User:Maunus/Talk:Archivepage4

Maltese language

If you think it's in the article's best interest to maintain the English (v. Germanic) change, go ahead. But please do not revert everything (Tuscan, not 'Standard', Italian, and 'went' rather than 'is' l.256). golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because three users (two of whom are anonymous) make the same edit does not somehow substantiate it. Specifically: 'Tuscan' Italian prevents confusion with 'Sicilian' Italian (rather than the cover-all 'Standard'): a decision was reached to maintain the change. 'Went' is just odd. I don't really like tea, so you can keep that for yourself :) golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Standard Italian does not cover Sicilian Italian. Standard italian is used much more frequently than Tuscan Italian, with most readers being unaware of what "Tuscan Italian" is, and more likely to think it some kind of uncommon offshoot of Italian. And it was you yourself Kalindoscopy that removed the wording "Sicilian Italian". 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:DRC. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the above policy: Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of if the talk page is for a registered or unregistered "anonymous" editor. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies: I had not realised the IP was reverting my talkpage edits, not you. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Kalindascopy

I would like to point out that they attempted to remove the warning message you left them on their page. 78.151.142.191 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mur hudu. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the relevant policy that is a sign that they have read it, and he is fully allowed to remove it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Aztec etc. etc.

since when is the word enthenogenic used in describing buildings and animals? The meanings of the term "entheogen" were formally defined by Ruck et al. :In a strict sense, only those vision-producing drugs that can be shown to have figured in shamanic or religious rites would be designated entheogens, but in a looser sense, the term could also be applied to other drugs, both natural and artificial, that induce alterations of consciousness similar to those documented for ritual ingestion of traditional entheogens taken from the entheogenic article. Can you demonstrate a verifiable source for the the phrase Aztec entheogenic complex Semitransgenic (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

stupidly I have made a mistake, I thought the article was referring to a building complex, and that the sub-headings were archaeological sites, but they are actually substances. However I still find the title is still problematic in an encyclopedic context. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Then propose a move. But please read and understand the article first. Possibly a better title might be Aztec use of entheogens ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

your vote on moving Julian the Apostate

I think you put your support in the discussion section instead of the survey section, I would suggest you state your opinion within the survey section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion on Jesuit Reductions

Maunus, I see you reverted my edits to the Jesuit Reductions page. I had removed an extremely biased and generally unsourced paragraph. For example, it stated: "The Jesuits in each of these 'reductions' held absolute power, they acted through subordinates but in reality the Jesuit was lord of all he surveyed." Also, the concluding sentence ("The Indians were ruthlessly exploited for their own ends by Europeans.") conflates Jesuit missions with "Europeans." In fact, the title of its non-pincited source, The Communist Christian Republic of the Guranis, actually undercutes the suggestion that the Jesuit missions in particular were exploitative (since a commune would equitably share its revenue).

If you can source or generally support statements such as these (particularly "the Jesuit was lord of all he surveyed"), then please do so in the article. Quite frankly, I would like to hear how this paragraph can be justified. Otherwise, the sentence on non-ordination of indigenous peoples should be moved to a different paragraph, the sentence on European exploitation should be removed or re-written on the basis of relevance, and the unsourced and biased sentences should be removed outright.

--SaabaruMM (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph was highly problematic - but I thought that your version was equally bad and the previous version had the virtue of apparently being sourced. I'll try to tidy up that paragraph within the next few hours.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nahuatl

Thanks for the answer. I'm quite aware of my mistakes on that, maybe I should have pointed out it was rather ortography than speaking itself which makes it similar (Milpa Alta speakers have said they still use classical writing). It's fine for you to correct me. We're about to develop a new phase of the Nahuatl Wikipedia, which will include some modern variants, though we're still searching native users. --Fluence (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

I think a Checkuser should be requested for the other folks, too. Nothing personal, but: User:210.19.71.60 and User:Lacrystallililcry are both recent accounts with very few edits; they suddenly appeared out of nowhere and joined the discussion on MdA's side, forming a whole "party", using "advanced" Wikipedian arguments almost identical to hers; and in the end 210 conveniently acted as more "radical" than MdA, allowing her to present her version as a compromise (a tecnhique that sockpuppeteers sometimes use).--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I don't know how to go about the procedure though. Also it is funny how User:Kalindoscopy was blocked for disruptive editing of Maltese language just a few days before MagdelenaDiArco started going into the article with fervor.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is simple, but it takes time to add all the diffs and stuff; also, it's only done for recent abuse, so it can't be postponed too much. But I'm sick and tired of all of this, I've had enough for days ahead, so I won't deal with this.--Anonymous44 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And this is even more interesting. --84.13.166.223 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see, she's doing to her supposed former sockpuppeteer's talk page ... precisely what you are now doing to her talk page [1]?!! So who are you anyway? --Anonymous44 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But User:Giovanni Giove, User:Brunodam, and User:Iamandrewrice are all known to be male (and now known to be eachother), so how can Magdalena be part of him? 78.151.145.115 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

??·Maunus·ƛ· 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this we're witnessing "Maggie"'s sense of humour. Whatever, she'll always be a woman for me! :)--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting how the sockpuppeteer is trying to frame Kalindoscopy? First Maggie - who added some person information about Kalindoscopy to the Talk: Maltese Language page which I promptly removed - redirects his page, then sends socks to state reasons why Maggie is a sock of Kalindoscopy.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have included Kalindoscopy in the checkuser request because there are things in his behaviour that are similar to the Magdalena socks (same contribution history, same argumentation style, same interests (malta, italy, nationalism)). However if it turs out that he is not associated with those accounts he will be cleared and we will know that he is a bonafide user.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Good point on the European ethnicity talk page. I hope you will also contribute to Ethnic group and Race as well as Culture. But more pressing: If you have time could you read over and comment on this discussion? I think the policy needs to be revised. After a tentative proposal, I realized I do not have enough of a perspective to make a good one. But there has been a lot more discussion since I first raised the issue, and I would really value your contribution to the discussion. This policy will have far reaching consequences for the articles you and I edit, so it is worth making sure the relevant sections of the policy are well-informed, well-thought-out and well-crafted. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Acatitlan

According to the article on Chichimeca, that name was a catchall term for many groups that had in common they were not Nahua. This seems to contradict the edit you made today. I see what an expert you are from your user page. Could you go to the Acatitlan talk page and explain the ethnic terminology a little? Thanks. Hurmata (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I will.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Olmec

Guy, all this revert bullshit can be avoided simply by you continuing the discussion, rather than you just taking it upon yourself to change things. Before I came into the article, the bit about the African origins was in the article, and HAS been in the article for quite some time. My additions were simply to point out the flaw in the one argument. I could have just deleted it since it is invalid, but I chose to leave the information there.Godheval (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Olmec

Thanks. I see we're getting nowhere, so I reported it here. NJGW (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

I think you've been here long enough to know this, but I don't see a previous 3RR warning on your talk page, so I'll leave you one now. No matter how much you disagree with the other editor, edit warring is disruptive, and you've broken WP:3RR. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you remember to put a warning on his page as well since he had already broken it when I joined the fray.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, warned all three of you. --barneca (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Then I can go have a cup of nice tea.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Carrier language

Thank you Maunus. I will do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raayen (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

