User talk:Maunus

Georgians are Indigenous people!

Put Georgians back! and come to the talk page of the Indigeonous people topic. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 22:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Per consensus of the RfC they are not, indigenous in the sense used by the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not edit-warring in the topics. Just put Georgians into the list. or explain yourself why Georgians are not into the list of indigenous people. Explain me now. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 22:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that is not how it works. There was an RfC and nobody agreed with you. I don't need to give you more explanation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not your dude. And watch your language if you may! Explain yourself and present facts that says that Georgians aren't indigenous aboriginal people. I am waiting. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 23:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And waiting you will remain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand English properly? Explain why Georgians do not fit into the indigenous group. Explain it or put Georgians back there as they were into the topic. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 00:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm,, no?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Explain yourself here! Talk:Indigenous_peoples --Georgianჯორჯაძე 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi Maunus, you received the newsletter because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, which is a Christianity subproject. Please update your membership on the roster if you are no longer active. Sorry for any inconvenience. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am an active member of WP:JW but not of WP:Christianity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, WP:JW is a subproject of WPChristianity. See [1]. Besides the newsletter, there are many intersections between WP:JW and WP:X, e.g. the unified template, the main Christianity-related noticeboard WT:XNB. There is an initiative to update and standardize all subproject main pages, WP:JW included. The newsletter is written for all Christianity-related editors whether they belong to WP:JW, WP:LDS or WPCatholic. Every issue we will spotlight a different WikiProject. We encourage submissions from WP:JW members. The newsletter is provided as a service to those projects who do not have their own newsletter. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the newsletter, it is a good service for those who want it, and a good way to promote integration of the project. I was merely surprised to receive newsletters from a project I didn't think I was a part of. No harm done, and thanks for your project work. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

..." the fictive Homo georgicus..."

Sadly, I finished my undergraduate palaeoanthropological studies before this unfortunate creature was disinterred and recruited to the causes of Gorgian nationalism, so I'm not entirely sure whether he (or she?) is fictive, or actually a new species. Google scholar seems to find mention of H. georgicus a few times, but I know only too well how often old bones get dug up, labelled, argued about and re-labelled before everyone agrees that they are never going to agree on what they are, and I'm in no position to judge even if I had access to the sources. If you're entirely sure that it isn't what it is claimed to be, I suppose the article will have to go - though proposing a 'Species for Deletion' might be rather controversial... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The fossils are real but they are classified as Homo erectus now - and some people subclassify as Homo erectus georgicus' like like most people now do with Homo Erectus floresiensis. I have been teaching Human evolution to undergrads the past semesters and none of the many recent textbooks I have looked at mention Homo georgicus as a valid taxon. Some of the original articles by Lordkipanidze are cited as evidence of variability in Homo erectus though. The original typespecimen is now recognized as being pathological and not representative of the rest of its population.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Its scary to think of what one might find if one were able to read the Georgian wikipedia...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't bear thinking about. I should probably get myself a current palaeoanthropology textbook, just to keep up with what they've found (or at least argued over) since I left Uni 12 years ago. No doubt they are still squabbling about the status of the Neanderthals, and H. floresiensis seems to have caused the usual ruckus - though I see from your comments that it may be going the way of the early 'Georgian', and getting relegated to a subspecies. Have the 'lumpers' of the palaeontology world finally defeated the 'splitters', or is this just a lull in the storm, I wonder? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I do think that people have begun to realize that some degree of intraspecies variability is to be expected yes. This doesn't mean that it is less of a contentious field though, there are still many open quarrels. If you have email enabled I'll send you some of the material I have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't. If you want it send me an email then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Will do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the lumpers have defeated the splitters. Both are active. But there is a tendency to describe new findings as new species, and later analysis will often lead to putting together species. As you look at Neandertal man, it has gone from a species to a subspecies and back. Being a paleontologist myself, I support the inclusion of H. georgicus in H. erectus. But H. floresiensis is far from commonly included there (some even see this species as pathological H. sapiens). I would say that it is quite commonly regarded to be a species of its own. Personally I think the differences do justify that view. Hopefully, DNA analysis will clarify the matter at some point.--Laplandgerard (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right - although I do suspect that the reason many new fossils are first classified as distinct species have more to do with publicity than with the discoverers being "splitters". I also agree that Floresiensis is less commonly included and at least the name "Homo floresiensis" is commonly used in standard textbooks, even those that argue that it is better classified as erectus - which I don't think is the case for Homo georgicus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey you!

