Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Categorizing by ethnicity[edit]

we categorize by ethnicity, not race. For this reason I think we should highly scrutinize placing anyone in a Native American Category. That is categorizing by race, not ethnicity. We need to doubly scrutinize in the pre-1850 time period. Pocahontas is not an undifferentiated Native America.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean here. Mason (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization by ethnicity means the people in the Category see themselves as part of an ethnic group. The Ethnic group an Ojibwe person would have saw themselves as part of in 1801 would have Bern Ojibwe. Not "Native American" or another name referring to such a large grouping. We should respect this in Categorizing, and not place them in categories that group them based on such broad groupings thry would not self identify with. An Ojibwe writer active in 1989 might well see himself as a Native American writer and belong in that category. However especially artists who use traditional artistic practices of their eth ic group, such as Hopi basket weavers, I think we need to be Co scions of the categorizing by ethnicity and not race rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please run this by folks who are active in the native american projects. Your interpretation seems extremely inconsistent with how these categories have been treated.Mason (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through your comments on the native american pages. I think that it is great that you're seeking input! However, I'm not sure that folks over there will really understand what you're getting at, as many people consider native american people to be both a parent nationality and an ethnicity. I encourage you to move slowly (if at all) on this issue because I think it would be extremely problematic if you unilaterally declared that Native American people weren't Americans. Tribal sovereignty, nationality, and ethnicity is very complicated. I think that unless you get a resounding yes in support, you should leave the status quo intact. (I'm trying to avoid another situation like when you removed American women writers from American writers.) Mason (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are understanding. A Bavajo who dies in 1845 is clearly not an American. If the person lived in Tucson or Santa Fe and died in that year they would be clearly Mexican, and go in the Mexican Category. As I mention a Wampanoag whaler from Massachusetts who died in 1845 would clearly be American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am understanding your point, but I am trying to urge you to be cautious on this issue given the subject matter. Mason (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Scientific instrument makers from the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Scientific instrument makers from the Holy Roman Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation[edit]

Here goes an estimate {{USDCY|75|1890}} John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not apply Mexican categories pre-1821[edit]

We really should not have anyone who died in 1820 or earlier in a Mexican Category. Yes, there was a Mexico in 1820 and before, and so dome were called Mexican. However it was the city of Mexico and the state right around it. Yucatan, Guadalajara, even Puebla, let alone Tampico or Hermosillo or Tijuana are not part of Mexican. Since we almost never use demonymns for sub-national entities it makes no sense for pre-1821 State of Mexico. All the more so because when we are referring to something totally distinct with a demonym we should be clear. In 1819 there was a New Mexico, but it was distinct and different from Mexico. With many other places like San Luis Potosi between them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't empty the categories out of process. You can draft a proposal/suggest a rename. But please don't gut the categories. It's disruptive. Mason (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a solution for this. I would not feel comfortable upmerging to New Spain as this stretched from the Philippines to the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep that was in part my concern as well. The folks in the current Mexican categories are more similar to each other than to the parent of New Spain. Perhaps, a disclaimer stating something to the effect that this category is maps onto Early modern mexico or something to that effect? Mason (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually if you look at Captaincies of the Spanish Empire you realize that the core of New Spain is different than the outlying captaincies. The main result of this is that we seem to lack a clear Category for People from the Captsincy of Yucatan, and we do not have one yet for thr Provincias Intenas, which was formed in 1776, but the core of New Spain could be a Category to put articles in, and we would just categorize those from the outer areas separately. On the other hand you have noticeable movement between the various areas of New Spain, so we want to treat such based on what it really is, and not anachronistically label it based on later boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of people from the century[edit]

Please don't remove people from the century they've already been classified in. For example, when you removed Pavlos Prosalentis, from 19th-century Greek sculptors and 18th-century Greek sculptors, you placed them into sculptors. If you must remove people from the nationality that defines them... please put them in the X-century sculptors, not sculptors. Regardless of whether you agree with the lead that Prosalentis is "the first professional sculptor in modern Greece", he's definitely a 19th-century sculptor. Mason (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prosalentus was a subject of the Republic of Venice, of France, and then of the United States of the Ionian Islands. The Greek sculptors tree is a set of categories for people who were nationals of Greece. Prosalentus never was a national of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point. He's definitely a 19th-century sculptor. Please leave sculptors in the proper century. Mason (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What year should we switch from Thirteen Colonies to US in place names[edit]