S. America

Thanks, Maunus. I did it quick & dirty from tidbits I've collected, half of which I don't remember where they came from, so it wouldn't surprise me if some BS slipped in there. I'm not keeping all these pages on my watch list (I'm at 1300 pages as it is), so if you feel some of them need correction, please let me know. I'd be most interested in what I've missed so I can update my own material. Like the info on Paezan, which was completely new to me and a beautiful lesson on how not to do historical linguistics. kwami (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we want a Mura-Matanawi article apart from Macro-Warpean? kwami (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That I do not know. I am not that much at home in linguistics of the Americas south of Mesoamerica. My only guess is that if Macro-Warpean is a greenberg invention then yes. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it was Kaufman (1994). I don't even give Greenberg credence in Africa. kwami (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaufman is about the best there is for South America, so lets just take that as a starting point.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 10:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chipotle

What is your disagreement with the passage you keep deleting, and how would you reword/rework it to your satisfaction? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have answered on the chipotle talkpage.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look for your contribution there.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Na-Dene Spelling Conventions

Hello! Please, join our discussion on the spelling of "Na-Dene" on the Na-Dene languages talk page. Thank you! --Pe t 'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Maunus, thanks for jumping in on the recent "discussion" at Wallace Wattles. Sometimes it just takes one more person to bring rabid editors in line with the more standard practice (I'm trying to be nice here). Your time and intervention is much appreciated. Madman (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem pal. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please explain the reason for your revert on Maltese language. Cheers. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can. It goes against the consensus of editors established amonth ago after a long editing dispute. It reintroduces material of dubious quality which was the matter of the dispute. And it introduces an element of doubt about whether Maltese is a Semitic language. It is highly suspicious that this material should be reintroduced by an anonymous editor such as yourself - since the only editor who was arguing in favour of the materials inclusion was shown to use sockpuppets and several anonymous accounts to strengthen his controversial positions. The material will not be reintroduced untill such a time when a consensus of editors on the articles talk page might decide that it is pertinent.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not fully understanding - but anyway, the text on the page itself already implies what I was adding. The page states that there is malclarity for the classification of Maltese, so I simply added "classifiably" in front of the vord "Semitic", with a source I findis on google, to apply consistency to the-article. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article does not imply that no. Please do not reintroduce the material.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a response. The article clearly statas that the lingvoge can be classified as Semitic or Mixa. I was juste applying consistency. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. The article clearly states that Maltese IS classified as a semitic language AND that it is sometimes referred to as a mixed language. You are not applying consistency but introducing confused terminology and erroneous views. Stop.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"AND that it is sometimes referred to as a mixed language" That is exactly what I sayis! 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No you say that it is classifiable as one which is a different thing. You can refer to a dog as a cat but that doesn't make it classifiable as a cat.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But a dog is never referra to as a cat, whereas Maltese is sometime refer to as Mixed, as both you, and the artiklo itself have said. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese is NOT a mixed language it is semitic. The fact that some confused people call it a mixed langauge doesn't make it one.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But the sources call it a mixa lingvo. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you writing in esperanto or what? Please use english. The RELIABLE sources do not call it a mixed language and we have debated this to death on the talkpage. Read the discussion - read the thorough assessment of sources that we have carried out. I am done with this discussion until such a time as you can corroborate your claims with NEW, RELIABLE sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My unua linguige is Esperanto sorry. I have givis a reliable source, no? 78.146.59.194 (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No you have given an unreliable source that we have already discussed and rejected on the talkpage. Maybe you should edit the Esperanto Wikipedia instead of here? It might prove less tedious.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am able to speak English as I have representis thank you. I find it very malpolite to tell me to move to another vikipedio juste because I am foreignulo. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you should make a new article about your Mixa Lingvo of Esperanto and Englishulo. When we started this discussion I was annoyed, now I am just giggling. You do have a sense of humour anyway. I wish I knew what to call you, Are you Giovanni, Magdelena or Bruno?·Maunus·ƛ· 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are racista, implying that all Esperantuloj are calling by such stereotype names! I can speak all of your lingvon, but you can not speak a single vord of mine! 78.146.59.194 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I hereby apologize profusely if my comments were understood as racista. I assure you meant no offense to the glorious Esperantist race. And actually I can speak a single vord knabo. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You again make joke. There is no race of Esperanto people. I have reportis youn. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also tell you that the vord "knabo" should not be uzed if you wish to avoidd sexism (but with your historio of racism, I guess this not bother you), and instead use knabiĉo, and use "knabo" for child, even though already exist vord for child, due to Riism. 78.146.59.194 (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And why do you assume that I didn't mean "Child"? Please Assume Good Faith here.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is old, but can I tell you this interaction will amuse me for, like, the next two weeks? A cup o' kakaw with chiles for you... ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 15:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is funny, but also sad to think that I wasted an entire days work arguing like this.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[2]

Please explainu this revert. Did you even check what it is you were reverting? I have not added anything that has discussed on talkpage. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you dois. You loosenis the wording on the punic material to make it seem as if it is not completely discreditis - the consensus of editors have agreed that it is. And that saying otherwise would be giving undue weight to fringe viewpoints.You can introduce your changes to the tables again if you feel like it - the reversal of those was collateral damage.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There was much more you revertis than juste the Punic. If you wish changi that, then changu that alone, but anyway, you must discuss the changes on the talk-page first. I not introduce the idea that it is Punic - I am clarifying what the article already sayas. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

actually you should discuss your changes on the talk page before introducing them. The case is the same to day as yesterday you don't clarify - you obfuscate.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You not revertus unless other contributulors add their opinions of agreement with you, on the talk page. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

They already didus - in the large discussion above. Again: Readus the Talk pagen.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they discuss claimoj that it is from Punic. They not discussis the changoj I faris! Ne revertu again, or I reportus for claim you are consensus! 78.149.202.191 (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You sure are well versis in wikilawyery for a being new anon. You surely know the rvv rulen as well?·Maunus·ƛ· 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WARN!

For Canvas. [3] [4] to help you avoid breaking edit war rule!!!!! 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not canvassing - that is alerting the editors who participated in forming the original consensus, . I would have alerted MagdelenaDiArco who was the only one who did not agree on that consensus as well but somehow I think she already knows.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is canvas. This is your warning. If you do again, you shall be reported at admin and be blocka. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

canvassing is not a blockable offense unless it is done under aggravating circumstances, and I hardly believe that two talk page posts can be seen as anythiung other than a friendly notice. But by all means report me so we can get a third hand opinion. Btw your esperanto accent is failing you now - it is "reportis".·Maunus·ƛ· 11:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reportis? Why you speak in such way? This is Englion Vikipedion. Anyway, it would be "reporta" not "reportis". And you claim speaki Esperanton! And yes, if you do again, we will see "third hand opinion"! 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you sure pick up on my broken english fast for a L1 esperantist.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way. I still need to tell User talk:Taivo since he was also a part of the original discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do in way that is not Canvas, this is allowa. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just done it in exactly the same way that I notified anonymous44 and JdeJ.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Kra (letter)

The article asserts that kra is used only in lower case. I have requested citation and left a note on the talk page. If you know something about the subject, could you please weigh in? Thanks, Tomer ^talk 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

Can you please stop making out like I am trying to increase the "worth" of Punic. I have not changed anything. I have simply clarified that it is not accepted by mainstream linguistics. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your revert

You are become increasingly tiring now, and it is annoying. You have NOT discussed this source and relexification together. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe you should just quit now and let the consensus decide. It must be tiring to try to impose your will on five or six disagreeing editors at a time.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The others reverted before the source was adda. Now the source is adda, wait to see what consensus develops with other editors. Otherwise, you are claiming to be consensus by your own. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you only use your esperanto "accent" on my talk page?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Respond to my point. And pardon? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no point.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you not revertos. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lockesdonkey

