Rationalobserver (talk | contribs) →Edit warring at Chetro Ketl: good luck |
|||
Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
:Yeah, I noted your work. I will take a look.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 09:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
:Yeah, I noted your work. I will take a look.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 09:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
***I think the dye section should be moved to the carmine article.• [[User:Lingzhi|Lingzhi]]♦[[User talk:Lingzhi|(talk)]] 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
***I think the dye section should be moved to the carmine article.• [[User:Lingzhi|Lingzhi]]♦[[User talk:Lingzhi|(talk)]] 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::I think it does require an in situ summary in the Cochineal article. The dye is also often called cochineal and it is the only reason the animal is significant.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 20:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:12, 16 July 2015
Dear Maunus,
I will respond to your request about my Wikipedia page shortly (and please forgive me if I have responded to you in the wrong place or in the wrong manner). Best, Steve. Stevenpinker (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Concerning your comment
Hello. As I agree with your comment here [1], I reply here. Yes, we should focus on the argument at hand. Still, it is rather tedious when one user repeats the same questions over and over again when they have already been answered. Not that anyone has to agree with the answer, but then I'd expect the user to at least explain why and move forward and not just keep repeating. And when the same users goes to look at your edit history to stalk you to begin editing articles they never edited before but that you frequently edit just for the pleasure of opposing you, and repeat the same behavior there as well, then it get's a bit annoying. Of course we should always try to put negative feelings like that behind us.Jeppiz (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- It can be tedious, definitely when one feels that another user is going in circles. But I know as well as anyone that acting on that frustration is just likely to increase the problem. When I realize I am getting too frustrated to focus on the arguments, I tend to go on a wikibreak - although sometimes not before I have caused more problems by airing my frustration in unconstructive ways.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are perfectly right, of course. Which is why I've brought the issue to ANI and stayed out of any edit war on any of the articles, which is no doubt what the user hoped to drag me into. I later find out that this same behavior is repeated by the same user at articles I'm not involved in as well. Yes, we should step away when frustrated. But this particular user seems to frustrate a lot of people and to cherish the drama. I don't doubt the user has made valuable contributions, but I'd dare say their net contribution given how much disruption he causes and on how many articles he claims ownership and edit wars against anyone opposing his version. It's not helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the discussion I have never experienced Peter in that way myself, on the contrary I have always found him to be reasonable and helpful and amenable to argument. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is good. I have never seen that, but my experience is limited to his edit warring at Sweden and Melee and his stalking me to List of languages by native speakers to start opposing me there after I "dared" to edit against him on Sweden. If he is more responsible on other articles, all the better. I trust your more extensive experience, and I hope to see that helpful behavior as well someday.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think laying down the stick at ANI might be a good way to signal good faith, which might speed up Peter's ability to be reasonable with you. Sometimes when we are in "fight or flight" mode, other editors become enemies. Putting down the stick is a good way to get back to normal editing mode for everyone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- As you may have noticed, today alone Peter has reverted you, has reverted me and has reverted a third user at Sweden, all the time insisting that his is the consensus version even though he is alone in saying so, and we are all wrong. That is not indicative of the behavior you ascribe him, I'm afraid.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think laying down the stick at ANI might be a good way to signal good faith, which might speed up Peter's ability to be reasonable with you. Sometimes when we are in "fight or flight" mode, other editors become enemies. Putting down the stick is a good way to get back to normal editing mode for everyone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is good. I have never seen that, but my experience is limited to his edit warring at Sweden and Melee and his stalking me to List of languages by native speakers to start opposing me there after I "dared" to edit against him on Sweden. If he is more responsible on other articles, all the better. I trust your more extensive experience, and I hope to see that helpful behavior as well someday.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in the discussion I have never experienced Peter in that way myself, on the contrary I have always found him to be reasonable and helpful and amenable to argument. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are perfectly right, of course. Which is why I've brought the issue to ANI and stayed out of any edit war on any of the articles, which is no doubt what the user hoped to drag me into. I later find out that this same behavior is repeated by the same user at articles I'm not involved in as well. Yes, we should step away when frustrated. But this particular user seems to frustrate a lot of people and to cherish the drama. I don't doubt the user has made valuable contributions, but I'd dare say their net contribution given how much disruption he causes and on how many articles he claims ownership and edit wars against anyone opposing his version. It's not helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
?
The 1523 date was removed unilaterally by a single user without any discussion.[2] No one else has disagreed with it, including Jeppiz.
Peter Isotalo 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is clearly wrong. Everyone disagrees that its meaningful to consider 1523 the date of establishment or independence of Sweden. It is simplyone of those dates like accession to EU where something politically significant happened to Sweden. It is clearly incorrect to consider it the establishment or foundation of Sweden as a country. By the same token, Sweden would be "established" again if it ever leaves EU. Why donøt you chill out a little on those Swedish/Melee articles? You seem to be in a very tense gear, I know what that feels like, and it is not comfortable. Help me work on some language history instead! Peder Syv, Stød, Peder Laale, Danish dialects etc.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're underestimating the importance of the conflicting perspectives here: is there an unbroken line between the first appearance of medieval kingdoms and their modern "ancestors"? Most historians tend to avoid making any definitive claims about this, so I prefer not having dates at all. If anything, most tend to focus on the transition from medieval kingdoms based on personal loyalties and feudal bonds to bureaucratic fiscal-military states. It's not all that problematic to put the start date of the modern centralized, nation state to 1523. I see no problem discussing whether it's valid or not, but it's definitely not comparable to joining the EU.
- I'll have a look at Danish dialects, though.
- Peter Isotalo 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing to have a look at yet! We need to create it from scratch. I agree that all foundation claims are problematic because what was founded is fundamentally different from what exists today - but in this case historians and common folk pretty much seem to agree that there is some kind of ethnic and political continuity from the Svear and untill today. Just as you I think it is a problematic narrative, that overstates continuity and ethnic roots, but those kinds of narratives are insanely popular worldwide for some reason.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, well common folk suck and are clearly wrong. :-p
- I fiddled around with Danish language#Dialects a bit. But I really don't know anything about that except all the Scanian brouhaha. If you lead the way, I'll surely follow.
- Have you considered writing anything about Henrik Harpestræng? I'm thinking about uploading his "Liber Herbarum" to Commons.
