User talk:Vizjim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 64 days are automatically archived to User talk:Vizjim/Archive/Archive 01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
* Click here to leave me a new message

Contents

[edit] Diane Benson

Have done the rewrite - thought you'd like a heads-up. Vizjim 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You can see my comments on the deletion page. Basically, although I agree your rewrite is good, it still doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. If she is notable mostly for her work on Elizabeth Peratrovich, shouldn't we have articles on those things first? Vectro 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the decision to delete this article. First, it seems awfully rushed through, as though there was some sort of short time limit to find relevant information (I've never encountered this on any other article that I've worked on--people seem generally happy to let a person work on something slowly); second, there aren't all that many Tlingit authors out there, period; and third, politically speaking, Benson is the highest-polling contender to Don Young in something like ten years, I think (not sure about that). I'm not sure what to do about this at this point; I suppose I just want to gripe a little. Perhaps later I can ask for a deletion review, depending on what happens in the election, but still, it seems to me her writing and performance history are of note. And I don't see the point of going to all the trouble to write about an author, deleting it, then writing about her subjects, and THEN bringing back the author article. Seems pretty roundabout to me. Grump, grump. Deirdre 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I've brought this up on the WikiProject Alaska page, and asked User:James Crippen (an expert in Tlingit language studies) to weigh in on her relative importance as a writer and in the Tlingit community. Here's the discussion at WikiProject Alaska. It looks like it will be raised as a deletion review. Deirdre 00:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the link to the deletion review, if you'd like to participate. Deirdre 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surnames

I don't have any objection to cleaning out some of the surname pages but any that are put up for AFD on the basis that this one was "deleted" will probably be speedily kept - removal or inclusion of a similar article is not a basis for establishing whether an article should exist. I suspect that the vast majority of those pages need cleaning up, merging, or disambiguating and hence shouldn't be brought to AFD anyway. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill

Hi there. I note that on the talk page for the Native American Studies page you've called, quite strongly, for Ward Churchill's removal. While fully agreeing that the man is a fraud in many ways, I don't think you can take away from his being one of the most quoted professors within the discipline, and therefore deserving to be mentioned in the article regardless of his political opinions or racial origins (all of which is pretty well covered in various places on Wikipedia. Would it be OK with you if that particular talk page comment were removed? Anyone who clicks through to Churchill's article will be pretty quickly made aware of the controversies and idiocies surrounding the guy. Vizjim 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Vizjim. Thank you for the note. Your style is out of touch with normal Wikipedian style, which requires someone without any knowledge or understanding of a particular area to come in without disucssion and completely rip apart the work of tens of other people that came before them and twist the article into an unreadable POV mess. For that, I thank you. As to Ward Churchill, my problem with him is that I have had personal experience with the man and I know for a fact that he is not an Indian. He is a fraud. He is a fake Indian and he has used his fake Indian status to gain entry into various career positions based upon his fake Indian status. (Would he have qualified for tenure at the University of Colorado without his fake Indian status? No.) Now, he has made some outlandish claims about the folks that were in the WTC and according many, many misguided anarchists, anti-Americans, and others of leftist backgrounds, who do not and will never have an real understanding of American Indian lifestyle or life, have come to his defense and are making outlandish arguments that whether Churchill is a real Indian or not is irrelevant and petty. These folks who defend him, who are not native or even remotely tied to native life, do not give a tinker's damn whether Churchill is stealing jobs and grants from qualified, smarter and more dedicated American Indian people. They do not care that Ward Churchill has been abusing Indian people for 20 years before the WTC comments. All they know and all they care about is that one of their own, an anti-American academic, is being criticized they will stop at nothing to defend him and they will ignore his fake American Indian heritage and his bullying of American Indian people for 20 years. Do NOT get me wrong: I do not believe that someone needs to be American Indian to be a Native American scholar, but any one who enters this field MUST have a basic respect for American Indians and they should not, if they are not, hold themselves out as American Indian. I will give you an example of the ludicrousness of the whole Wikipedia process. It is dominated by people that have the time and inclination to write and edit on various topics. In one of the Ward Churchill articles, Churchill defends himself by attacking a true Native American scholar who called Churchill to the carpet. Now, that is a big deal because Churchill is ruthless and he not only writes nasty things about his critics but he has been known to personally threaten those with which he does not agree. Now, Wikipedia is supposed to be concerned about what is written about LIVING PERSONS (WP talk:LIVING), correct? And I assume that is why you have asked for my permission to remove my comments about Ward Chruchill. But the problem that I see is a double standard. These leftists of various shapes and sizes believe that it is ok to repeat Churchill's nasty personal ad hominem attacks on his critics. For example, in the article where the various allegations against Churchill are outlined (See Misconduct Facts & Allegations), one of the editors demands that Churchill's personal ad hominem attack on the work of John P. LaVelle, a professor of Indian law at the University of New Mexico (See LaVelle's New Mexico bio), be included in the article. LaVelle has a stronger and deeper education than Churchill, not only from a work experience standpoint, but an academic one also. LaVelle has worked in the past on actual Indian reservations, something that Churchill has never done. LaVelle IS native and not just a fake Indian, like Churchill. LaVelle has a doctorate and Churchill only has a master's from a bankrupt school. But Churchill's simplistic, moronic Citation Index argument (Churchill basically in a childish way states, "I've got more cites than you do!) is still in the article. Also, the Churchill quote in the article is NOT even correct. Churchill claims that LaVelle's work has NEVER been quoted. But Churchill later admits that LaVelle has been quoted. Why is this quote in the article? According to Wikipedia rules, the quote should not be in the article. It violates Wikipedia policy is several ways. It is a direct personal attack on a living person. See WP talk:LIVING. It is verifiably incorrect. Churchill later admits that he did not state the facts correctly. LaVelle HAS been quoted and Churchill states that LaVelle has not--that violates WP:V (verifiability). Also, the article then quotes Robert Odawi Porter, a professor of Indian law at Syracuse University. See Porter's Syracruse bio. Now, the Porter quote ("happy face on colonalism") is taken out of an exchange of ideas between LaVelle and Porter in an issue of the University of Kansas law review. See Porter's Reply to LaVelle. The articles in the KU law review were a discussion of the proper role of American Indian lawyers in today's society. There was NO disucssion of Churchill and the "happy face" comment was made in the context of all American Indian lawyers. The "happy face" quote has NOTHING to do with Ward Churchill or a defense of Ward Churchill. The series of articles do not mention Ward Churchill once. However, Wikipedia being what Wikipedia is then if one editor is viligent and unrelenting then that editor gets what that editor wants in a particular article. One particular editor of the Ward Churchill articles rules over the Ward Churchill articles with an iron fist and he decides what will go in and what will be taken out. This particular editor has no real experience in Indian Country. He is neither on American Indian and he has no formal training or work experience in the area. However, he is a leftist (and all of these characteristics come directly from his talk page) and he finds Churchill to be a brilliant academic (once again, this is based upon comments that he has made on various talk pages). That is fine. He has a right to his opinion, but there is a double standard at work here. Churchill's attack on LaVelle violates a least a couple of Wikipedia policies and it stays in the article. And the "happy face" quote is not relevant, it is not notable, and it borders on original research (WP:NOR No Original Research), but yet the "happy face" quote remains. Two attacks on LaVelle because LaVelle had the temerity to criticize Churchill, an avowed anti-American. The quotes are NOT encyclopedic, but do not dare to attempt to remove them or put them in context because I have attempted to do that before and this particular editor will bring in other folks that are either friends or fellow leftists and rip you if you attempt to clean up the article to true Wikipedia standards. These quotes do NOT in any way meet Wikipedia standards, but yet they remain. I do not know what you opinion is on this topic but I would sure like to hear it. Have a good day!--Getaway 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, professors LaVelle and Porter both deserve an article about them as Native American scholars, more so than the hack Ward Churchill.--Getaway 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native American studies

Dear Vizjim: One thing that could come out of our discussion is that you have struck my interest in developing the section on Native American studies. I believe that there are more educated, more experienced, more dedicated professors in Indian Country than Churchill, but unfortunately they do not get the coverage and recognition that they deserve because they are over-shadowed by the cheap clown-like antics of the fraud Churchill. Also, keep in mind the two professors that I mentioned above are not conservatives like me. Just like you they do not agree with my politics at all. If you read their discussion of the role of American Indian lawyers in society, of which I'm one, the terms of the debate between them is whether is it best to follow the democratic socialist route or the communist route. The tradional conservative route is not even a serious choice in their minds. However, that being said I still find that they are great teachers and both bring a great amount of enthusiasm to their work. There are others like them and I am going to try to focus my Wikipedia time to developing this area. My question for you is what criteria have you been using to list folks in that section?--Getaway 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation-building

Back in May you left me a note about the article on Nation-building. I've been out of Wikipedia since April, when I came back to Beijing. As you may know, access to Wikipedia from China has only been recently restored.