I've checked through this user's contribution history for edits made to Punic language and Maltese language. Diffs are [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] . The user identifies himself by name, location, occupation, has a long contribution record etc. etc. and if he were the source of the trolling it would be (in my view) extremely bizarre. But three of the edits were made shortly after an edit by Kalindascopy was reverted, and the edits seem to be similar in POV. He mentions on his user page that his sister and cousin are also editors, and supplies their user names (which are inactive). He last edited 25 August (LDS Polygamy) He supplies three IP addresses used when he is too lazy to log in (his words). He edits a lot of articles on Arabic. Maybe worth asking him if he knows the trollers? Ning ning (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah it probably doesn't matter, I'd leave it for now altogether. He's probably just another good old normal editor. Kaldindascopy also seems to be unrelated to the sockfrenzy·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Ning ning (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that wikipedia has no good way toscrutinize the use of open proxies. I think maybe the last edit to talk:Maltese language [11] including the edit summary is a combination of gloating and a confession - but we have no way to prove one way or the other.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kalindoscopy

There's been a plot to frame me? This is almost exciting. Am I off the suspects list, or will somebody be round to collect a cheek swab? Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the message you left me: for some strange reason, even though we don't know one another, it's annoying to think I could be implied in something I had/have no control over. The idea of reputations (even anonymous ones) is hard to get over. Still; thanks for being frank and somewhat optimistic. I've had my fair share of debates (fights) here already, never (to my mind) unwarranted. But that might be why they got out of hand so often. Re:Yolgnu, I've heard back from a number of other wiki users pointing out that person's multiple malicious edits to various projects, coupled with a keen sense for (stirring) trouble. But that's neither here nor there. I just hope that none of the socks/masters are actually Maltese. I'm not sure why..

Take care! Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kalindoscopy

Firstly, I would like to point out that I am not one of "the accounts" as you suggested on the talkpage of the key I created, but I was the one who first taught the three of them how to use elite proxies. There are in fact three people behind the accounts, not one, as one of them seems to have gained some sort of kick out of propagandaing. One lives in America, one in Malta, and one in the UK. I was also an outside observer of the situation (having not been banned from this wikipedia), since I had vested real life interests in a certain one of the three. It was through observing this user that I came to meet the other two. A connection involving the three of them formed, and I taught them how to use a system that would make them appear to live in multiple places simultaneously (elite proxies). Two of the users also apparently decided at one point it would be fun to log into each others accounts and edit, so that a checkuser would be completely confused. This is the case with User:ItaliaIrredenta, who was used by both of them, and this is the reason the checkuser could not decide whether User:MagdelenaDiArco or User:Brunodam was behind it. Anyway, if one of them tries to frame me again, I shall give out more information about them, so let it be seen that this is the last chance. So next time, dear "Maunus", I would more than appreciate it if you didn't estimate the answer without having any single perception of what is really going on here.

Anyway, the point in hand...

Kalindoscopy was blocked a while ago. However, he has been editing during that block with one of the elite proxies. For proof, see where he accidentally uses the IP here, and then realizes, and corrects it with his account. If you check the contributions of that IP, you will see that he used the IP during the time period he was blocked, and rather a lot for that matter.

--Mingeyqla (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are in fact an outside observer with no connection to the sockweb - then it seems a little strange how you knew exactly when the noose was tightening aorund the anon-ips in the maltese discussion, when you chose to post the key. Pardon me if my newfound experience with open proxcy using trolls have left me slightly incredulous to comments that claim to be elucidating how the whole thjing is structured. I also don't know how your new evidence can be used for any procedures as long as wikipedia doesn't have the tools to detect elite open proxies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I of course, don't expect you to assume good faith on me. The very fact I taught the users how to use the EPs exhausts that in itself, let alone my ban on another wiki, but regardless, they are starting to reach the limit of my patience with their antics, and I shall be more than happy to give you their real IPs for a full abuse report if they continue. Cheers. Marcus. Mingeyqla (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mngeyqla.. you need to find something to do with your time other than sparking off bizarre wiki mysteries. I think it's safe to assume you've lost whatever petty battle you've been waging, however. Better luck next time! (for the record: I don't know Mingeyqla or any of its cronies. More's the pity.. following this story has me intrigued) Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also..am I the only one who suspects Yolgnu in all of this? that dude (girl/whatever) was just not kosher.. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Byeitical (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Anthro course on Maya- wiki contribs proposal

Hey there Maunus. Please see this new section at WT:MESO, for a proposal by Hoopes that some of his current students make some refereed contribs & expansions to various Maya articles- a welcome idea, IMO. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jørgen Rischel

Thanks for expanding and improving the article on Jørgen Rischel! ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Magnus, for your kind words. I first found out about Prof. Rischel through the Wikipedia article Greenlandic language, which inspired me to try to learn more about his life. The information I learned from the tribute essay composed by his friendly fellow linguists was so interesting that I felt it deserved the wider audience of Wikipedia. He seems to have been a genuinely wonderful person, and I am sorry I never had the opportunity to meet him. I will try to fill out the article a bit more as I have the time.

Warm regards, Objectivesea (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

he was a wonderful human being and an excellent linguist. I had the chance to meet him a few times myself when I was studying.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

moved many lists into main space; could use a hand

Hi Maunus,

Long time no chat. I've moved a total of seven "list of endangered languages in x" lists into main space. They are linked at the newly stripped-down List of endangered languages. However, List of endangered languages in North America still needs a lot of help. There is a lot of (unverified) info at User:Ling.Nut/EthnicList. I also temporarily skipped over the Zapotec, Zoque and Otomi languages as they are larger and need careful attention. Any help you could offer would be deeply appreciated. Thanks Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 10:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Olmec Good Article review

Maunus, I have been working thru our GA reviewer's thoughts on Olmec and I realized it's all your fault! You were the one who suggested that Olmec was good enough for a Good Article. : )
But, seriously, folks, I've been thinking about his suggestions on the use of "perhaps" and "probably" in the article (see Talk:Olmec/GA1):

":perhaps" sounds like an editor thought! . . .looking for an answer ... [how about] "archaeologist believe / think..." "the evidence leads to the possibility that ..." "geophysicians have found possible evidence for..." "research leads to ..." ?

I guess I like "perhaps" because it's just so short and snappy. Long clauses like those suggested seem to be fluff and not particularly helpful since the "perhaps"s and "probably"s should already be qualified by a citation. Rather than saying this to our reviewer, however, I thought I would get a 3rd opinion: yours! Give it some thought, and thanks again for all your opinions, Madman (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the reviewer the perhapses should go and it shouldn't be too difficult. All you need to do is to attribute it directly to the source where you found it "Diehl or whomever suggests that it may be because important rivers shifted", or you can use an argument "The X river is known to have changed its path during this period and that is one of the possible causes. (citation)" I have a hard time helping with the Olmec stuff since I don't really have any of the literature about them. Otherwise I would be right there.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. That's a very interesting bit about Wichmann you added. So, the Olmecs of San Lorenzo and La Venta spoke different languages, eh? I would have to suspect that they were somewhat mutually intelligible, but what do I know about languages.