- Peter Isotalo 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Currently I mostly stick to early Danish philologists, in preparation for a total rewrite of History of Danish and then of Danish language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing to have a look at yet! We need to create it from scratch. I agree that all foundation claims are problematic because what was founded is fundamentally different from what exists today - but in this case historians and common folk pretty much seem to agree that there is some kind of ethnic and political continuity from the Svear and untill today. Just as you I think it is a problematic narrative, that overstates continuity and ethnic roots, but those kinds of narratives are insanely popular worldwide for some reason.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Never did get hooked on biographies myself. I'll keep the Danish articles watchlisted, then. Maybe I'll actually be inspired to bring Swedish language up to snuff. I mean, God forbid that the language of honor and heroes be upstaged by a bunch of coughing word-turners!
- Peter Isotalo 22:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Tula/Toltec misunderstanding
I wasn't trying to school you in anything, but somebody made me dig up a page number for the name of Ives' ship, the Explorer, because although the cite was from his report, the following page number didn't explicitly state the ship's name. That's all I meant about Ferdon's theory, that the cite that followed did not mention Tula, so the topic sentence was not supported by the refs that followed. All I was trying to do was avoid adding anything that was not supported by the refs. I understand what you meant, but it seemed like WP:V issue, since it wasn't in the cited source. Will you please consider finishing your review? RO(talk) 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am finished with the review. Don't worry about the Toltecs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- But I've added lots of stuff since you last looked, and it would be so great to get your opinion on the cultural aspect in particular, because I think I've done an acceptable job of improving the article based on your previous PR comments about that. I promise I won't argue about anything, even when I know you are wrong, which is like never anyway. Did you like the background section ([3])? RO(talk) 23:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Irataba FAC
- FWIW, I don't feel I can review this as an FAC either. My own personal view is that a person with substantial edits - even if not a co-nom - shouldn't do the FAC review. And I did so much on the previous one, also. I don't have fresh eyes and someone who DOES have fresh eyes is a better reviewer. That said, I'm basically supportive and I think it can pass this time around, so long as RO stays cool-headed when the critics hit. I'm willing to assist at the FAC with some of the requests if they fall within something I'm comfortable doing. Maunus, you definitely do deserve to be a co-nom on this and RO did right to add you! Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Can you take a look at my comments/suggestions at the DYK raview page?
While reading the article for the review, I copy-edited the page a bit and added a couple of {{clarify}} tags where I was not sure of the intended meaning. Also, I wasn't sure if Hellested would have one or more parish priests, and therefore whether "the parish priest" or "a parish priest" is the correct usage. Please review my changes to make sure that I didn't introduce any content errors. Fun read! Abecedare (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Champollion article
Dear Maunus, I appreciate all the work you've done on Jean-François Champollion article. It's a good article, and I enjoyed reading it. But at the same time, I think some of the paragraphs are a bit long. In general, when a new subject is broached, new paragraph is in order. That's all I did, I spaced out some of these paragraphs for clarity of reading.
But I don't insist that I'm right. Lots of these things are a matter of opinion, of course. All the best. Y-barton (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree in principle, but can see that in practice we disagree on what is a new topic. I never use as short paragraphs as the ones you apparently like, with only one or two sentences, and I also dont generally see such short paragraphs in most high quality articles. In my view it makes for choppy disconnected prose and makes the article less coherent and makes it harder for the reader to read the article fluently and maintain overview on the progression. The way I generally craft paragraphs is by having a topic sentence first, and then a progression of sentences that shed new light on the topic in different ways. For example the paragraph you broke up was entirely about the presentation of the letter to Dacier. Each sentence referred back to that same topic. I do appreciate your copy edits to the article very much, but would appreciate if you would not break the paragraphs apart unless they really include completely different topics. If you are in doubt about specific cases maybe you can suggest it on the talk page and we can discuss how to proceed? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article by the way is currntly listed for GA review. And another problem with breaking up paragraphs is that GA reviewers tend to require a citation for each paragraph, and when you break apart a paragraph it is not clear that information in one paragraph is supported by the citation in the next. So by breaking up the paragraph you create work for me when the reviewer asks requests citations for the new paragraphs, or potentially you put the article at risk of failing the review because of the presence of paragaraphs that appear to be unsupported by citations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Maunus. I appreciate your concerns in light of this new info you've given. As I say, often it's a matter of opinion. I just like to say honestly that when I first read this article, I felt there's not enough highlighting of important issues. That's why I added some additional headings. So I just contributed the best way I knew. But I'd better stay away from this article for a while. Best wishes. Y-barton (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I thought your introduction of subheadings was fine, and definitely those sections were very long, and your headers do serve to highlight important aspects. Please do keep working on the article, and improving it. Whenever we disagree on style I am sure we can figure out amiably and collaboratively how best to move forward. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
use of ones legs
Thank you for that remark. - I once said that those who dislike a certain accessibility feature (with seven letters which I am not supposed to mention) as aesthetically not pleasing, probably also disagree with access ramps for buildings. I like Beethoven ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Peder Syv
Harrias talk 14:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
AAT - Westenhöfer edit
Hi Maunus,
Just wanted to say thanks for the Westenhöfer edit before my account gets deleted again. I noticed that you had checked the Westenhöfer-National Socialist association comment, and probably couldn't find any evidence to support it (I couldn't either after searching). I have to say, I was quite surprised by this, because I had started to assume that all changes from an AAT supporter would automatically be assumed to be wrong, but you must have checked this, so I'm very glad to see some thorough checking, to get facts right. I think saying Westenhöfer was a Nazi probably would be working against the anti-AAT community anyway, because, as we all know from Godwin's Law, the first person to call their opponent Hitler, loses.
For the sake of fairness, regarding the issue of him being anti-Darwin, I think there is a citation for that on the actual Westenhöfer page, so it does seem like it could be true. I'm not sure why, because AAT relies on adaptations over time, and hence Darwinian thinking. Unfortunate, but I think I'd have to look at the issue some more to fully understand his thinking.
Just out of interest what made you decide to look into the Westenhöfer issue? Was it because it was the subject I got most angry about on Neil's page? Or did you check through my other six changes which were all reverted under the Attenborough-gate saga? (still not sure why this is such a sticking point that it was singled out, rather than any of my other six changes, but never mind). Aquapess (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't actually look into it, it just seemed entirely irrelevant to the issue, and simply an attempt to discredit him by association. Even if he was a Nazi or worse that fact would be irrelevant in relation to the validity of his theory. Many European biologists were anti-Darwinians in that period, preferring instead different vitalist theories.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Jean-François Champollion GAN
For some reason the bot seems to have failed to add the usual message to the nominator's page, so I'm adding this note to tell you I have left some comments at Talk:Jean-François Champollion/GA1. Best, Tim riley talk 10:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Why Alice Dreger not a partial non-partisan source about Chagnon?