Hey you. Where are you from? Just interested. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I would share any personal information with you? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore him from now on and if he keeps bothering you report him. You will always run into a few loony toons on WP once in a while. Cadiomals (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Maunus, thanks for dropping that extra info into Spanish conquest of Guatemala. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing what I've edited

If you have better information on the mtDNA genetic study than please edit it, but please don't remove what is scientifically proven study by geneticist.

Also, please understand that it did say hypothesis next to it. So until you can find something better please don't remove it.

WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 7:58, 9 march (UTC)

No, what you need to do is to propose the inclusion on the talkpage then we'll discuss there whether to include the genetic study and how. Keep in mind that the fact that there is a scientific study about this does not mean that we have to include it. We should use the policies of WP:RS and WP:DUE to decide whether the material is suitable. As proposed by you it seems to me that the article would be better without that material, since it is not clearly relevant or indeed even clearly intelligble. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I already did, and I will copy and paste the same thing I wrote on the talk page. " The wiki page includes the Y-DNA origin of Ainu but not the mtDNA study which is bias. The genetic information of Ainu is incomplete, however the study I edited provides good information on the origin mtDNA of Ainu. If you only include Y-DNA study but not the mtDNA study you might aswell remove the claim Ainu are haplogroup D2 and blame it on the genetic drift. Many people are asking what is the origin mtDNA of the Ainu, and the study I provided answers that question even though in the study it clearly says it's an hypothesis it's still far better than nothing. The genetic study I provided " Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Jomon skeletons from the Funadomari" revealed excellent information on ancient Jomon skeleton before the migrations of the Yayoi skeleton. This means there is an very high chance that the N9b and M7a were pre-jomon mtDNA contribution to modern Japanese mtDNA pool. Nobody (including me) it's saying that the study it's absolutely correct, but it fills in more information about the original Ainu mtDNA ".WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 8:57, 9 march (UTC)

Larry Neal Jordan

The discussion concerning what constitutes notability in re the Larry N. Jordan article is bizarre to say the least. You don't think somebody who has been a magazine publisher for 20 years of a fairly substantial circulation magazine (300,000) and for over 14 years has produced a weekly radio show aired on 52 stations across 10 states is a notable person worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Would you like me to send you links to Wikipedia entries on people who have accomplished far LESS? What is the real problem here? -- Lisa BrownLisaBrown2012 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a competition, notability is not based on accomplishment but on notability guidelines. If inclusion in wikipediw were based on merit then you are right that half of the biographies that we currently have would have to be scrapped since they are usually just about celebrities who have accomplished little of value for anyone else. As always in life the truly important people go unnoticed. Notability guidelines are here to insure that we only include articles for those who have in fact been "noticed", i.e. those about whom there is significant published coverage. Two newspaper articles and a book published on a minor press is not enough, and should not be enough since that would completely inflate the value of having the criteria. Anyone would be notable, or could buy themselves notability under those criteria. I do not doubt a second that Larry Jordan has accomplished a great deal more in his life than half of the people who have biographic articles here - but unfortunately that doesn't say much. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of your responses to heed. The one on this page or the other message you sent me. In any event, I have added another recent article about the Jordan book by linking to the newspaper. I don't know how to footnote it but maybe you could help with that. I am told there are other published articles in the last couple of years about this man and I am attempting to lay my hands on them. -- Lisa BrownLisaBrown2012 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The post on your talkpage is most recent, then one above here was made before OrangeMike made the decision to withdraw the nomination for deletion. I still do think that the case for notability is shaky, but that doesn't matter now, especially not if you find more sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Brothers Grimm