Thanks again, Madman (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting theory. The basis for it is also different patterns of obsidian trade at the two sites - apparently the san lorenzoites traded mostly with the areas that are today mixe speaking and the la ventaites mostly with the zoque speaking areas. But the difference between proto-mixe and proto-zoque of course wasn't so great as between the modern languages in the branches.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed that they were a lot closer then. The nice thing about this Wichmann addition is that it returns to the San Lorenzo -> La Venta theme from earlier in the article. Madman (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlatl

Maunus:

Check out the wiki article about the Atlatl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl. It looks like the IPA pronunciations are wrong.Senor Cuete (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete

I've taken a look at the Nahuatl IPA. The english pronunciation I won't intervene with, as I don't believe there is a standardized english pronunciation of the word.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You should intervene in the English pronunciation. Atlatl is not an English word so the English ipa should be the same as the Nahuatl.Senor Cuete (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Senor cuete

I don't see that reasoning, Senor. The origin of the word is Nahuatl, but English-speakers almost always put their own inflections, etc onto words we/they import into English. Certainly, you couldn't say that "Beijing" is pronounced by English speakers the way it is pronounced by Mandarin speakers. Madman (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

English speakers SHOULD try to pronounce words from other languages correctly in deference to the speakers of the original language. For example "Beijing" was once called "Peking" but English speakers now use the former because it is closer to the original Mandarin. The alternative is to deliberately mangle all words from foreign languages so they sound like English English as the English do to demonstrate their cultural and linguistic arrogance. English English affectations are spoken in England to insult other English speakers from all over the world but particularly from other parts of Great Britain. Personally I don't believe in using language as a weapon and have no desire to patronize the speakers of Nahuatl. Senor Cuete (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 September 2008

The thing to remember here is that wikipedia is not normative - we don't try to tell people what they should do. Wikipedia is descriptive we describe what they do. I don't believe that there is a single standard pronunciation of atlatl in english, I think every speaker struggles for himself on how to pronounce the word when he first reads it. Untill one pronunciation is shown to be prevalent among english speakers wikipedia shouldn't give an english pronunciation. The nahuatl pronunciation is standardised and we should give a dexcription of how it was pronounced in classical nahuatl (the word probably doesn't exist in modern nahuatl since the weapon is long gone out of use).·Maunus·ƛ· 14:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of Africa

No problem on removing the prod. The main concerns about the article were the sources and references -- of which there were none. The only items on the page were two external links: one to a UN study on using indigenous knowledge for environmental conservation, which doesn't address the issues in this article; and the second link was to the IPACC, an indigenous peoples advocacy group, which doesn't qualify as an objective reliable source. As you noted, the writing style is a problem -- POV problems exist because the tone seems reflects only the POV of IPACC rather than any other independent RS. (IPACC already has a page on WP and if this article offers nothing more than a repeat of those ideas, is there a need for this page?). I'll be interested to see your improvements. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that IPACC isn't a reliable source. EVen though they are a political organisation they are a reliable source on Indigenous peoples of Africa in the same way that Amnesty International is a reliable source about human rights violations.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus for looking out for the article, & adding in a few refs that I should have done a while ago. I've now made some addl comments at its talk page.

Looking back at the article now, I can kinda see how it may have appeared that it reflects solely IPACC input, but that was not the case originally when I wrote it. Also upon re-reading the prose does come across quite convoluted, though ATM don't have immediate plans to set about rectifying it. Anyway hopefully your work in adding in those addl refs will forestall closure, at least so long as it takes to get it up to stylistic and referencing scratch. Good stuff! Saludos amigo --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message. I replied on the talk page of European ethnic groups. It seems the whole immigration section needs to be carefully rewritten with sources and there are difficulties with the use of terms like Assyrian and Persian, which would not necessarily show up in a UK census for example. But all this can be sorted out bit by bit and probably fairly systematically, starting from the various geographical parts of Asia. Statistics and sources have been a perennial problem on this page. Mathsci (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Inca Empire

I rather think you have confused me with the other person who was reverting the contributions of CherylMillard. I was simply asking for the contributor to source what appears to be good faith edits which is very necessary for any contributions to what as you will no doubt know is one of the most vandalised articles on wikipedia. As you have now decided to re-add these contributions I trust that you will now reference them. Cheers - Galloglass 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the added material to be at all controversial. If you see specific claims that you find dubious please add a {{cite}} tag and I'll find sources for that or remove it.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Burusho

Hi Maunus,

Our moonbats are back at Burusho and Burushaski. Mind helping me police it while I request a sock check? kwami (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Polysynthesis

Im sorry, if it bother you, i just pleaseing add other...but now i stopped it. if u dont mind u keep it, or r u going remove all of those or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqqalikitaaq (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just add a reference to where you got the information from please. Otherwise I am afraid I will have to remove it yes.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why you remove between Eskaleut and Japanese word?

What going on? telling me what your rules....?(Haqqalikitaaq (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

You cannot publish you own new ideas, research or theories here, that is one rule. You can read a lot about the most important rules here: What Wikipedia is not, No Original Research, and Verifiability. I am sorry if it looks like I am cracking down on your every move - but you really should read the rules and guidelines and try to stick to them. I hope you will keep contributing to the project after you read the rules. Happy editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

Hi, I replied on my talk page. Cheers. Alun (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look - by the way, do you know many people working in lowland south american linguistics, especially "performance" linguistics or sociolinguistics? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "soft delete" unless you just mean nominating the article for deletion. I would support that because it is absurd to have an article that is about a fringe theory that comes from one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he means merge the content into Race and intelligence and redirect the page. This will of course call for consensus on the talk page.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

oi, something potentially scary is going on over here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Papuan vs. Austronesian languages

Please consult the Wikipedia entries on Papuan languages and Austronesian languages. Just because a language is spoken in Papua New Guinea does not mean it is a "Papuan" language. (In any case, Mangga is spoken on the New Guinea side, not the Papuan side of the country.) The Buang languages, including Mangga, are Austronesian, which in the PNG linguistic context means they are not Papuan, since Papuan is a catchall label for all the indigenous languages that are not Austronesian. I did my dissertation in linguistics on the languages of that area. Joel (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my edit[12] you would have noticed that I am aware of what you say above and that the article now reflects that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Teayo

Hi Maunus. What do you reckon, about the various Nahuatl derivation explanations that may be found for teayo, as in the archaeological site and pyramid Castillo de Teayo (Mesoamerican site)? Does the explanation given by INAFED as noted in that article—" Teayo comes from the Nahuatl te-ayo-k, which means 'tortoise atop stone' "— make morphological sense in Nahuatl? Have not been able to locate any linguistics-based sources that address the word's origins, only a smattering of guidebooks and municipal/Veracruzano governmental sites. Nothing at INAH either.

Many of those sites' explanations implicate tetl "stone" and ayotl "turtle", and from what I understand iconographic elements at the archaeological site do so as well. But the gob.mx websites vary considerably in explaining how teayo is obtained from these, & some seem to contradict themselves in several places. One part of the Veracruzano govt portal also adds ayotli "gourd" into the mix. Others say it's from wastek not nahuatl, but that seems to be mistaken as the word for turtle/tortoise in Wastek is quite different, I gather. Not that it's any big deal, more for my own edification really. Best, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The analysis of te-ayo-k as stone-tortoise-on is possible although it would give a different meaning - namely "on the stone-tortoise". It cannot come from ayotli "gourd" because that would form not teayok but teayoco since that word has a saltillo (it could also be written ayohtli) and nounroots ending in consonant take the -co form of the locative suffix. It is a slightly weird word anyway and I wouldnt be surprised if it is not from nahuatl, although I can't say what language it would then be from.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Nahuatl derivation from tetl and ayotl is possible because the final -tl is actually a removable suffix when used in compounds, so tetl is te-tl (te- in compounds) and ayotl is ayo-tl (ayo- in compounds). (Taivo (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

that what I am saying. However it doesn't mean what that mexican government site says it does. The weird part is how the place name ended up with an ending in o with no c: usually placenames ending in the locative suffix -c retains that endning in modern mexican spanish.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. It just seemed that CJLL may not have understood about the absolutives, so I was just clarifying what happened to the -tl for him. I should have been clearer that I wasn't disagreeing with you :) Cheers (Taivo (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the explanations guys. I realised you could drop the absolutive suffixes, but had no idea really about the justification or purpose for the -k suffix nor why it would go missing in the final product, as it were. Nor was it clear whether it was meant to be "tortoise (made of stone)" or "tortoise [on a] stone". Anyways, will look to amend the entry to make it a more qualified statement. Thanks for your help! --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has apparently heard of Michael Banton ...