I am wondering what year we should switch from 13 Colonies to US in place names for events. I am thinking 1776 makes sense. However it is not until 1783 the post-war boundaries are somewhat fixed, although Detroit is de facto British until 1796. A lot of articles just use city and state, which avoids the issue. It looks like editors have either used 1776 maybe ignored things and used US earlier. I think for now I will not change any until I get to an event before July 4, 1776, although I will let stand post-1776 uses of British America or other terms at least in cases where it can be argued the place at the time of the event was actually under British control. I am reviewing 1779 births, so I will not find any even potential conflicts for a little bit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has too many small categories[edit]

Wikipedia has way too many categories that are too small. We really need to move away from the idea that every career needs to be subdivided by nationality. We really should come up with a minimum size todiffuse, not just a minimum size after diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nigg[edit]

Hi John. You've removed cats here describing him as Austrian. Since he clearly WAS Austrian, can you explain why? Ingratis (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nigg was a subject of the Austrian Empire. He is in the Painters from the Austrian Empire category. Austrian while a term used pre-1918 means something totally different pre-1918. It makes no sense to put people pre-1918 in categories that are just named Austrian. These make sense only as a by nationality category for the nation of Austria formed in 1918. We have categories for people from Austria-Hungary, from the Austrian Empire, from the Habsburg Monarchy and from the Holy Roman Empire that cover earlier periods of history and that it makes sense to place these people in based on where they actually lived and were a subject of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally since the Austrian Empire only existed in the 19th-century, Austrian Empire categories are sub-cats of the relevant 19th-century category, so Nigg does not need to be placed in those categories since he is already in a sub-cateogry of it. At present the category he is in Painters from the Austrian Empire, is a listed sub-cat of 19th-century Austrian painters (which probably does not really make sense as a category name since there was no Austria in the 19th-century, it was either the Holy Roman Empire (pre-1804 so not really that relevant for people categories), the Austrian Empire (1804-1867) or Austria-Hungary (1867-1918). However this means he was not structurally removed from Austrian categories but placed in a sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There was no Austria in the 19th-century"? See the cat tree Category:Austrian people by century, which starts with the 12th century, and runs up to the present. This apparently directly contradicts your statement. Are you intending to dismantle the whole of that? Ingratis (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That whole tree should be dismantled. I would encoraging nominating it for dismantlement. The issues are a bit different pre-1800 when we do not have many sub-cats specifically for the Archduchy of Austria. I would argue that for occupational things categorizing by the Holy Roman Empire is most relevant. However that is seperate from the issue with Nigg. We do have a category for painters from the Austrian Empire, which also conviently only existed during the 19th-century, so he is under the 19th-century Austrian painters tree by virtue of that. How to treat painters from pre-1800 areas is a seperate issue that may have other implications. However that does not impact the fact that the categorization here works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories as they exist at present are clearly too small, and in some cases seem to state things that the article does not support. Der von Kürenberg is for example in the 12th-century Austrian poets category. Why? I am not at all sure. He wrote in German, but is known it seems from a manuscript from held in Switzerland, and the article gives no real indication of where exactly he lived, which might well mean we do not know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der von Kürenberg is generally thought to be Austrian on linguistic groubds, or so I understand. For the rest, [[Category:Austrian people by century]] is actually very helpful, Austria being rather more than a 20th-century political construct. Ingratis (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be categorizing people on vague "linguistic" grounds. While there is an Austria pre-1918, it is very, very different than modern Austria. To apply the same name to all Austrias is at best a categorization by shared name, not actual shared status. In 1855 Austrians could be from areas very far beyond the modern boundaries. Before 1800 and more so as you move back from that you also run into the added issue that there are no real coherent ways to differentiate on a national origin level those from Austria from other places in the Holy Roman Empire. This is really pronounced when we move back to say the 12th-century. For the 18th-century is is less than clear that if the Holy Roman Empire designation is not useful, any designation more specific that People from the Habsburg Monarchy, really makes sense. Austria is only one of several Areas in the Holy Roman Empire directly controlled by the Habsburgs. In the 18th-century the largest and most important such area, especially if we limit our discussion to more or less contiguous areas in the south-east of the Holy Roman Empire, was the Kingdom of Bohemia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fabulists[edit]

Category:Fabulists only has around 100 articles. I think this is too few to justify a split by nationality. I think we should upmerge are the article to the parent category, Fabulists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Empire Loyalists[edit]

It seems to me that there should be a last year of birth we put people in the United Empire Loyalists category. I just found someone born in 1779 in that category. That seems too young. United Empire Loyalists are people who support the cause of a united British Empire during the American revolution. The revolution ends in 1783. I would say the minimum age for inclusion should be greater than 4.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The specific person I was just looking at was born in Nova Scotia in 1779. So the decisions about loyalty were actually primarily made not just without his consultation, but before his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert&oldid=1228720372"