Hi Maunus - do you know anything about the Grimm brothers? I'm asking you b/c of their compilation of the Grimm dictionary and b/c of Grimm's Law. I'm trying to improve the page but all my sources have to do with fairy tales, so thought I'd wander over here and ask. Hope you're well, by the way.Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly find sources about Jacob Grimm, I know a lot less about Wilhelm. But I guess the page of the "Brothers Grimm" has to be about the fairy tales and not about their individual work, which goes in their biographies. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm struggling with - there are bio pages for each brother and one for the fairy tales, so I'm thinking the Brothers Grimm page has to be written in summary style and should be an overview of everything. The dictionary and Grimm's Law is mentioned in the page, and I think it's important, but not sure how much to develop. I'll give it some thought - thanks anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the Brothers Grimm article should focus on their joint work, i.e. the fairy tales and the dictionary and don't go into detail about their individual lives and work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few biographies written of them, I wouldn't know which ones to work from without taking a thorough look. But it suggests that it wouold be possible to develop a really nice article focusing on their collaboration. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just been to the library to find a biography but my library (very small!) doesn't have what I need. I see what you mean - this could get to be a tricky page. I'll stick to the fairy tales as much as possible. Good advice! It will be a few days before I can get back to this, but I have plenty to think about in the meantime. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maunus, I have a quick question. I'm getting the sense that the fairy tales were much more of a collaborative work than the dictionary, which seems to have been more Jacob's work, though I haven't had time to get through all the sources yet. Generally the sources mention the fairy tales, folk tales, and folklore when discussing the two brothers. Since I seem to be deleting more than adding to the page, and the "Philology" section is unsourced, what's your opinion of deleting it entirely? The dictionary is mentioned in the biography section and a "Works" section can be added as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would base that decision on what the main sources do. If they include a significant amount about the philological work then I'd use them to source the section. If they don't I'd leave it out, since as you say that was mostly Jacob's thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Still searching, but hardly anything in the main sources about the dictionary. A lot about the folk tale / fairy tale methodology, and the influence on other folklorists, which I want to develop. Thinking how to deal with this, but thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally found it, but not a lot and hard to find, so I've only written a small section. Can you have a look at the Philology section and let me know if it makes sense. Also, my source mentions High German (As a young child I spoke in a German dialect, but had to learn Hochdeutsch to read and now can't remember any of it!) - on wiki it's Standard German? Hopefully I've done this correctly. And thanks for answering questions - this is a bit tricky for me. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven Rubenstein: a footnote.

Reading the sad news regarding Steven Rubenstein, I felt the urge to search for his works, to see where his interests lay, and what he stood for. His Steps to a Political Ecology of Amazonia [2] caught my eye, having studied some political anthropology while at university (and of course, as being the political animal that I am). Though I've not had the chance to read it in depth yet, an interesting little footnote in turn caught my eye, as he unapologetically refers to indigenous Americans as 'Indians':

The use of the word “Indians” to refer to people who most definitely are not from India is one of the most well-known mistakes in the Western hemisphere, and for some this may be reason enough to abandon the word. One reason I use it is precisely because it is a mistake—not just the result of a mistake, but a mistake every time it is used, because it is thereby an example of the arbitrariness of the sign beyond perfection. I do not consider this point clever or trivial; following Eric Wolf, I believe that the starting point of good social science is to take seriously, and resist, the threat “to turn names into things” (1982:3). I say that “Indian” is an example beyond perfection because it is and at the same time is not arbitrary, for it was only at a particular time in history that people born in what are today called the Americas could have been given the name “Indians.” The word thus signifies the fractured and misguided logic of the conqueror, who has the power to make such mistakes and get away with them.