… your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-exclusive ethnic group would be very useful. Uncle G (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ethnicity

Perhaps you can contribute to this discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Itzcoatl's parentage

Hey there Maunus- wondering if you've any or knowledge of other primary sources that give a different acct of Itzcoatl's parentage (specifically the identity of his mother), per the question posed at talk:Itzcoatl. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nahuatl query

Hi Maunus, I have a small query about a Nahuatl word. Does Nahuatl have accents over the vowels? I'm putting together an article on Xochitécatl in Tlaxcala, and my (Spanish) source gives the first element as xóchitl (flower) - should that be xochitl?

Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Simon. This is not an easy question to answer since Nahuatl doesn't have one established orthography. In some orthographies the acute accent is used to show a "saltillo" - a phonemic glottal stop which is an important consonant in some nahuatl varieties. However in the above case the accent is only used to show the stress - which in nahuatl always predictably falls on the penultimate syllable - to spanish speakers. I assume you have read the examples above in a spanish language book - because it is a kind of nahuatl orthography adapted to spanish speakers. In this wikipedia we don't use those stress accents since english speakers don't need to see accents to understand the placement of the stress in nahuatl words - we only sometimes use the accent to show saltillo in words such as tlátōani "ruler". However the word xochitl has a long vowel and should properly be spelled xōchitl - if you use an orthography that shows vowel length - most don't, but scholarly sources try to. In short "xōchitl" is very correct - xohitl is quite correct and xóchitl is correct if you're wrting for spanish speakers.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Maunus - it's very helpful - in future I'll drop all accents from any Nahuatl words that I extract from Spanish text.

Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language

I see that you reverted my edit. I would like to point out to you firstly, that it considered bad practice to revert without summary, and doing so can be considered vandalism. More to the point, is your revert itself. It's obvious you're simply reverting because you've seen other editers do the same. Well, after I spoke to one user, and got them to look properly at what I did, they replied indicating their support for the paragraph. I have not edited anything to do with the language being mixed/creole - all I have done is clarified where parts of the language came from, e.g. that some was from French, and that the loanwords from Romanic languages are sometimes considered as a superstructure; all of which is referenced. If you disagree, you will have to discuss it and disprove the references. I must admit I am tired of you assuming that any edit of mine is automatically POV pushing, and hope you can learn from Pietru. Mingeyqla (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You could avoid people thinking that your edits are automatically POV pushing if you stopped adding material that obscures or questions the degree to which maltese can be considered a fully semitic language without first discussing your proposed changes on the talkpage. (note that discussion entails presenting arguments, soliciting other peoples opinions and arguments and being prepared to reach a compromise). I don't think anyne who knows about the history of the maltese language article will put me at fault for removing questionable and openly challenged material untill such a time as its inclusion is agreed upon by a consensus on the talk page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[13]

No personal attacks please. If you cared to check the history of the page, you would see that Taivo was already in clear violation of the 3 revert rule. However, despite what you may think of me, I am not here to wage petty wars and disputese - my primary aim was to see that the article came out all the better for everything that is happening to it - not for the worst. Again, I ask you to assume good faith, and if not, do something about it, but you can't hover around the middle with an "oh, let's not listen to what he says because some of us think he's a sockpuppet" attitude. Mingeyqla (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I can actually. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you can't actually. Mingeyqla (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh but I beg to differ on that.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Differ as much as you want. The next time you use it as a point of attack, you will be reported. Consider this as a formal warning. Mingeyqla (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have used it as a point of attack. Anyway I am about getting used to being reported - not long ago I was reported for supposed racist commentaries against esperantist speakers (!) which I think was about as good a case as you have. Anyway I have stated several times that I don't care whether you are a sock or not as long as you make constructive edits and add verifiable content and expand articles in compliance with consensus and NPOV. But when you start parading the same trite sources that the sockpuppets introduced (citing for example arab journalists and experts in Urdu for facts about Maltese) then I don't have to assume good faith. And I don't have to keep quiet about the fact that that part of your editing pattern is amazingly similar to the those of the socks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dixon and Aikhenvald

I agree that the precise nature of the accusations might be difficult to prove and so problematic to maintain on the page, and even if the accusers did come forward, these accusations could be considered personal. But the fact that two of the best known and arguably most powerful linguists in the world were removed from their positions and stripped of their power in this way is not an everyday event, and the public has a right to know about this. Bluerambler (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You will have to provide sources, and better sources than an internal memo that nobody outside of latrobe university can verify. That is references to reliable, published written sources that comply with the WP:RS policy. Whether or not the information is in the public interest is irrelevant - it can only been seen as dubious and defamatory unless it is duly referenced. You should read the guidelines at Biographies of Living Persons to get an idea of what kind of facts can be allowed and what kind of documentation they require. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenberg

Seems we have some things in common: conozco bien a Mexico (y Guatemala), og er af danske slaegt. So whence this antipathy to Greenberg? Do Danish linguists uniformly reject the path set by old Holger Pedersen?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have answered on your talkpage.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Chalcatzingo ball court.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Chalcatzingo ball court.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this. Madman (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos

Thanks for the photos. Several of the bas-relief ones are just excellent, and shockingly clear for such a difficult subject.

I quickly added one of these photos to the Chalcatzingo article and linked to a second. I plan on using the rest in a gallery. If it would be alright, I may end up moving them to Commons so that other Wikipedias could also use the photos.

Thanks again, Madman (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I tried to put them on commons myself but the server for upload seemed to be down.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Update:I also inserted one photo into the Xochicalco article, and moved two to Commons. Thanks again, Madman (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I also have some close ups of the figures on the feathered serpent temple. I'll upload them one of these days.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pipil

Dear Maunus,
may I ask your help? I am a user of Wikipedia from Russia. I am interested in Mesoamerican cultures and editor of the Native American portal in the Russian Wikipedia. At the moment, I am translating the Pipil article into Russian. The article contains remarks on partial or total disputability of the text. Since I am not a specialist in Mesoamerican history and culture, I wonder whether the text is really wrong; it seems not to be wrong, at least according to this source: Culture and Customs of El Salvador. Can you please help me and comment, just in 1-2 phrases? --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The history and migtration sections are indeed very dubious and presents myth and legend as historical fact, and doesn´t even provide references to the sources where these migration myths etc. are found. If I were you I would leave those sections out completely in the translation.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tak! One more question: could you please advise 1-2 reliable Internet sources on Pipils which I can rely upon in order to improve the Pipil article in the Russian Wikipedia? --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See pages 12-13 in the Google Books preview of Culture and Customs of El Salvador by Roy Boland. Note that "Pipil", the term used by scholars and outsiders in general, is a scornful term invented by Nahua soldiers from Mexico belonging to invadng Spanish armies in the 1520's and 1530's. Boland's account differs from the one in the Pipil article at Spanish Wikipedia. Here's a new book on indigenous in today's El Salvador (also on preview at Google Books): Seeing Indians: A Study of Race, Nation, and Power in El Salvador, by Virginia Tilley. I Googled <nahuas "el salvador">. Do you read Spanish? Dale Chock (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a listing in English taking from a colonial Spanish document: http://libro.uca.edu/guatemala/guatemala5.htm The province of San Salvador in 1548. Includes a detailed map displaying 1548 villages against today's provincial boundaries. (Googled <cuscatlecos nonualcos>) Dale Chock (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hej!