Alice Dreger is a long-time and accomplished researcher in the field of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology and has done much research in bioethics and about scientific controversies. You claim in talk that she's only representing her own biased opinion, but it seems to me to be a wrong statement because she's one of the most unbiased secondary sources on the whole matter and she comes from a neutral background to the issue of Napoelon Chagnon.
- She is not unbiased at all, she has been a long time opponent of the post-modern turn in cultural anthropology, including "social constructionism". She is a proponent of a "scientific" approach to anthropology and is a natural ally of Chagnon who also cpostonsiders himself to be a "scientist" and opposed to the "soft" antiscience post-modern anthropologists. Indeed most accomplished evolutionary psychologists would naturally be biased in favor of Chagnon and against the anthropology establishment. She is very much a party in the "science wars" betweeen sociobiology/evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology. her claim to neutrality is disingenuous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Maunus, there are many who use Chagnon as a source who are completely neutral to that whole controversy, like this article for example. That academic article, by the way, can be used as a source for many articles about Nature vs. Nurture, Human culture etc. These researchers who have basically no connection to Chagnon are citing him and arriving to his conclusions independently which means that Chagnon's view (and E. O. Wilson's view) is highly mainstream in all the relevant fields and amongst the releveant scholars
CRIT museum
So, did you find a bunch of interesting stuff there? RO(talk) 15:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but they didn't allow pictures to be taken unfortunately. And their exhibit on Irataba had just been taken down for moving. But I bought volume one of "Dreamers of the Colorado" a collection of articles about Mohave culture and history (including some of the articles we've already used). This will be useful for future edits. If you ever travel to the area I recommend the Bluewater Hotel, its cheap mid-week and it is amazing to be able to wake up early and go swim in the river.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank GA
Hi Maunus, I saw your quick fail and certainly understand it given the tag and RfC. I nominated this article last December and there were no such issues at the time. Of course, I don't want to nominate it again and have it wait in a queue for that long again, and risk something else derailing the nomination at the last minute. If I do nominate it for GA again once the issues are cleaned up, do you mind reviewing it at that point? I can make another mention here on your talk page once that happens. The centennial of Frank's lynching is August 17 of this year, and I was hoping for a Today's Featured Article on that day, but unfortunately it doesn't seem likely at this point. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would be happy to review it once the article is stable. Please give me a hint when you renominate it. It is not far from FA quality in terms of the formalities, so once the neutrality issues are handled then perhaps an FA are within reach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Seeking your expertise
As you're an expert in the field and an experienced Wikipedia editor, i would like to hear your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn. A review of the recent changes to Wusun would also be helpful. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your hard work and patience in promoting Irataba to FA! Well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
The Irataba article wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is today if not for your hard work and researching expertise. Thanks for being patient while fixing the glitches! RO(talk) 16:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
In this edit, you restored this to the lead-
"The primordialists view it as a result of a common cultural, religous, philosphical, family and ethnic background causing them to feel more for each other."
Mind removing it? It's the same sort of issue you have with the removal of the other content, consensus needs to be gained for its addition. It isn't mentioned in the body of the article, and doesn't seem notable enough for the lead. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- This next edit you did, takes care of it. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
YGM
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.
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Reverted edits
Why did you revert my removal of unreliable source for Ehsan Jafri?
Please provide an explanation or revert back the change asap.
- The content is sourced, and there is no reason to consider it unreliable given that the same statement has been widely reported.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your recent reversion of my edit to English phonology, I'd like to say that a) I don't see where else in the article Northeastern accents are described b) if the Northumbrian Burr article is right, the /ʁ/ phoneme is not completely extinct (at least outside Tyneside), and the article should be edited accordingly. Esszet (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
White nationalism = Nazism
I'm still waiting for your response on the talk page on white nationalism. None of the sources sited states that white nationalism are the same as nazism. Neither do a white nationalism in any way say it's the same. I will also state; if a liberal kills and hates, does that make all liberals murderers and haters? Do that make liberals a hate group? Do the same count for conservatives? Olehal09 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have said what I am going to say on that topic, that you insist on not understanding it is not my problem. The article does not say that white nationalism and nazism is the same, but Nazism is clearly both historically and ideologically closely related. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- In what way? White nationalism is a movement that only wants a homeland for whites. The nazis were expansionalist, belived in the superiority of germanians (what they thought to be aryans. And myth of them coming from Atlantis). That slavs, gypsis and jew were undermench ( sub-human). In what way are they related historicaly? You are either uninformed, or just orwellian. From olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That word you use..."Orwellian", I don't think it means what you think it means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Orwellian refers many different things. But here I think your peers ( not you ) are this because you are using language to effect peoples feelings and limit their thoughts. Newspeak. And misinforming about history for the some end. Olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That word you use..."Orwellian", I don't think it means what you think it means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- In what way? White nationalism is a movement that only wants a homeland for whites. The nazis were expansionalist, belived in the superiority of germanians (what they thought to be aryans. And myth of them coming from Atlantis). That slavs, gypsis and jew were undermench ( sub-human). In what way are they related historicaly? You are either uninformed, or just orwellian. From olehal09 84.48.84.86 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you find enough on this Finnish anthropologist to create a stub? I cited him in Sapalewa River.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
In fact would you be interested in finding 10 missing Scandinavian anthropologists and putting them up on the WP:Intertranswiki board?♦ Dr. Blofeld
- I don't know many Scandinavian anthropologists I am afraid. As for Siikala I cannot find any sources suggesting notability - a finnish speaking editor may be better able to. He doesn't seem to be a very influential anthropologist outside of Finland.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
TFA
- 9 June 2015
- Carl Nielsen made
- Main Page history
- and you were part of
- working for his works!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Chetro Ketl PR
Hello. I know you said you finished your PR, but the article has almost doubled in size since you last commented. Is there any chance you'd be willing to take another look? RO(talk) 16:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Core Contest
Second Prize | |
Dear Maunus, congratulations for your joint effort on the second-prize-winning entry English language in the March 2015 running of the Core Contest. A member of wikimedia UK will be in touch soon with details about the Amazon voucher. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
- Congratulations on your prize. I'm sorting out the prizes from Wikimedia UK. As it's in the form of an Amazon voucher, could you please email me at richard.nevellwikimedia.org.uk so that I can send it to your email address. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Israeli Hebrew
Hi Maunus. So, you think the POV of the ELL2 and other sources like that should be ignored for the intro to the WP article? Maltese has more loans, but the history of Israeli is very different. I suspect that people are still struggling with a way to describe it, just as they did with creoles 50 yrs ago, since every author seems to use different wording. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It should definitely be ignored in the infobox, depending on its prominence in the literature it should have coverage in the body of the article and possibly a mention in the lead. But not in the infobox. Could you show any other sources that explicitly consider Modern Hebrew not to be a semitic language but a mixed language in the linguistic sense. Also I dont have access to ELL so could you please let me know exactly what it says about the classification of MH, and who wrote the entry?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- It was Zuckermann. He presents it as a hypothesis, but the preferred one. But it belies the claim that his work is fringe - you could hardly ask for a more mainstream source than ELL.