Glorious. Anyone who could write such a concise and pithy analysis of semantic imperialism, and hide it away in a footnote, deserves praise indeed. Wikipedia needs more Rubensteins. The world needs more Rubensteins. In the interests of good taste, I'll refrain from commenting on who the world needs less of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That really is a good quote, I had the pleasure of proof reading his latest piece where he uses psychoanalytic theory (and the political theory of Pierre Clastres) in the most ingenious way to make a point about how traditional Shuar culture could be characterized simultaneously by intense violence and an anarchic egalitarianism, and about how this clashed with the colonial political system where the monopoly on violence by the state was the fundamental principle. I am very sad, because I felt that I had found in him a kindred mind that I was only beginning to get to know, now it seems his writings will be the only way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, political anthropology at its best, by the sound of it. If we are only to get to know Steven Rubenstein further by his writings, at least we have the consolation that he seems to have had the ability to write, a skill sadly lacking in one or two academics I can think of ;-). If you get the chance, pass on my condolences and appreciations to his friends and family, from one who would have liked to have known him better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this bio. I worked with slrubenstein on several of the early major content disputes at race and intelligence. Race science and sex science are the same thing in my book, so I was glad to work with someone willing to counter the spurious worldview of academic racists and academic sexists and their claims about "intelligence." Nice to know more about his off-wiki life. I hope you write more bios for prominent people in your field. Jokestress (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Like Andy below I have worked alot with Steve to keep the most flagrant racism out of the R&I articles as well. I agree that there are many unsavory parallels between the histories and intellectual genealogies of much sexuality research and that of most research on race and intelligence. I'm glad you approved of the biography.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nice work Maunus - though I'd like to figure out how to insert a pithy quote or two into the article - if we write about sculptors, we illustrate the article accordingly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We could create a section with some selected quotes. I know some people don't like sections like that in bios, but if it's not too long it should be okay. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it was the most appropriate tribute I could think of. I'm sure there will be obituaries coming out, at least in "Anthropology News" when it omes out next. They'll be good secondary sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you not only for the article, but for the beautiful note at the top of his user page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the note you left on my talk page saying that you feel my article on Larry N. Jordan is "out of the danger zone" but I'd further appreciate it if you would take a look at the page. Several Wikipedia people have have worked with me to tighten it up. If you like it, please confirm this on Deletion discussion page. This whole process has been unbelievably time consuming to try to verify info I initially gleaned from online published sources but which for some reason haven't seem to satisfy some people! If we can't trust bonafide newspaper and magazine articles that cite information about a person, who can we trust? Anyway, this whole experience has opened my eyes, especially when someone asks for a citation but somebody else removes a link to an article that backs up the very info that has been challenged! I certainly hope to help shape other Wikipedia entries on other people in the future but I may have to take a week of vacation to do it at this rate. Would like to get the Jordan page wrapped up and since the deletion nomination was withdrawn by OrangeMike I'm not sure why the boxes are still at the top of the page? What happens next? LisaBrown2012 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Marx lost all influence when he died"

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. An obvious truth, and like all the best 'obvious truths' only obvious after someone points it out to you. Then again, like many of his time, Marx seems to had an obsession (if only metaphorically) with the spirit world, what with spectres haunting Europe [3], and ghosts of old revolutions wandering around the French countryside. [4] Maybe he is still with us after all, exerting a ghostly influence from Highate Cemetery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. a thought - set it as an essay title for your students: "Marx lost all influence when he died": Discuss. See how many of them catch on ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. A spectre is losing influence all over Europe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi in the jewish nobel laureate talk, thanks for supporting the individual selection proposal. Could you please make the word 'agree' bold so that others know you are in favor. thank you. HasperHunter (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Could you please do that in the proposal that i presented too? here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates#Proposal_for_deletion.2Faddition_of_names Make the agree word bold pleaseHasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Field Research

I have been quite busy that I haven't had a chance to comb through the recent expansion of the Field Research article. Plus, I am not an expert in this area. Nevertheless, I am concerned that some of the newly added materials may not necessarily be improvements. Since you have a strong background in this area, could you have a cursory look when you get a chance? danielkueh (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for notifying me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kandahar massacre

Hi Maunus,

Few days ago you suggested to rename the title of the article about the events in Kandahar on 11 March 2012, from "shooting spree" to "massacre". At the moment there is a discussion and a straw poll on this issue, with the suggestion to rename Panjwai shooting spree into Kandahar massacre. If you are still interested in this topic, you are very welcome to express your opinion there. --Potorochin (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

hi

How am I suppose to interpret this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&diff=next&oldid=482174863