I see you're in Mexico but I figure maybe down the line you may be interested in becoming a member of this organization, so I'll leave this note for you anyway.

Jeg kan se at du er aktiv på den engelske Wikipedia, og at du er fra Danmark. I skrivende stund, diskuterer vi på landsbybrønden et nyt forslag, om at starte en national afdeling, der vil blive kaldet Wikimedia Danmark. Hvis du er interesseret i at bidrage med noget tid til at få startet afdelingen, kan du skrive dit navn på denne side hos meta. Tak for din tid! Mike H. Fierce! 08:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nahua autonyms

Hey there Maunus. Is Macehualmej a viable autonym for "Nahua"? I have seen it used by CDI publications, but not widely mentioned elsewhere.

Does the one currently given at Indigenous peoples in Mexico (nawatlaka) have currency? I suppose much like with the Maya the concept of there being an autonym is not really appropriate.

PS. Do you have an opinion or information on whether Caxcan survives today as an identifiable cultural or ethnolinguistic entity? See discussion on the article's talk pg, and the recent edits by a new user to portray Caxcan as a current, instead of historical, group designation.

No great rush, whenever you may have some time to spare. Hope all's well in Mexico & with your fieldwork. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Macehualmej is used by some nahua groups as an autonym, for others it is an insult, some use nawatlaka while others have never heard of it. As you suspect there is no "definitive" autonym for the entire nahua group - because the nahua group is only defined as a group by outsiders, it is not a coherent ethnic group because it mostly lacks notions of common identity and solidarity - and what common identity it has is mostly imposed by outside forces such as the CDI or anthropologists and historians. Caxcan is to my knowledge not considered a modern ethnic group although there may be some intents to revive the ethnic idenity by modern cultural radicals. The language is completely unknown as far as I am aware. In short I completely agree with your reasons for the reversion.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst

Thanks for coming up with alternate language for the word "whilst." I have reluctantly battled English speakers over this word before, usually unsuccessfully. I'm not sure why they are in love with it! I wish we could put this into a style guide somehow. Of course, the battle would rage for months! Not sure I have the stamina for that! :) Student7 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't think "whilst" is out of place on wikipedia, and I certainly don't believe that Americans would stop reading just because they see that word. Anyway there are rules on wikipedia for when british usage is ok and when not. The reason I agreed with your change here was simply because the sentence was already more than convoluted enough and another way of connecting the two phrases would make it easilier parsable for readers.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatlaxopeuh

Hi Maunus. How would you analyse this compound? The first part is evident; the second, I gather is sposed to come from xopēhua "to give s.o. a kick" or "reject with disdain"..? Is the ending change to -peuh 'cos it's in a compound, or..? Does the construction work morphologically?

If so, is there any justification for the alternative spelling sometimes encountered, Coatlalopeuh ?

My impression is that this is not so much a term found in genuine classical nahuatl texts, but is more likely a term dredged up circa 17thC in an attempt to give some plausibility in explaining the appearance of the word "guadalupe" in the Nican Mophua as being natively derived from Nahuatl. ie, instead of acknowledging the word (and therefore the cult at Tepeyac) as an import from Spain. Also, despite some modern revisions to the contrary Coatlaxopeuh does not reference any actual Aztec deity figure, pre- or post-conquest, and supposed connection w Coatlicue, Tonatzin et al is not valid. Instead it's something only put forward ex post facto as a nahuatl cognate for the guadalupan apparition. Is it a term actually used in this context by nahua speakers today?

Is this on the right track, or is the term actually a viable alternative name for Tonantzin? (which itself is possibly more a generic epithet than specific deity).

I was otherwise inclined to redirect this to Our Lady of Guadalupe, were it not for the fact that the term seems to be a minor cause celebre in some contemporary chicana/feminist literature, where it seems to take on almost a life of its own as a mother/earth goddess. As such there's prob scope for s.o. to expand on its adoption & use in this literature, in addition to the (alleged) conxn w the guadalupe story. Not that I'm that much inclined to do so myself, but wondered whether you think the article as it is misleads substantially on any of these points. Saludos, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that that is not a genuine Nahuatl word it doesn't follow any of Nahuatls rules for making compound words. I believe Burkhart, Poole and others have come to the same conclusion: it is an attempt to coin a Nahutl etymology for the word ex-post-faco. After all it is completely unnecessary to come up with an indigenous origin for the word guadelupe when there was already another virgin, town and monastery of Guadelupe in Extremadura, Spain before the conquest. And no I have never heard the term used, and I don't think any one else has either.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights Maunus. Yeah, it does seem almost like someone contrived to go thru a nahuatl dictionary looking for elements to piece something together that sounded as close as possible to "guadalupe". Will check Poole, Brading, et al again, when I had a quick search was unable to find explicit mention, but it's quite probably there somewhere. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

applied linguistics

wow, the "applied linguistics" section of the "linguistics" article blows goat chunks. It is horrible. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

yep, so do most of the others. Lets work on it.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New section on lang. documentation

About the sentence "This linguistic emphasis has since become more important in Australia and South America as the documentation of rapidly dying aboriginal languages has become a primary focus in many of those regions' linguistics programs." I wanted to check with you before doing anything, but is this really necessary? I think documentation is becoming more and more important everywhere, not just in Australia and South America; I know your area of expertise is in Mesoamerican langauges and I assume Taivo's is Australia, but if we arbitrarily list in whichever areas we happen to have experience in it's just going to encourage more people to come along in the future and think, "Hey, my country should be there too!" and then we'll eventually just have an overly long and not-too-useful list of everything. Rather than arbirtarily singling out some regions and ignoring others (for example, Central Asia, my pet region for language documentation, or all the various subgroups in North America), would it be better just to remove mention of specific regions and say something along the lines of "this linguistic emphasis has become more and more important throughout most of the world in recent years"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

you are right. Taivos expertise isn't Australia though, I don't know where that came from. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I do a lot of global typological work so I see where a lot of the linguistic descriptions are coming from. I also track what programs are recruiting for, etc. We needed to mention the current trends in language documentation since it has faltered some in the U.S. since syntactic theory displaced documentation in the 1960s and 1970s. My sentence wasn't about where documentation is taking place, but which universities are emphasizing documentation as a primary part of the educational process. Right now, the Australian universities (especially La Trobe and ANU) are producing many more linguists (per capita) who are doing documentation than the U.S. universities are. That's what the sentence I added was about. I don't know the situation in Brazil, but I know they are producing more primary documenters than they used to. I'm just not sure how strong that emphasis is. When you look at the linguistics programs in Australia, they are really pushing the issue. That's what my point was about--not where documentation is taking place (where the languages are, that is), but which universities are pushing the issue more strongly than others. Maybe my historical perspective is off, but I don't really have a problem with the paragraph as it stands now. The earlier version just ended with the feeling that "because of Chomsky, documentation isn't so important anymore." (Taivo (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

thanks!