- The intro and conclusion of the article are as follows. (Between is a grammatical description.)
- Hebrew, Israeli
- G Zuckermann, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Basic Information
- The Israeli language (a.k.a. Modern Hebrew) is one of the official languages – with Arabic and English – of the state of Israel, established in 1948. It is spoken to varyingdegrees of fluency by its 6.8 million citizens (as of September 2004) – as a mother tongue by most Israeli Jews (whose total number slightly exceeds 5 million), and as a second language by Muslims (Arabic speakers), Christians (e.g., Russian and Arabic speakers), Druze (Arabic speakers), and others.
- Hebrew (see Hebrew, Biblical and Medieval) was spoken by the Jewish people after the so-called conquest of Israel (c. 13th century B.C .). Following a gradual decline (even Jesus, ‘King of the Jews,’ was a native speaker of Aramaic rather than Hebrew), it ceased to be spoken by the 2nd century A.D . The Bar-Kokhba Revolt against the Romans, which took place in Judaea in A.D. 132–135, marks the symbolic end of the period of spoken Hebrew. For more than 1700 years thereafter, Hebrew was comatose – either a ‘sleeping beauty’ or ‘walking dead.’ It served as a liturgical and literary language and occasionally also as a lingua franca for Jews of the Diaspora, but not as a mother tongue.
- Israeli emerged in Eretz Yisrael (or Palestine) at the beginning of the 20th century. Its formation was facilitated by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, schoolteachers, and others to further the Zionist cause. Earlier, during the Haskalah (enlightenment) period from the 1770s to the 1880s, writers such as Me´ndele Mokhe´r Sfarı ´m (Shalom Abramowitsch) produced works and neologisms which eventually contributed to Israeli. However, it was not until the early 20th century that the language was first spoken.
- The genetic classification of Israeli has preoccupied linguists since the language emerged. The traditional school argues that Israeli is Semitic: (Biblical/Mishnaic) Hebrew revived. Educators, scholars, and politicians have contributed to this assumption, linking the history of language to the politics of national revival. The revisionist position, by contrast, defines Israeli as Indo–European: Yiddish relexified, i.e., Yiddish (the revivalists’ mother tongue) is the ‘substratum,’ whilst Hebrew is only a ‘superstratum’ providing the lexis and lexicalized morphology (cf. Horvath and Wexler, 1997). A more recent hypothesis is that Israeli is a hybrid language, both Semitic and Indo–European. It argues that both Hebrew and Yiddish act equally as its primary contributors (rather than ‘substrata’), accompanied by many secondary contributors: Russian, Polish, German, Judeo–Spanish (Ladino), Arabic, English, etc. (see Figure 1). Although Israeli phonetics and phonology are primarily Yiddish and its morphology is mainly Hebrew, the European contribution to Israeli is not restricted to particular linguistic domains and is evident even in its morphology.
- [Figure 1: ISRAELI an top, with YIDDISH and HEBREW underneath as primary contributors, as well as influencing each other, and Ladino, Arabic, Russian, Polish, German, English, etc. as secondary contributors both to YIDDISH and HEBREW and to ISRAELI.]
- Thus, the term ‘Israeli’ is far more appropriate than ‘Israeli Hebrew,’ let alone the common signifiers ‘Modern Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew’ tout court (cf. Zuckermann, 1999, 2003, 2005).
- Grammatical Profile
- ...
- Concluding Remarks
- The grammatical profile of Israeli demonstrates its binary nature, which has important theoretical implications for many branches of language science: contact linguistics, sociolinguistics, language revival/survival, linguistic genetics and typology, creolistics, and mixed languages. Genetic affiliation – at least in the case of (semi-)engineered, ‘nongenetic’ languages – is not discrete but rather a continuous line. The comparative method and lexicostatistics, though elsewhere useful, are not here sufficient. Linguists who seek to apply the lessons of Israeli to the revival of no-longer spoken languages should take warning.
- Israeli affords insights into the politics not only of language, but also of linguistics. One of the practical implications is that universities, as well as Israeli secondary schools, should employ a clear-cut distinction between Israeli linguistics and Hebrew linguistics. Israeli children should not be indoctrinated to believe that they speak the language of Isaiah – unless the teacher is referring to the 20th-century Israeli polymath and visionary Isaiah Leibowitz. Although revivalists have engaged in a campaign for linguistic purity, the language they created often mirrors the very cultural differences they sought to erase. The study of Israeli offers a unique insight into the dynamics between language and culture in general and in particular into the role of language as a source of collective self-perception.
- Zuckerman's view is not the mainstream view (although he has personally pushed it a lot here on wikipedia), his position is similar to those who argue that English is a mixed language in terms of position relative to the mainstream - an interesting and controversial hypothesis that is not generally considered in classifications. Also it doesnt seem to me that he actually claims that the revisionist position is "preferred". He is arguing that the continuity with biblical hebrew should not be overstated for purist, political or religious reasons, which is a reasonable argument, but which does not really have anything to do with the genetic classification. Every historical linguist knows that genetic descent is not discrete but a continuum - and yet experts in language contact and mixed languages do not consider Hebrew to be in that end of the spectrum. Also the fact that it is in ELL doesnt really mean anything in terms of status of the argument, Zuckerman is presenting his own view not the editor's. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- He does describe it under genetic classification. You reverted "mixed", which of course violated NPOV, but what about something closer to the old stable version, like "revitalised Mishnaic Hebrew or hybrid Hebrew–Yiddish", or whatever wording would best capture the two views? There are problems with giving simple genealogical trees for languages that do not have simple genealogical descent, like creoles, conlangs, standardized forms, and revitalized languages. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- So...? — kwami (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Precious again
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Stød
Wow, that's a fantastic work. Thanks! Peter238 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Iøm glad you liked it. You do great work on phonology yourself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Chetro Ketl
Hello. Thanks for your comments at the Chetro Ketl peer review. The article is now a featured article candidate, and I'd like to invite you to comment there. Thanks! RO(talk) 17:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!