84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Interpret it as a request to stop trolling my talk page. Actually, I'll make that an instruction. Stop trolling my talk page. If you have a complaint about my behaviour, raise it in the appropriate place - but read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Me and Andy's talkpages have been haunted by a particularly nasty sockpuppet and I reverted without looking deeply into the content. Actually I realized afterwards that you were not the particular sockpuppet that I thought you were when I reverted that. So I apologize. And I also would note to and that he should avoid using that kind of language in edit summaries. But basically the civility reminder was so malformed that it looked like it was just trolling. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mesoamerican ballgame name in Nahuatl

Maunus, I un-identified "ulama" as the Nahuatl name of the game based on your comment on the Talk page: " The reason the surviving game is called ulama is that it was so named by Spaniards. ".  :) I see you have subsequently improved and honed the lead sentence. Thanks, Madman (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. FYI. I wrote an email to CJLL's business address Down Under on Wednesday telling him that we missed him and hoped things were well and that we'd love to hear from him. Nothing yet.  :(

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Maunus, thanks for helping out with the FA nomination of Spanish conquest of Guatemala, for adding the extra info about Verapaz, and for chipping in at a point when it seemed the nomination had stagnated. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And a hearty "well done" to you!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfect

Perfect. I think I shall be forced to steal it. With attribution, of course. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

- :)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OM language distinctions

Hi Maunus,

Would you have any advice for sorting out the individual Otomanguean languages? This is one of the main families, and the only one in the New World, where we don't have adequate language coverage at least at the stub level, mostly because it's impossible to tell from Ethnologue whether ISO codes are assigned based on mutual intelligibility or on ethnic identification with one's town, and also if there's any branching relationship in an unstructured list of half a hundred names. Mixtec, for example: we probably shouldn't treat it as a single language, but I don't think having 52 stubs saying "X is a Mixtec language" would be useful. Anyway, if you have any input for any of the OM branches (or for Nahua), or know of any good sources, it would be appreciated.

— kwami (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I would make lists like the one we have for List of Otomi languages and List of Mayan languages, I think perhaps at this point it would be useful also with a List of Nahuan languages (and I certainly have the sources to expand that). then those lists can be the hub for gradually writing articles the individual languages for which there are resources available.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mayan list is nice, but I have no way of making s.t. like that, because I don't know the interrelationships of the various varieties of Mixtec, Zapotec, etc. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. We were able to boil down E's list of Miao languages that way, and got a start on Thai. I could do it for Nahua using the classification we already have, if I could be sure of its correspondence to the ISO codes. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the problem with the Nahuan list is that it doesn't correspond entirely to the way others classify the different varieties, so it'll be difficult to have each article about a Nahuatl variety correspond to only one code. With the Mixtec and Zapotec varieties I'll have to look at some dialectological work and see how they classify into larger groupings - with Zapotec there is Valley and Isthmus Zapotec as the main groupings as far as I know - then we could use those classifications as a basis for the list. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect a one-to-one relationship. We don't do that for our other articles if we have refs contradicting it. So one Nahua language with two ISO codes and part of a third would be just fine, as would a second language corresponding to a sub-ISO code at LingList. But we need some kind of overt correspondence, since ISO3 is a primary means of identifying languages, or at least we should be able to say that it is not covered by any ISO code. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried partitioning the Nahua lects based on the classifications we use in the article, so that groups of ISO codes are hopefully closer to what we've done on other articles. However, I'm having to infer an awful lot from location and maps, since I don't have the primary sources available (I have no idea what to do with Tetelcingo Nahuatl, for example), so I'd appreciate it if you could review when you have some time. (You can start with 'dialects' in the box at Nahuatl and work down.)