Thanks... I'm still gonna try to take it easy. No heavy lifting for me. Pop in, shoot off my mouth, pop out. I'm struggling with burnout with Wikipedia, and i need to work on building up a list of publications for my career in real life. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too I am working on three different articles and still I can't get my ass off of here - pure procrastination.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support group? Are you serious? I would love it. Count me in... Not sure how much I could help with your articles, but just the idea of it would be encouraging/useful. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Languages

I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time and effort to create and improve articles on language and linguistics. I feel that this is an area of Wikipedia which is not really well covered. Indeed, the somewhat abstruse nature of language and linguistic theory often serves to complicate matters. However, your edits to the more historically-based articles have been very helpful. Good work! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!·Maunus·ƛ· 22:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis clean-up

Your recent (ongoing?) clean-up of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a very welcome improvement. I haven't read the whole page carefully, but after skimming it I am in general favorably impressed with the changes. I have one concern, though. The subsections under history - especially those devoted to Boas and Sapir - need third-party sources. I'll note Suzanne Kemmer's 'Biographical sketch' of each man as a quick-and-dirty solution until other sources are added.

Thank you for editing this page. Cnilep (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll get out the sources, it all needs to be much better sourced. I am just in the process of adding content tyhen Ill clen up the references afterwards.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As regards renaming the page, I'll think about it and add some more substantive comments. For now, I will just say that I have no objection to renaming the page. Cnilep (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Copenhagen, reverts, etc.

I agree that it is impolite to revert an extensive series of edits wholesale. This editor, however, is quickly developing a history of precipitous, sloppy and unsound edits that are not improving Wikipedia, and frankly I don't have time to parse each and every one to see if they are well-sourced, attractive, and incrementally better. See my several unanswered (and polite and patient) entries on the user's talk page on the subject, as well as my efforts at WP:EAR to resolve the matter. I fully appreciate that my reversion appears abrupt - and perhaps it was too much so - but if I've done a bad job of things it is not for lack of good faith effort. I welcome any more productive suggestions you may have. JohnInDC (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I note your note there. Thank you very much. JohnInDC (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help you keep him on track.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(I see already that you are better suited to the task than I am.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedagogical skills are quite useful in a project like this. Thanks for being levelheaded about it.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock! Oh, my. I didn't see that coming. JohnInDC (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(I mean, I really didn't. Looks like he sucked us both in, sigh.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

YEah, that was weird behaviour for a sock. Strange.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dear mister Maunus

thank a lot mister Maunus fr keeping my edits, and for defending me face to John, I guess my edits are justifiable for such a big and beautiful city like Copenhagen, I only improved it and now its better as you know :) between mister, can you help me in situations like this again ? thanks :)Wow Scotland ! (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am defending your right to add content while following the rules of wikipedia. JohninDC is right that some of your edits are lacking in elegance, and needs to be changed accordingly. I will help you but please help me help you by being more careful with your contributions. Remmeber to use article talkpages and remember to think about the overall effect of your contributions. Thanks.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you mister for all your help :-)Wow Scotland ! (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Check Out My Changes to Penutian

Hi, Maunus. My copy of Mithun (1999) arrived. Her use of sources and discussion indicate that she follows a growing consensus among those working on the various proposed Penutian languages, that they are genetically related (those in western North America north of Mexico, that is). She does that both in her short 3 page overview of Penutian, and in each of the particular language family articles. Check out how I changed the Penutian article just now, hopefully in a way that portrays her point of view, but maintains overall neutrality. Be my guest and revert, if I am out of line with this. Or do minor improvements. Or write me a note to discuss alternate ways we can portray all this.Middle Fork (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already commented on thwe talk page and made a minor edit.

+I changed Marie-Lucie Tarpent's name from Tarpant and suggested that you tae the block quote by Haas out of the lead. It is a good quote but not really material for a wp:lead. I also think that you should mention in the lead that the various expansions to the core penutian group is what has attracted most criticism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maunus. I need to rest from that Penutian thing for awhile. I never would have set up some of the headings it has, and am very quezy about the "Delancey thinks" stuff. But I am new to editing, think I have done enough. I think the additional changes you suggest are good ones, and I encourage you to do them!Middle Fork (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What, you're not an admin?

I just saw your request to CJLL Wright for assistance in moving a page. So.. why aren't you an admin? Would you be willing to be nominated to be one? We haven't interacted in a long time but I know you'd be a fine admin and you certainly have been around here long enough. --Richard (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know. I probably wouldn't use the tools very often, and from what I've seen RfA's aren't really such nice experiences. Also don't we have sufficient admin's?·Maunus·ƛ· 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You tell 'em! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My Degree of Resignation

Are you beginning to understand now my degree of resignation on the article about Jehovah’s Witnesses? Those who would wax the subject are so many and persistent that attempts to temper the content with neutrality and matter-of-fact statements becomes futile, from my perspective. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well they are stubborn (although many I don't know - there seems to be about three regular editors other than you and me) but I think we are progressing quite well actually. but I am grateful that you stick around anyway and provide good sound arguments. hang in there we'll get it up to scratch eventually (or closer at least)·Maunus·ƛ· 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock the Santa Fe Public Library System

Dude! You blocked the entire library system till some date late in August. If I want to fuck with Wiki, I can easily find a computer to do it with. Check WRIGHTS talk page under Stop Fucking Up to see a resolution to this now "old" problem.

I am not an administrator and consequently have no possibility of blocking or unblocking anyone. Sorry, you must've got me confused with someone else.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. My humblist apologies. Don't know how I confused you with Gilliam?

A bit of humility is quite becoming to you actually. Maybe you should experiment more with that.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Central Morocco Tamazight in Algeria

Thank you for your comments on Central Morocco Tamazight's GAR! Regarding the status of the language in Algeria, Ethnologue implies that there is a base of speakers there, perhaps in the thousands though I can't verify that from the data I've seen. Do you think that this validates mention of Algeria's promotion of "Tamazight" to "national language" in the "status" section? Mo-Al (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do - but it should be in the Lead as well - right now the lead and the title suggests that it is only spoken in Morocco and one is surprised to suddenly see a section on algeria.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kuupik Kleist

Hej, I am confused about this edit, including the summary you gave. What I did was quoting from the referenced bbc article. Therefore why "unsourced"? And I am not user:jægermester. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also confused - the dif you have provided shows me reverting a previous edit by User:Jægermester who inserts the unsourced phrase "his mother was a deaf eskimo woman" and changes his title to "first minister of Local Govenment". I can see the BBC quote and probably should have recognized that Jægermester had not provided it - but I didn't and I didn't notice that you were editing the article at that point. Anyway it is in the article as it is now - and I see no reason to remove it. Sorry for the confusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

My apologies if my warning seemed a bit strong. It wasn't meant to insult you and perhaps I could have responded more positively to your comment on my talk page. However, DoyleCB's comment colored the discussion in an unfortunate way. As I think you've observed, there is much more going on there than in your case.

As an admin, my role in edit wars is generally not to take sides unless there is blatant disruption. I usually issue EW warnings to all parties involved if they are approaching violating 3RR. It appears that there was more going on here and your comments on my talk page were well placed.

FWIW, it's clear to me that 3RR is the easiest rule for good editors to run afoul of. I've seen a fair number of great editors end up blocked because 3RR is hard and fast, and often times they become apoplectic at the block. (I probably would too). My approach tends to be to warn early to prevent this. That's where I was coming from. Either way, good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate very much that you dropped by like that. I did find it strong, especially since I had made sure to not break 3RR. I undersyand that you're not supposed to take sides - but I think that you could have adressed the issue in a more constructive way than merely by warning - although I don't know exactly how. Thanks for being receptive. Good luck and happy editing to you too.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your request for admin assistance re Greenland and related articles

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I didn't completely ignore your request for assistance. The problem was that my family was leaving for a weekend vacation and your situation was more complex than I could handle in the time available. Content disputes are always difficult especially when one side insists on pushing their POV instead of discussing on the Talk Page. Edit warring is always a bad idea and I usually try to observer WP:1RR, sometimes going to two reverts but I usually avoid going to three reverts.