Greetings!
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.
- Browse the new WikiProject page
- Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system
Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring at Chetro Ketl
Per WP:BRD, please don't edit war. Take to talk. RO(talk) 17:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am just implementing Leksons own suggestion as reported by you. Get rid of the mentions of Tula and Toltecs if you are so allergic to actually explaining what it means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I asked you more than once to revisit your review, and you refused. Now you are disrupting what was a very positive review process. So will you please lay off me now? RO(talk) 18:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- The disruption is all of your own making. If you are unable to respond sensibly to well-intentioned and polite suggestions for improvement then that suggests that for you a "positive review process" is only that which does not engage your work seriously or critically. That is of course not the point of a review process. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore. Is the main problem here that you insist Ferdon specifically mentioned Tula and the colonnade at Chetro Ketl, as with this edit: ([4])? I'm really trying to understand the disconnect here. RO(talk) 19:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that at no point have you actually understood what I was saying, which only makes it more frustrating that you would continue to stalwartly argue against all kinds of tangentially related points. As Lekson writes in his email to me which he copied to you, in the 1950s people thought Tula was the seat of a giant empire that dominated Mesoamerica in the postclassic and extended its influence to Central America and into the Southwest. This was based on the fact that Tula was one of the first postclassicsites that were excavated and became widely known and on the fact that it was mentioned prominently in Nahuatl ethnohistorical accounts. Later people realized that Tula was probably not the only center from which the traits first considered to be "Toltec" (i.e. similar to Tula) emanated, but that other sites were perhaps even more important in spreading those traits - and from the study of nahuatl people realized that when Nahua people spoke of Toltecs they did not necessarily refer to people from Tula, Hidalgo as had been assumed untill then. That is why Ferdon writing in the fifties would think that the presence of a colonnade the main feature of Tula suggested that the Toltec empire had reached all the way up there. At that point most of the other colonnaded sites Lekson mentions in the Northwest were not yet excavated. Today most people consider Tula one postclassic site among many and its influence more limited, and consequently do not talk much about Toltec influence (Diehl is an outlier here, as he himself states). But all of this is only background knowledge about the history of archeological thinking, that allows us to realize why scholars in the past made the arguments they did. The main point that I was arguing was that in the sectionyou mention "quetzalcoatl cult", "Mesoamerica", "Pochteca", and "Toltecs" without giving the reader anyway to understand how those concepts are related to eachother and to the physical evidence at Chetro Ketl. The reader is not given any chance to understand why the colonnade would prompt anyone to suggest any of those things - because you just state that they did suggest them without saying why. That is not optimal writing and we could easily do better, if you hadnt reacted as if simply pointing this out was a personal affront.(I realize that the reason you don't add the "why" is because you don't know, and couldn't be expected to know since you lack the background knowledge in the history of archeological thinking, and which is why I have (unsuccessfully) tried to tell you this background stuff, which I myself had to learn by taking coursework in it at two different universities - but honestly trying to teach you stuff is a thankless and frustrating task which I will very much try to avoid in the future).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming Lekson grants me permission to post his recent response to talk, may I also post your email to him for context? RO(talk) 19:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. I consider it a huge mistake on your part that you would try to use your pesonal correspondence the way you have, but at this point it is better to have the entire context.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I asked Lekson before I mentioned him if that was alright, and I asked him about quoting him also. I only did so because I knew you would come at me as the expert who knows everything, and try to make me look stupid like you did with Irataba. Lekson liked my article, and I'd much rather have his support than yours. There were lots of good things you could have said, such as "this is leaps and bounds better than your previous efforts", but you focused on this one point because you wanted to make me look as though I was messing something up. You still don't know if Ferdon mentioned the colonnade at Tula, do you? What if after I get his book I tell you he didn't make the connection you insist he made? RO(talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I realize that that was your intention in mentioning him already in the nomination. It is called argument from authoirity and is justr bad style. Sure it maybe annoying to be faced with people who act like experts who know everything. But I didnt actually claim to know everything. I claimed to know one thing. Which I do. And which you resisted fiercely all ready in the peer review. Given that you refused to fix it in the peer review and made a big deal out of it there it would have been odd for me not to comment on it at the FA review. Given that I made no demand for it to be fixed to give my support, you could have simply let it drop. Or you could have fixed it. You chose to do neither but to make it into a pissing contest. Fine with me, I can do that as well as the next person. And your email with its veiled threat to post "something that would embarrass me me" really didnt put me in the mood to go about it graciously. Maybe Ferdon didnt mention Tula specifically maybe he writes "Toltec empire" without mentioning what everyone in 1955 assumed was its capital. That is possible, if unlikely. But it would change nothing, Lekson himself mentions Tula 6 times in his 2007 article. And in archeology and in Nahuatl "Toltec" means "related to Tula" regardless of what Ferdon wrote in 1955. These are facts. My very first statement was that it was an impressive improvement. But reviews are not for simply exchanging compliments. They are for improving articles. And clarifying why anyone would think that Chetro Ketl has signs of Mesoamerican influence, and if necessary why this influence has been considered by some to be specifically Toltec, would have improved it it. Now we ended up with just a flat claim stating the conclusion made by Lekson et al, which is fine, but still not optimal. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. I should have let it slide, but I really resent that you feel the need to catch me making a mistake that wasn't really a mistake in the first place. I wish you'd see that I was just trying to stay as tight to the sources as I could, and your suggested topic sentence was not supported by Vivian & Hilpert. I still haven't seen a source that says Ferdon believes the colonnade at Chetro Ketl was inspired by one at Tula. I see that trumping all you personally know, and per WP:VERIFY I was right to avoid that. This is all made more weird by the fact that there is no Toltec influence at Chetro Ketl in the first place, which I also tried to explain during the peer review. So why go into such detail over a non issue? I wasted at least three days on this now, and the end result is less Tula/Toltec, not more as you had originally pushed for. If you take nothing else from this, pleases consider the effect comments that call into question an editor's intelligence have on civility. There was never any need to insult or attack me personally, and I feel you owe me an apology for that. RO(talk) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I made no personal remarks whatsoever in my support post at the review. That was the post prompted you to send me a veiled threat about embarrassing me, and then a full on if failed attempt to do so at the talkpage