Ok, Tetelcingo is a central dialect. Its basically similar to the other Morelos dialects except for its divergent vowel changes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On another subject, I made a bot request, which ended up here, to have a reference section added to all articles which have a language info box, as well as to add empty 'ethnicity', 'ref', and 'date' fields so it will be easier to make the current covert Ethnologue refs more apparent. (Something people have complained about in the past.) People are objecting that these would be 'cosmetic' changes, or shouldn't be done because they'd have no effect, and want to see consensus. In case you have an opinion. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Searle

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Derrida criticism to Searle". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)-Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editing tips

Can you try to format your references with publisher/date details? Bare url links need cleanup. I believe there are several tools to help you format them. For books I use this ref maker. Another thing is David Seetapun American or English because you state English and then categorize as an American.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I generally leave the url fixing to bots - they run all the time and bare urls rarely last long. One source suggested Seetapun was American, but it turnedout he was English and I forgot to change the categories. Fixed now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Its the reason why I tend to use book sources as much as possible, saves me drawing them up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good policy, which I also tend to follow with articles for which they exist. These particular ones are news kind of articles and are best sourced with online sources. I'm sure the bots will fix the bare urls soon. I should probably take a habit of tagging the articles myself though to get the bots' attention.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Google though has an irritating habit of putting a lot of the titles in lower casing. A lot of sources I use have very long titles too from old Gentle committees reports or whatever so I'm not always willing to fix them. But if you want you can copy my monobook and put the link to the google book ref into your itinery. I also have the google translate link in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Totonacan languages page

Hi. Sorry we were in conflict editing today—I was in the process of starting the shift to Harvard citations, and I see that you were also cleaning up the bibliography (which was messy partly because I'm lazy and hate the Wiki citations templates ...). I just started a new section on the talk page for Totonacan languages that you might want to get in on. cheers Davidjamesbeck (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Kwami & Oblique

Hi Maunus,

While at a wedding yesterday when the officiating judge recited the line "I thee wed..." I got to thinking about the interesting form of that construction and whether in its original sense, thee would have been a dative or accusative (indirect object as in 'I wed you to myself' or direct object as in 'I wed (do this marrying thing to) you'). Yeah I know linguists are weird. For the hell of it, I looked up thou on WP on my iPhone only to find in the first bit of the article thou listed in the nominative and thee in the oblique. I thought argh, not again, and checked the history. Yep, the latest update had been from of course, Kwami and it had been to change the description of thee to 'oblique' (the rest of the table was wrong too with thy being listed as genitive case and thine as possessive when in fact thy not even a pronoun (it's a possessive adjective) and thine is the genitive case form of the pronoun (and for that matter even if you wanted to use possessive as a case name, it's the same thing as genitive)). What really irritates me is that yet again, not only is Kwami pushing his own ideas (that English has an oblique case) but he's taking great pains to make such changes throughout the realm of wikipedia articles. And, in regard to this oblique dispute, he's continuing to make those changes that he wants elsewhere in Wikipedia while he knows and is actively involved in the dispute and discussion of that very idea. This is not at all a one time event and as I and (if you look through talk pages, admin dispute pages, assistance requests, and the like) lots of other editors, contributors, and admins have pointed out, is the way Kwami does business on here all the time. This is not proper behavior and I am so tired of so much of the time I voluntarily contribute to improving the linguistics articles of WP taken up by trying to undo the damage repeated inflicted by this single user! Something needs to be done about this. Kwami obviously has a passion for wikipedia and contributes a huge amount of time to it and that is to be commended, but if he cannot exercise the restraint and does not possess the academic integrity and professionalism to limit his editing to those topics he first ensures consensus on and to not take it upon himself to redesign the English language and the world view of linguistics to match his personal desires, then he should not be permitted to edit the articles and he certainly should not be afforded admin abilities. This latter point is the biggest because he starts or tries to escalate just about everything into edit wars and then as an admin with other admin allies either bans the opposing user or makes sure their viewpoints are overwhelmingly knocked out of contention with little regard to the topic at hand. And the worst part of all of this is that he holds (and gets the other admins to hold) those who oppose his constant changes to a totally different standard than himself. He feels that a single article or book he's found (almost always primary sources) is enough to justify him going throughout all of wikipedia and changing things from how they exist (and often have existed for years undebated) to something new. Yet then, those arguing to undo his changes are made to prove that the pre-Kwami status quo is justified. You can say that you should be able to easily find sources for any side of a debate, but when the things that he's changing are not in their pre-Kwami form disputed or actively in debate or contention, there isn't going to be much written on them. It's like trying to search for scholarly journals supporting your argument that houseplants contain chlorophyl. Under the standards being applied currently, Kwami could argue that in fact all houseplants are filled with grape jelly and post an article he's read saying just that (and of course then go throughout every article that used to have the word chlorophyl and change it to read grape jelly). Try then finding articles out there on google scholar or jstor talking about how plants don't have grape jelly in them. You won't find them and sadly, under the standards being applied to debates over all these constant changes Kwami is making, his grape jelly version of the world would be allowed to stand because once he's made his changes, the impetus of proof is on everyone who disagrees with him and not on him to prove his points first. Ridiculous and after years of this same pattern going around and around, time for it to be put to a stop.