Before leaving on vacation, I did go and look at the pages involved. However, the edit war seemed to have stopped so I figured I'd just leave things alone and see if the edit war was still going

I did consider protecting the pages involved which is my favorite way of encouraging discussion. I strongly dislike blocking editors. If I had threatened to block the edit warriors as Toddst1 did, I would have had to threaten to block you as well as Jaegermeister. That's one reason that I decided to say nothing for the time being. After noodling around for 5-10 minutes, I figured that I would do more harm than good by getting involved.

Since getting back from our mini-vacation, I have reviewed the discussion over at WP:ANI. I agree that the lack of good Dispute Resolution procedures is a weakness in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that is the way things operate around here and we just have to put up with it.

Feel free to ask me for assistance on this or other issues. Hopefully, I will be able to be of more assistance next time.

--Richard (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your always thoughtful comments.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW. When observing 1RR what would you do when the other editor refuses to engage into discussion and follow consensus?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What to do about a Tendentious Editor?

You just wrote a reminder on my talk page about not "attacking" other editors. While the reminder is duly noted, I would also note that the page on tendentious editors does not propose a course of action for those editors who resume disruptive editing every few months, nor does it say what to do when such editors blatantly disregard wikipedia policy pages. My comment, to which you linked, was not intended to attack an individual, but merely to give a warning about his behavior and its contradiction of long-established Wikipedia policy. What do you suggest be done to prevent the influence of this editor, who admits to having no regard for Wikipedia's naming convention guidance? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to handle tendentious editors peoperly. I was recently trying to use the best practice for dispute resolution but ended up getting a warning for editwarring myself. So I know that it is extremely difficult to keep the balance when faced with tendentious editors. That is why it is so important to keep a cool head and go for the ball and not the man, so that you will not be the one making the false moves. In my case I simply shouldn't have reverted his edits but gone straight to a dispute resolution venue. In the case of the page on humanism it seems to be a long lasting dispute about whether humanism is compatible with religion or not and I think that moving up in the hierrarchy of dispute resolution remediesm ight be an idea. Look at WP:DR for ideas about where to start a dispute resolution process.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Humanism

Beyond not cooperating, they have been arguing over this article for literally years. If you look at the edit history for OldMan, he edited the Humanism article heavily in January 2007, and from January 2009 to the present.[14] Likewise, Wilson Delgado edited the Humanism article heavily in January 2007, and from December 2008 to present.[15] In fact, neither really edits any articles except this one while butting heads. I'm not sure if you've read it, but the guidelines on the dispute resolution process can be found here. Personally, I think the best solution may be to have both editors agree to not edit the article (ever) again. In some extreme cases I've seen, this was on the only way to get two editors to stop edit warring on a contentious subject. ← George^[talk] 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a bad situation. I have read WP:DR but I am unsure about what stage the humanism debate is and what would be the most effective tool to end it. Getting them to agree on anything seems pretty difficult - but I imagine that getting them to agree to not editing that page would be impossible.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I think the only step likely to result in a change is a WP:RM to redirect the plain term to the disam page. The current page seems in effect a disam page at great length. I think "secular humanism" is probably the most common use, but I doubt it is so far ahead of others to justify having the plain term as the title. My main concern in getting involved in the article was to change the Renaissance Humanism section which used to present RH as an early form of secular humanism. The article is now more or less ok in this respect, but trench warfare continues over other issues. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I support Johnbod here. Redirect the term to the dab page. I would be happy to leave the discussion to neutral and informed editors. Many people over the years, at least a dozen, have expressed difficulties with this important page. I felt I had to be their spokesperson because they did not stay around to argue the issue. Wilson Delgado (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the page humanism could be a good article showing the interrelation between the historical processes leading to the different kinds of "humanism" - much like Davies book does. I think making it a disambiguation page would be a shame and detrimental to the reader's chances of getting a birdseye view of the concept. But it is possible that this is the best way forward.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That could still be done under a different title - Historical development of humanism or something. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a dab page would be bad because the term is admittedly quite ambiguous and it is part of a larger semantic field (which includes humanist, humanistic, humanities [note that searches on "humanistic" are redirected to the humanism page]). Perhaps the historical page should be called "Humanism (Historical Development of Meaning)" or "Humanism (History and Meanings)." The page currently called Humanism might well be named "Humanism (Philosophy)" (a solution which I once proposed but which was voted down with extremely few people participating). Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I need you to help me find the sources that allow for the inclusion of theistic humanism as a kind of humanism. I have some but know you have presented others in the past. Please list them in the section where I am currently discussing with OldMan.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of humanists are you talking about? Petrarch? Gerard Manley Hopkins? Teilhard de Chardin? I have already cited the study by Charles Trinkaus In Our Image and Likeness, which proves the religious beliefs of Renaissance humanists. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Also note that I have written this on the page already:

You might also take a look at http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1650 where you can read: "Far from being private and idiosyncratic, Lewis’ métier was the public, as in universal. He was in the fullest and finest sense a humanist. He was a Christian humanist, to be sure, but he could say with the pre–Christian Terence, "I am a man: nothing human is alien to me." Being a Christian humanist was in no way a limiting factor. Quite the opposite is the case, if Christ is the Logos who informs, sustains, and fulfills all that is. Lewis frequently used "humanism" and "humanitarian" as pejoratives, but only because in common usage those terms reflected smug liberal prejudices that were not nearly humanistic enough. For Lewis, the great fact is that God became a human being, and you cannot get more humanistic than that." Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Wilson Delgado (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually i think maybe I should leave that section alone - it doesn't seem to be a fruitful venue. I suggest an RfC might be an idea?ink our friends are also building up for one. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would like to see a page emerge that mentions the different kinds of humanism (including religious humanism), the meanings of humanism in other languages -- it does vary. And one that also acknowledges the criticisms that have been made of humanism. Of course I also think the etymologies of humanism and of human are important. I think if people knew the different meanings and history of humanism it might help to redeem the word -- if that is not too much to ask.00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs)

There is no right or wrong humanism -- there are just many groups of people calling themselves or others humanists. The only honest thing is to describe all of them and try to trace what if anything they have in common. As for religious humanism, see: The Pope Calls for a New Humanism. Then there is the Arthur Kroker's “Marshall McCluhan’s Digital Humanism" (McCluhan was a fervent Catholic.)

The essential aspect of McLuhan's technological humanism is that he always remained a Catholic humanist in the Thomistic tradition: one who brought to the study of technology and culture the more ancient Catholic hope that even in a world of despair (in our "descent into the maelstrom"35 with Poe's drowning sailor) that a way out of the labyrinth could be found by bringing to fruition the "reason" or "epiphany" of technological society. McLuhan's thought often recurred to the sense that there is an immanent moment of "reason" and a possible new human order in technological society which could be captured on behalf of the preservation of "civilization."

And here is a Catholic Bishop claiming to be a humanist in the manner of Sophocles:

Within Christianity we find the highest and most motivated humanism. Already classic antiquity could proclaim: "Many things are wonderful in the world, but the human person surpasses them all" (Sophocles, Antigone, chorus of the first stasm). Christianity accepts and assimilates Greek humanism, and transfiguring it, transcends it to give it meaning, even in the case of the first and immediate finality of visible things, as we gather from what St Ambrose wrote: "The human person is the peak and the compendium of the universe, and the highest beauty of the whole of creation" (Exameron, IX, 75).

Of course many people would disagree that you have to be a Catholic or even a Christian to be a true humanist, but I don't see how anyone can claim or imply that these are "minority", "wrong", or fringe versions of humanism.Mballen (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)