using hand waving and misunderstood arguments from authority (misunderstood since nowhere does Lekson suggest that the argument about Toltec influence did not originate because of the perceived similarity to Tula, and indeed he clearly indicates so himself on page 167 as I have mentioned a couple of times now). The paragraph after the peer review was absurd in that it quoted Leksons' refutation of any Toltec connection without having first presented the proposed connection. Since you were not willing to remove that, inserting a mention of Tula and the Toltec influence theory before the refutation was necessary to make the paragraph cohere. The article now is better than it was, but not optimal. Describing why Ferdon and others have considered there to be Mesoamerican, and/or Toltec, influence would be better in my opinion. Sure I made some harsh comments, and I am happy to retract and apologize for those. This does not mean however, that I do not still think that you have a most unfortunate tendency to misconstrue all critical arguments instead of trying to understand them and improve, and a tendency to miss important points and connections in the sources you read. I think you need to work on that, but I have no reason to think that you lack the ability to do so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. I should have let it slide, but I really resent that you feel the need to catch me making a mistake that wasn't really a mistake in the first place. I wish you'd see that I was just trying to stay as tight to the sources as I could, and your suggested topic sentence was not supported by Vivian & Hilpert. I still haven't seen a source that says Ferdon believes the colonnade at Chetro Ketl was inspired by one at Tula. I see that trumping all you personally know, and per WP:VERIFY I was right to avoid that. This is all made more weird by the fact that there is no Toltec influence at Chetro Ketl in the first place, which I also tried to explain during the peer review. So why go into such detail over a non issue? I wasted at least three days on this now, and the end result is less Tula/Toltec, not more as you had originally pushed for. If you take nothing else from this, pleases consider the effect comments that call into question an editor's intelligence have on civility. There was never any need to insult or attack me personally, and I feel you owe me an apology for that. RO(talk) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I realize that that was your intention in mentioning him already in the nomination. It is called argument from authoirity and is justr bad style. Sure it maybe annoying to be faced with people who act like experts who know everything. But I didnt actually claim to know everything. I claimed to know one thing. Which I do. And which you resisted fiercely all ready in the peer review. Given that you refused to fix it in the peer review and made a big deal out of it there it would have been odd for me not to comment on it at the FA review. Given that I made no demand for it to be fixed to give my support, you could have simply let it drop. Or you could have fixed it. You chose to do neither but to make it into a pissing contest. Fine with me, I can do that as well as the next person. And your email with its veiled threat to post "something that would embarrass me me" really didnt put me in the mood to go about it graciously. Maybe Ferdon didnt mention Tula specifically maybe he writes "Toltec empire" without mentioning what everyone in 1955 assumed was its capital. That is possible, if unlikely. But it would change nothing, Lekson himself mentions Tula 6 times in his 2007 article. And in archeology and in Nahuatl "Toltec" means "related to Tula" regardless of what Ferdon wrote in 1955. These are facts. My very first statement was that it was an impressive improvement. But reviews are not for simply exchanging compliments. They are for improving articles. And clarifying why anyone would think that Chetro Ketl has signs of Mesoamerican influence, and if necessary why this influence has been considered by some to be specifically Toltec, would have improved it it. Now we ended up with just a flat claim stating the conclusion made by Lekson et al, which is fine, but still not optimal. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I asked Lekson before I mentioned him if that was alright, and I asked him about quoting him also. I only did so because I knew you would come at me as the expert who knows everything, and try to make me look stupid like you did with Irataba. Lekson liked my article, and I'd much rather have his support than yours. There were lots of good things you could have said, such as "this is leaps and bounds better than your previous efforts", but you focused on this one point because you wanted to make me look as though I was messing something up. You still don't know if Ferdon mentioned the colonnade at Tula, do you? What if after I get his book I tell you he didn't make the connection you insist he made? RO(talk) 20:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. I consider it a huge mistake on your part that you would try to use your pesonal correspondence the way you have, but at this point it is better to have the entire context.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore. Is the main problem here that you insist Ferdon specifically mentioned Tula and the colonnade at Chetro Ketl, as with this edit: ([4])? I'm really trying to understand the disconnect here. RO(talk) 19:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- The disruption is all of your own making. If you are unable to respond sensibly to well-intentioned and polite suggestions for improvement then that suggests that for you a "positive review process" is only that which does not engage your work seriously or critically. That is of course not the point of a review process. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I asked you more than once to revisit your review, and you refused. Now you are disrupting what was a very positive review process. So will you please lay off me now? RO(talk) 18:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
"Describing why Ferdon and others have considered there to be Mesoamerican, and/or Toltec, influence would be better in my opinion." The article states: "It is not only unique to Chaco Canyon, but also to Ancestral Puebloan architecture as a whole. The nearest similar structure is located more than five hundred miles away at Casas Grandes, in northwestern Mexico.[136]" Isn't that a decent set-up for the influence came from Mexico? You told Lekson, "Sure there are other colonnades in Mesoamerica, but Ferdon and similar scholars are not argueing for influence from Chichen Itza or Altavista, or Casasgrandes", but he told me: "Di Peso certainly mentions Tula and gives it a couple of pages in his history, but he's pretty non-specific about where Paquime's Pochteca came from. He mostly says they were from some high civilization in Mesoamerica. Di Peso knew there was a lot more to Mesoamerica than just Tula/Toltecs/". Anyway, this has ballooned into a ridiculous waste of time. I asked you to revisit the issue at the PR, but you intentionally saved this as a bomb to drop at FAC, which I think was unethical, despite your short-lived support. I also think retracting your support was immature. I.e., why did you give a support that was conditional on my agreeing with an issue you already knew I disagreed with you on? But FTR, I've always agree that it probably came from Tula as you said, but none of the sources explicitly state that, so I was just doing what I thought WP:VERIFY requires us to do. RO(talk) 21:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I did not "save it" as a bomb, and I did not drop it as one either. And my support was not conditional on anything, but it was motivated by finding your work impressive and worthy of support for the mere effort you clearly put into improving which I think is a positive quality that I like to encourage. You chose not to address it at the review and I chose not to waste more time on it at that point having other things to do than argue with you. You then personally and specifically requested my input into the review, how did you imagine that I wouldnt mention it? I withdrew my support because I realized that I dont trust your judgment and hence couldnt support based on simple assumption of good faith, and that any positive feelings towards you as a person that could have participated in motivating a sympathy support vote without having actually checked the quality of the work had vanished. I am not opposing the article, but I am not supporting it either, and I dont think I am going to comment at any future peer reviews or FACs of yours. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'll say one last thing here. The article didn't mention Tula before you came to the PR and pushed for its inclusion ([5]), and I only added it to appease you. That's what started this. Now Lekson has suggested we not mention Tula at all ([6]), but it was only mentioned in the first place because you said it should be. I might not have been 100% correct on everything, but you certainly weren't either, which is a possibility you never entertain. Good luck to you in all future endeavors. RO(talk) 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- But it mentioned Toltecs without giving the reader any information about what that was supposed to mean - and your addition of "Tula" but disconnected from the Toltecs and te entire idea that it was based on (of an expanding Toltec empire based in Tula) was no improvement. As I have said it was never about factual accuracy but about presenting information in a coherent way that helps the reader understand the topic instead of just present them with disconnected facts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. I get that, but the sources I had at my disposal at the time did not support your suggestion, and I still haven't seen one that explicitly states that Ferdon said the colonnade at Tula influenced the colonnade at Chetro Ketl. Also, you keep saying that Toltec area = Tula area and Toltec = inhabitant of Tula, but if these terms are as interchangeable as that, why did you think we had to mention both Tula and Toltec? If "Detect a Toltec influence" = "detect an influence from Tula", why did you insist on mentioning both? If I understand Lekson, the best move would have been to remove Toltec, not emphasize Tula, which is what you suggested. RO(talk) 22:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because I assumed, and still assume, that it was the famous collonade at Tula that made Ferdon think specifically of Toltec influence. And still we have no other way to arrive at that conclusion - since none of the other elements sometimes considered signs of "toltec" cultural influence such as Silho or Tohil plumbate ware or Mixteca Puebla style iconography are found at Chetro Ketl. The only similarity that seems to be between anything "Toltec" and Chetro Ketl is the presence of a Colonnade at the main Toltec site and at Chetro Ketl. Maybe there are others, but then we would need to say which those are and perhaps treat the question of Mesoamerican influence in a section that is not about the colonnade. So as long as you insisted on quoting lekson saying "There is no Toltec influence at Chetro Ketl", then for the sake of the reader we needed to mention the hypothesis of Toltec influence and what it was based on. Yes it was simpler to simply cut the entire Toltec hypothesis since it had been superseded by an idea of a more generalized Mesoamerican influence, but your inclusion of the quote mentioning Toltecs made that untenable. Your addition of the mention of a colonnade at casas grande certainly did improve the section, but it did not alleviate the need to tell the reader why a hypothesis of toltecs would be refuted by Lekson since no Toltecs had been previously mentioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then I think the right thing to do would have been for you to get Ferdon's book on interlibrary loan, read it, and revisit the point at the PR, which I didn't close until June 22. I.e., per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]" I was only trying to stay as close to the rules as I could to hopefully avoid issues like this one. Is there really no common ground here that you can extend an olive branch on? Fine. I should have ordered Ferdon's book that day. So I admit this was my fault in that it would never have happened if I'd have consulted Ferdon like a good researcher. Sorry. I hope you can accept my sincere apology. RO(talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I dont actually think it comes down to Ferdon's book at all. I have told you about five times now that Lekson, Windes and Fournier write directly that it is the parallel between the Tula Colonnade that inspire the argument. They write: "Much has been discussed concerning the similarities in architectural features between Tula and Chaco Canyon, and particularly the colonnade, since Ferdon proposed that Toltecs or people influenced by them introduced new traits into the Southwest through pochteca like merchants". They literally state that much has been written about the similarities between those two specific sites, and they write "particularly the collonnade". They also tell us who wrote this about this: "DiPeso (1974), Lister (1978) and Hayes (1981), sought the source in Tula" - having also noted that Ferdon, following also Hewett, considered the colonnade unknown outside of "Aztec Mesoamerica" (suggesting maybe that Ferdon actually considered Tula an Aztec site, which would be an odd use of the term "Aztec"). Then they write "...the analogy between the impressive colonnaded halls with round columns and rectangular pilasters found in Tula and the modest colonnaded hall with pilaster-like features in Chetro Ketl remains valid." Since the comparison "remains valid", this clearly means that someone saw that parallel before them and that the argument has been made based on the similarity in the colonnades specifically between those two sites. Exactly as I argued. They then write about how the "parallels in certain aspects of architecture at Tula and Chaco Canyon" are probably not due to direct influence but due to indirect influence through the northern Mexico postclassic sites that may have inspired both. Again clearly they are reacting to an argument about Tula being the source of the Mesoamerican influence. They then write two pages comparing Tula and Chetro Ketl explicitly. You don't need Ferdon at all to concede that it makes sense to write that the proposed Toltec relation as to do with the similarities at Tula and not any other places. There was no need to have a discussion about whether Toltecs lived in other places than at Tula. There was no need to look at Taube and Miller to see how they describe the Toltecs as an mythical concept. There was no need to write 100kb of text challenging the simple argument that the text could present the reasoning that led to the ultimate refutation of the Toltec connection better. Yes a good researcher accesses the relevant sources - but a good researchers also reads them and gets the actual information out of them. That is something that requires practice and background knowledge. As for what I ought to have done at the PR, it makes very little sense for you to make any such demands on other people and their time - especially given how well you used the time I already dedicated to it before finding better things to do. I do accept your apology as sincere, and there is plenty of ground for olive branches, but the problem here was not your (or my) failure to order Ferdon, but the way you react to criticism, and how criticism makes you read the sources to support the view that you were right in the first place (and hence to leave out important information in the sources you read), instead of reading them to find out how to improve the article based on the critique. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- TL; DR, but you can't stop talking about me, when you should discuss content not editors. I knew there was no connection between Tula and Chaco, and that's why I thought you were wrong to push for more explanation of a non-issue that's been long debunked. I didn't take it personally; I found your inability to compromise and discuss without hurling insults frustrating. I'm done with this after seeing that you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge anyone even when they attempt to end an argument. You pushed for more Tula, Lekson said remove it altogether, and that's there for everyone to see, in perpetuity: ([7]). RO(talk) 16:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- You've contradicted yourself though, because you said I shouldn't use Vivian & Hilpert to source a claim from Ferdon's monograph, but now you are saying that Lekson, Windes, and Fournier can do just that ([8]). BTW, I'll bet you wrote 2 to 3 times as much as I did during this fiasco. Pot, meet kettle. RO(talk) 16:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I dont actually think it comes down to Ferdon's book at all. I have told you about five times now that Lekson, Windes and Fournier write directly that it is the parallel between the Tula Colonnade that inspire the argument. They write: "Much has been discussed concerning the similarities in architectural features between Tula and Chaco Canyon, and particularly the colonnade, since Ferdon proposed that Toltecs or people influenced by them introduced new traits into the Southwest through pochteca like merchants". They literally state that much has been written about the similarities between those two specific sites, and they write "particularly the collonnade". They also tell us who wrote this about this: "DiPeso (1974), Lister (1978) and Hayes (1981), sought the source in Tula" - having also noted that Ferdon, following also Hewett, considered the colonnade unknown outside of "Aztec Mesoamerica" (suggesting maybe that Ferdon actually considered Tula an Aztec site, which would be an odd use of the term "Aztec"). Then they write "...the analogy between the impressive colonnaded halls with round columns and rectangular pilasters found in Tula and the modest colonnaded hall with pilaster-like features in Chetro Ketl remains valid." Since the comparison "remains valid", this clearly means that someone saw that parallel before them and that the argument has been made based on the similarity in the colonnades specifically between those two sites. Exactly as I argued. They then write about how the "parallels in certain aspects of architecture at Tula and Chaco Canyon" are probably not due to direct influence but due to indirect influence through the northern Mexico postclassic sites that may have inspired both. Again clearly they are reacting to an argument about Tula being the source of the Mesoamerican influence. They then write two pages comparing Tula and Chetro Ketl explicitly. You don't need Ferdon at all to concede that it makes sense to write that the proposed Toltec relation as to do with the similarities at Tula and not any other places. There was no need to have a discussion about whether Toltecs lived in other places than at Tula. There was no need to look at Taube and Miller to see how they describe the Toltecs as an mythical concept. There was no need to write 100kb of text challenging the simple argument that the text could present the reasoning that led to the ultimate refutation of the Toltec connection better. Yes a good researcher accesses the relevant sources - but a good researchers also reads them and gets the actual information out of them. That is something that requires practice and background knowledge. As for what I ought to have done at the PR, it makes very little sense for you to make any such demands on other people and their time - especially given how well you used the time I already dedicated to it before finding better things to do. I do accept your apology as sincere, and there is plenty of ground for olive branches, but the problem here was not your (or my) failure to order Ferdon, but the way you react to criticism, and how criticism makes you read the sources to support the view that you were right in the first place (and hence to leave out important information in the sources you read), instead of reading them to find out how to improve the article based on the critique. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Then I think the right thing to do would have been for you to get Ferdon's book on interlibrary loan, read it, and revisit the point at the PR, which I didn't close until June 22. I.e., per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]" I was only trying to stay as close to the rules as I could to hopefully avoid issues like this one. Is there really no common ground here that you can extend an olive branch on? Fine. I should have ordered Ferdon's book that day. So I admit this was my fault in that it would never have happened if I'd have consulted Ferdon like a good researcher. Sorry. I hope you can accept my sincere apology. RO(talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because I assumed, and still assume, that it was the famous collonade at Tula that made Ferdon think specifically of Toltec influence. And still we have no other way to arrive at that conclusion - since none of the other elements sometimes considered signs of "toltec" cultural influence such as Silho or Tohil plumbate ware or Mixteca Puebla style iconography are found at Chetro Ketl. The only similarity that seems to be between anything "Toltec" and Chetro Ketl is the presence of a Colonnade at the main Toltec site and at Chetro Ketl. Maybe there are others, but then we would need to say which those are and perhaps treat the question of Mesoamerican influence in a section that is not about the colonnade. So as long as you insisted on quoting lekson saying "There is no Toltec influence at Chetro Ketl", then for the sake of the reader we needed to mention the hypothesis of Toltec influence and what it was based on. Yes it was simpler to simply cut the entire Toltec hypothesis since it had been superseded by an idea of a more generalized Mesoamerican influence, but your inclusion of the quote mentioning Toltecs made that untenable. Your addition of the mention of a colonnade at casas grande certainly did improve the section, but it did not alleviate the need to tell the reader why a hypothesis of toltecs would be refuted by Lekson since no Toltecs had been previously mentioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. I get that, but the sources I had at my disposal at the time did not support your suggestion, and I still haven't seen one that explicitly states that Ferdon said the colonnade at Tula influenced the colonnade at Chetro Ketl. Also, you keep saying that Toltec area = Tula area and Toltec = inhabitant of Tula, but if these terms are as interchangeable as that, why did you think we had to mention both Tula and Toltec? If "Detect a Toltec influence" = "detect an influence from Tula", why did you insist on mentioning both? If I understand Lekson, the best move would have been to remove Toltec, not emphasize Tula, which is what you suggested. RO(talk) 22:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- But it mentioned Toltecs without giving the reader any information about what that was supposed to mean - and your addition of "Tula" but disconnected from the Toltecs and te entire idea that it was based on (of an expanding Toltec empire based in Tula) was no improvement. As I have said it was never about factual accuracy but about presenting information in a coherent way that helps the reader understand the topic instead of just present them with disconnected facts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'll say one last thing here. The article didn't mention Tula before you came to the PR and pushed for its inclusion ([5]), and I only added it to appease you. That's what started this. Now Lekson has suggested we not mention Tula at all ([6]), but it was only mentioned in the first place because you said it should be. I might not have been 100% correct on everything, but you certainly weren't either, which is a possibility you never entertain. Good luck to you in all future endeavors. RO(talk) 22:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I did not "save it" as a bomb, and I did not drop it as one either. And my support was not conditional on anything, but it was motivated by finding your work impressive and worthy of support for the mere effort you clearly put into improving which I think is a positive quality that I like to encourage. You chose not to address it at the review and I chose not to waste more time on it at that point having other things to do than argue with you. You then personally and specifically requested my input into the review, how did you imagine that I wouldnt mention it? I withdrew my support because I realized that I dont trust your judgment and hence couldnt support based on simple assumption of good faith, and that any positive feelings towards you as a person that could have participated in motivating a sympathy support vote without having actually checked the quality of the work had vanished. I am not opposing the article, but I am not supporting it either, and I dont think I am going to comment at any future peer reviews or FACs of yours. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello from Ling.Nut
Hey maunus, this is Ling. Long time no chat. Saw you at FARC. I was actually trying to save cochineal, but then I had the question that I listed... See you around! • Lingzhi♦(talk) 09:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)