Please, can someone among his peers or supervisors or whatever PLEASE put a stop to this crap?Drew.ward (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how to respond to this - your quarrel seems mainly to be with the policies of wikipedia that require included content to be backed by sources, and that considers sources to trump claims to personal expertise by editors. Those are very basic policies on wikipedia. Kwami is not arguing that plants are filled with grape jelly, but he is arguing in favor of an analysis of English grammar that has been proposed by many serious grammarians. His argument is backed by sources- you may have a linguistics degree (I don't know why you assume that kwami hasn't? There are quite a few academic linguists working here my self included) - but you have not been able to produce any sources in favor of your interpretation - and particularly none showing that it is the prevalent one. I would expect an academic linguist to be able to show the literature supporting her arguments. As I have said it is not the case that there is a single definitive analysis of the grammatical categories of English or of any other language - analyses are theory dependent and there are many hundred linguistic theories available to choose from. Simply saying that your particular analysis is right and Kwami's is wrong doesn't lead anywhere. I agree that Kwami is often too quick to implement his ideas widely without discussion - this is good for general efficiency , but often does leads to conflict that he doesn't wait to form consensus. To work towards a consensus in favor of your interpretation of English cases you should however concentrate more on producing supporting evidence for your explanation than on making ad hominem arguments.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that he doesn't have a linguistics degree and even if he didn't, many of our most famous linguists have been from entirely different fields or even beyond academia entirely. My problem and my complaint is with the double standard of him seeming free to make these sudden and widespread changes even when those changes are in contention and being able to do so on his own terms and sourcing only those who agree with him. This especially regarding changes from things that are in line with the general consensus view in linguistics (or in some cases when two conflicting views are presented either eliminating one view or rewording to give greater force to the one he supports) yet then the greater responsibility and greater scrutiny of sources being placed on those opposing the new changes he's made. Drew.ward (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The right way to approach a conduct issue like this would be first to try to sort it out with Kwami personally in an amiable way. If that fails then the next possibility is to start a Request for Comment on User Conduct in which a consensus can be reached about whether his editing behavior is appropriate or not. I agree that it is not a great move to make a blanket change of a wording while that wording is still being discussed. I will approach Kwami on his talk page to ask him to not do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ebionites

Given your knowledge of religion from an academic standpoint, including your disagreements with me in the past on some issues, like Penton's reliability regarding the JWs, I would welcome your input regarding content at James the Brother of Jesus (book), Robert Eisenman, The Jesus Dynasty, James Tabor, and Ebionites. Regarding the JWs, you were in fact right, Penton's book was counted as the best available book in comparison to another book by a former JW, not necessarily as one of the best books per se. In any event, thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood, actually. Having reviewed the material myself, including a lot of comments on the above books and other books, there is substantial disagreement, of some kind, even in the academic community. Basically, the question seems to me to be whether the sources qualify as reliable per WP:RS. There is a long history on this particular article, as can be seen in the archives and elsewhere, of attempts of non-notable groups or authors which claim to be Ebionite "restorations" of some sort to try to have themselves or their views discussed in the article. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Nahuatl dialects map.png