I'd be delighted if someone could rewrite the article. At the time I added the information on nation-building in a post-colonial context, I think I had a rather cavalier attitude to information and sources. I wouldn't do the same thing now. Bathrobe 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native American Studies

Yes, this is an area that definitely needs the attention of conscientious and knowledgeable editors. I came late to that page and haven't had much to do with the choice of notable scholars, other than adding Gerald Vizenor to the list. At least he's not disputable! To be upfront: my interest in the area stems from being a doctoral student working on Native American literature (actually working mainly on the 'fake Native' phenomenon), and my knowledge base is almost exclusively literary. Somebody adding bio's for significant professors dealing with legal issues would be fantastic. If you are going to concentrate on this area I would recommend looking at the Indigenous peoples of North America project, and of course the professor test. Wikipedia's whole notion of notability I find troublesome, as it seems almost designed to maintain a lowest common denominator form of acceptability - but then again, it's not my club and I don't make the rules. Out of interest, what's your tribal affiliation? Best, Vizjim 05:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will take your recommendations. I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Since your know this area, you have not missed the differences between myself and a fake Indian. I pointed out that I am an "enrolled" member, meaning that I have provied documentation that my mother and my grandfather and grandmother were also "enrolled" members of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, a very simple thing that many fake Indian such as Churchill cannot provide. You can read about our tribal chief (and a friend of mine) here: Chad "Corntassel" Smith. You can follow the links at the bottom of that article to read about our previous Chiefs, also. Cheers!--Getaway 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [stunned]

Great Jehoshaphat on a Hoppity-hop! That's the worst poetry I've ever seen, and I'm not just saying that as a stock sentence or anything. Wah! Auto movil 12:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paula Gunn Allen

Hello,

Thank you for replacing the Laguna Pueblo reference in the Paula Gunn Allen article. In researching her vitals I kept coming across her birthplace as being Albuquerque with an early move to Cubero. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

[sidebar] Over the years I have worked with many Native American persons; their conflicts have always been overcome by their courage.

Best wishes with your Ph. work.

Michael David 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parekh AfD new info

What's a good way to handle this AfD discussion now? Might be clearest to draw a (figurative or HTMLish) line in the discussion at this point of new info and have new comments below. The usual "I've changed my mind" strikeout/annotation might get kinda messy and unfollowable given how fundamentally this new info might affect some opinions. DMacks 06:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Nikhil Parekh AfD

Thanks for the update. I never rendered an opinion, and I'm not planning to. I just tossed a comment on there to give fair warning about the dozen {{cn}} tags I placed on the article and (hopefully) urge interested parties to clean it up because it is not sourced or verified in any appreciable way.--Isotope23 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon and balls

Thanks for the ideas about doing something with the Canon entry. It needs tidying up but your suggestion offers the opportunity to finally sort things out once and for all as there are a lot of problems with it as it currently stands. (Emperor 12:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Brit Wave

It is up for deletion. I have added some resources and proposed a move to address the issues raised. I'd appreciate any input you have. (Emperor 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

  • It is a neologism under the term "Brit Wave". I've tidied the article up, because I have honestly never seen Nick Abadzis referred to as part of the British Invasion. At some point I will dig out my Comics Journal which covers this period and expand the article a bit. Steve block Talk 14:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
OK great. There is more info in Gravett's new book but I haven't got it. Jim you wouldn't have it yet would you? (Emperor 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
I have it here on top of my monitor but I've only flicked through it as yet. Hang on. Steve block Talk 21:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it's all about comics published in Britain, I can't find a mention of the invasion at all and DC aren't listed in the index either. Watchmen gets one mention in a bio of Moore. Steve block Talk 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

A request for a peer review of New Universe has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe. I'd appreciate your comments on the article, hopefully it will kickstart the comics project's peer review process. To comment, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. Steve block Talk 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Washington Post article

Thanks for letting me know about that article in the Post. Would have been nice if the quote had been attributed, though, LOL. --CJ Marsicano 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm a fan of hers (have been for about ten years), so that would have been pretty cool, LOL --CJ Marsicano 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your porn-related fame. We all knew it would happen one day ;) (Emperor 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Jimbo Wales on MySpace

Hello Vizjim. The MySpace link appears to be an impersonator of sorts, as confirmed last month on Jimmy's talk page. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 13#"Jimbo Wales" on MySpace for details.  :) Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/z/User_talk%7EVizjim_f306.html"