User talk:Jjrt

Article titles go by WP:COMMONAME, not by WP:OFFICIALNAME. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing with yourself is not a consensus. Yes, no one said anything and yes, no one opposed it, until I did. If you believe the page has to be moved, follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. You have to present, with arguments, why "Caral" is the WP:COMMONAME in English for the civilization. However, be aware that this note that you keep removing is very explicit about the situation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Norte Chico civilization, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the border of making disruptive edits. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Report me, because you are clearly violating the BLP policy. So go ahead and report me. Y no te la vas a acabar perro. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No te la vas a acabar" with the report for BLP violations and libel (The Arbitration Committee has imposed discretionary sanctions against those that violate the BLP policy). I'll keep it simple: Were Haas and Creamer arrested, prosecuted, or received any kind of legal sanction to call it (quote) "unethical and illegal"? If the answer is "yes, they were arrested and prosecuted, or received a legal sanction", then you can claim what you said in the article; if the answer is "no, they were not arrested, prosecuted, nor received a legal sanction", you cannot say that was "unethical and illegal" because that is libel and has legal repercussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the attempted illicit appropriation" ≠ "the illicit appropriation"; "Our position is of total rejection of this type of unethical behavior" ≠ "this is unethical". You wrote in the article: "they unethical and illegally appropriated Shady's investigations" without quotations several times. The appropriate wording in these situations is: "The Government of Peru called Haas and Creamer actions 'illicit' and 'unethical'". In the first statement (yours), your wording gives the impression that Wikipedia is taking a position by calling their actions "illegal and unethical". The second statement is WP:NEUTRAL because "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes [...] not engage in them."

And you continue giving an editorialized tone throughout the note: "Ruth Shady was surprised", "Unfortunately, the article was published", "consequently, the article was amended but the damage was done", "Regarding this situation Betty Meggers [...] sentenced", "they tried to appropriate the authority of the Caral investigations", "Immediately, she was supported by the Peruvian government". That's not a neutral point of view. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Sources apart, a neutral non-libel note should have been written like this:

Ruth Shady said that Jonathan Haas and Winifred Creamer had appropriated her investigations saying she felt "surprised" by their actions. According to Shady, they renamed Caral to "Norte Chico" because of what they had supposedly investigated. According to them, they did a parallel investigation to Shady's investigations but she considered that most of it was part of her own investigations and she was not credited for it. As a response, Haas and Creamer apologized to Shady, nevertheless, they did not credit Shady on their investigation. Shady was supported by the Peruvian government, descendants of the Caral civilization, Peruvian and American societies of archeology and culture. Further, the Peruvian government questioned Haas and Creamer for their actions.

The dispute started between 1999 and 2000 (*according to the article, it was in 1994). Then, Haas and Creamer offered to help Shady to get financial support from American organizations in favor of Shady's investigation in Caral. In that way, Haas proposed to Shady to write a joint article arguing that it would become a short way of getting financing. The article was published in 2001, only crediting Haas and Creamer as investigators. Later, the media covered the event of the presentation about the article and they did not mention Shady as the chief of the project or as a co-author of the article. Shady protested about it. Consequently, that media article was amended. In 2005, Shady openly denounced the actions between Haas and Creamer, because she considered they had appropriated the authority of the Caral investigations. She was supported by the Peruvian government (owner of historical places in Peru), which sent official letters to the Society for American Archeology asking for punishment to Haas and Creamer because of their "unethical behavior". Also, the Peruvian Ministries of Education and Foreign Relations released a press cable. Haas and Creamer apologized to Shady about her complaints, however, they insisted that they had written a parallel investigation in surrounding places based on Shady's investigation and did not base it on hers.

Regarding this situation, Betty Meggers (director? of the Smithsonian Institution), in an official mail to the National Geographic Society, wrote: "The fact that Haas and Creamer are accessible to the media and speak English has facilitated their usurpation of credit for identifying early urbanism on the coast of Peru, with its revolutionary implications for theories of the evolution of complex society". Other local institutions supported Shady and rejected Haas and Creamer behavior and their publication, including the Barranca Province Government (geographically comprehended by Supe and Pativilca), the Supe Port District, the Board of Users of the Supe Valley (the heirs and descendants of an ancient culture placed in Caral, and the Peruvian Archeologist Society.

Problems with this note: 1) It's too long. It is written as if this was a short version of an article called "Caral / Norte Chico civilization name dispute", because the first paragraph is repeating what the other two say. 2) It gives an WP:UNDUE weight to the name dispute. The article is about the 3,700 BCE – 1,800 BCE civilization, not about what happened in 1990s – 2010s. 3) If anything, this should be written at Norte Chico civilization#Research, where it is already saying what your note is trying to say, but without ad hominem and ad passiones arguments. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery." The current note is simple and goes straight to the point: "The name is disputed". Yes, it is. "English-language sources use Norte Chico [...] per Haas et al." Yes, they use it because of that regardless of his (un)ethical actions. "Caral or Caral-Supe are more likely to be found in Spanish language sources per Shady." Yes, they do, Caral is the common name in Spanish. "This article follows usage in recent English-language sources and employs Norte Chico, but the title is not definitive." Yes, per WP:COMMONAME, part of a titling policy. And that's it, per WP:COMMONAME. Unless multiple non-trivial English sources have started to use "Caral civilization" and have stopped using "Norte Chico civilization", the name cannot be changed to Caral civilization. That's why Timor-Leste (the official name) is named East Timor here. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And who said this was about which sources support Haas' mess? It's about how sources use or have stopped using "Norte Chico" [1][2]. That's it. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, Wikipedia describes disputes, as I said before. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that means that Caral-Supe civilization seems to be the right name, no the other 2 options. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia is independent and they name articles accordingly. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]