indeed have been disenfranchised by the initial British occupation, the provisions of the Cape's annexation bill gave the (male) Griqua and Xhosa residents equal suffrage as Cape citizens. The numbers of active voters etc. are recorded, but are scarcely appreciated nowadays. I think maybe if we make it very clear in citing all parliamentary acts or legal docs that these come from the Cape (or maybe even the British) parliament and not from Griqua records, it will help. I'll try to check in the meantime if there are any additional sources which are more explicitly pro-Griqua.

Orphaned non-free media (File:(1992) Bikini Kill.png)
Thanks for uploading File:(1992) Bikini Kill.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)