My understanding was that Nahuatl culture extended as far south as Costa Rica before the arrival of the Spanish. Are you sure there were no Nahuatl dialects spoken further south than shown on your map? Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources placing Nahuatl into Costa Rica, the farthest southern pockets of speakers I know of were in Nicaragua.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples

I like what you did, putting Bedouin back in and wikilinking Arab tribes. But what do you think about Marsh Arabs and Negev Bedouin? Should they have their own bullet point, or just be mentioned in our new Bedouin part? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think I would prefer to see whether other sources include them under the Bedouin header.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source being used used for Negev Bedouin is about the the Bedouin generally. The Bedouin bullet point has no source, so I'm going to subsection the Negev and use its source for the current Bedouin. Thus speaketh Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for replying to my comment in a non-dehumanizing manner. I see know. Even though I disagree, I see that Wikipedia has established that and I respect that. Thank you for not insulting me or calling my comment an opinion as many others have done. I am glad that we can agree to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerchippo (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AAH

Do they really still teach that humans evolved on an arid savannah? Most of the coverage I see suggests it was much wetter, intermittent lakes, patchwork to gallery forest, etc., though with severe shifts of climate from wet to dry. — kwami (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There was certainly climate changes throughout the evolution and east Africa was intermittently very wet and very dry in some periods, but most of the adaptations evident in the record strongly suggest terrestrial movement and hairlessness and sweat glands is generally ascribed to energy efficiency in a hot climate. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll find some sources regarding the environment of human evolution and add them to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting the kindness of your reply

I replied to your recent comment on Talk:Critical race theory. —Blanchette (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Micah True

Maunus, Your "weasel" sobriquet is probably right. That being said, the connotation was in the original source, and I was merely trying to avoid a "close paraphrasing" accusation, which is actually going to happen eventually. That being because amongst the 30 or so sources, there is a lot of repetition of basic facts. I was sincerely trying to avoid anything that looked liked a WP:COPY violation. So even as one steers away from one source, there is a commonality of subject matter that will lend credence to the inevitable accusation. This being particularly so as some of the reviewers at WP:DYK (where the article is in play) have their own methodology that will lead them in that direction. In any event, please feel free to rewrite it, and not just to criticize it. This is a collaboration among equals, and your input is most welcome. Have at it, please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S., given your interest in editing matters related to Mexico, your perspective and input on this article could be very helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Maunus. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Teamwork barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for helping things along at Music genre by affirming and implementing the consensus about it. That was very gracious of you. --Stfg (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Talk:Social Darwinism.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GAs and stuff

Hi Maunus. You asked me to let you know when I'm planning on bringing stuff up to GA/FA so here's the latest:

Mixco Viejo and Mundo Perdido, Tikal are currently awaiting GA review; they're both fairly complete and I don't expect too much work to get them through to GA.

I'm currently working on Mirrors in Mesoamerican culture and might have bitten off more than I can chew there; by the amount of solid references I have available this one can probably go to FA with a lot of work. At the moment, I pretty much have Olmec and Maya mirrors covered and am working on Teotihuacan. Notably missing at the moment are detail on:

1. Tarascan mirrors
2. Zapotec mirrors
3. Mixtec mirrors
4. Postclassic Maya mirrors
5. Classic period Veracruz mirrors
6. Mirror folklore/ritual in modern Mesoamerica

If you have info, time, and the will, any help on these would be most welcome. If not, don't worry. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is challenging - but a good topic. (you left out Aztec mirrors in the above). I'll givge it a big think through - but I really am starting from a blank I must admit. Thanks for keeping me updated on your work plans! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mura

Do you have an opinion on the question raised at Talk:Bohura language? — kwami (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

He/she... whatever

Just to clarify: BlackCab is a male. On a related topic, thanks for your interest in current developments at JW pages. BlackCab (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I think I was unconsciously identifying you with the "Sally" part of your old username. I do apologize.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

I am requesting arbitration enforcement against you regarding WP:ARBR&I#Decorum. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)