User talk:Reuben

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Contents

[edit] Reuben and Cerise

If you're not already familiar with it, I just wanted to say your name reminds me of a cool song by Jerry Garcia called "Reuben and Cerise." See lyrics.

When Reuben played on his painted mandolin,
The breeze would stop and listen in
Before going its way again.

I only know a few Grateful Dead songs, so this one by Jerry Garcia is new to me. Thanks for pointing it out! Reuben 00:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chung-Yao Chao

About the article Chung-Yao Chao, I see your talk on Talk:Chung-Yao Chao. So I move the former talk to that page.

Notes for myself - finding relevant citations. Reuben 07:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Anderson, Carl D. "The Positive Electron," Phys. Rev. 43, 491–494 (1933) [1]
  • Chao, C. Y. "Scattering of Hard gamma-Rays," Phys. Rev. 36, 1519–1522 (1930) [2]

[edit] Maths (Thanks)

Thanks for your help on the maths on Dokdo. Particularly your link was very helpful (height of observatory). Have a good day! Kokiri 21:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Math/physics biographies on Wikipedia

Hi, Reuben, thanks for your kudos re biographies. Would you possibly be interested in helping me to pursue some kind of oral history project interviewing some of the great figures of the "Golden Age of General Relativity" (approx 1960-1975)?

At the other end of the spectrum, I came across three biographies of apparently very obscure mathematicians listed in Category:Algebraic graph theory, and nominated them for deletion on those grounds. I'd appreciate some feedback from math/physics people--- surely this issue has come up before, but I can't find any place to put up a notice to the math types here asking them to look those articles over. Any suggestions? ---CH (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear leader

I've often seen phrases like "위대한 령도자 김정일동지께서는 …" or the shorter "김정일령도자…" and had wondered why the Western media call him "dear leader". I have now seen your "친애한 지도자" and it all makes sense. Do you know whether "(위대한) 령도자" has replaced "친애한 지도자" as the standard way to refer to KJI at some particular time, or whether both are currently in use? And is there a common translation for "위대한 령도자"? I guess it would be "great leader", but that seems to be reserved for "위대한 수령" KIS. – Wikipeditor 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wikipeditor, I think you know more about this than I do. Most of my information is from Western sources in English that don't give the original Korean phrases, so there's some guesswork in matching up what I've read in English with DPRK material on the web. Your inferences sound correct to me - that 위대한 령도자 has been added as a title of Kim Jong-il, also translated "great leader." I think this happened after Kim Il-sung's death. A google search turned up plenty of references to 친애하는 지도자, so I think it's still used. Also, I saw a photo of a building with a slogan mentioning 당중심, which was apparently a code name for Kim Jong-il in the 1970's. Therefore, it seems likely that these honorifics just accumulate instead of replacing each other. --Reuben 18:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Rueben you claim that the DPRK media constantly refers to Kim jong Il as "dear leader" in its international english-language material. If you look through the KCNA english language website you'll see that virtually all of the references to Kim Jong Il as "the dear leader" are in quotation marks refering to how people were refering to him rather than refering to him that way directly; further the phrase "the dear leader" is always lower case which hardly implies its an official title as much an a way of praising him. It is also not standardized, since he is alternatively refered to as "the great leader", "the sagacious leader" etc. In any case, by an overwhelming margin Kim Jong Il is refered to simply as "comrade," in KCNA material. You have also not given any official government sources that give Kim Jong Il such a title. In the West it is widely believed that Kim Jong Il is actually legally titled "Dear Leader" and this is clearly not the case and presenting it as such is a way of trying to discredit him and make him seem silly, something that is not appropriate in an article trying to maintain a neutral point of view. Its obvious that Kim Jong Il has what Khrushchev would call a 'cult of personality', but its not obvious that this is a legally enforced cult rather than something some of his overzealous supporters are responsible for.NoJoyInMudville 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Since it wasn't clear, i acknowlege that some people in north Korea refer to kim jong il as 'the dear leader', and that some media sources have reported on these references positively, but i don't acknowlege that "Dear Leader" is a meaningful official title or that it is used in a standardized way the way some Western sources allege or imply and you've not offered anything to demonstrate otherwise. I think my most recent edit is more accurate and neutral than either my origional version or your more recent edit. In any case you've not offered any justification for your other edits which clearly presented the western view as factual without any sources. NoJoyInMudville 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Again this should really be on the North Korean talk page, but i think my current version is acceptable, if you dispute this you should discuss it on the talk page. The fact that some people in north Korea have refered to Kim Jong Il him as "dear leader", does not mean that this is his official title, and from DPRK news it seems clear that while he is sometimes refered to that way, it is hardly frequent enough to constitute a official title or courtesy title. Some americans sometimes refer to Geoge Bush in a rather silly way as the "Commander in Chief" in a non-military, governmental context (as in, Commander in Chief of America), this however does not mean that its somehow an official title or that he automatically has dictatorial powers just because some americans use it. NoJoyInMudville 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar experiment

Dear Reuben, Thanks for voting to keep the page. You say that "the results are exactly what anyone would have predicted." While your statement is true, it ignores the fact that (1) No-one had previously suggested such an experiment until my work, (although it is in full compliance with the quantum-mechanical formalism.) (2) These results suggest persistence of interference in the same experimental setup where the which-way information is also available (a violation of Complementarity). And as a logical consequence of (1) and (2), that (3) Complementarity and quantum formalism do not always overlap, and thus can be violated. All of the above are quite "important". Regards. Prof. Afshar 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Reuben, I have never, ever claimed that my experiment violates quantum mechanics! If the article reflects such an assertion, it must be immediately corrected. What I have said (which is clearly delineated in my paper) is that Complementarity fails in my experiment. Complementarity IS NOT equivalent to quantum mechanics! I'm glad to hear that you are competent in QM. Perhaps you might wish to honor me with your detailed critique of my work? BTW/ my experiment does not need to be promoted, it has triggered an earnest debate in the academic community that ensures its thorough review and critique. If it survives the process (which it seems to have achieved thus far) it must be given its due merit. Looking forward to reading your critique. --Regards. Prof. Afshar 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "please stop haunting the article about your own claims"? Are you asking me to stop defending myself against misrepresentaions of my work?!!! Below is my reply to your comment in the vote page:
  • I have no problem with the article size reduction, but have every problem with not being able to at least clarify what I have done, or why. It would be charlatanism to ascribe to me what I have not claimed, without a recourse to correct the allegation. After all, if the experiment carries my name, I should be able to explain what it is, or correct mistakes others make in describing its content and my claims. I will avoid directly editing the page given I can communicate my corrections and updates to a responsible, and unbiased editor who would then objectively update the article. I do not see how it could be done otherwise. BTW there is a Crossed beam version of the experiment that is much easier to understand without the need to go into Fourier optics. Anybody who wishes to add that version please contact me in my user talk page. -- Prof. Afshar 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to act as the unbiased editor mentioned above? That may require you to be a bit more patient with me as I explain my point of view, but I guarantee you will enjoy it!!! I may be forceful at times, but as you will find out, I am also as objective as they come! So much so, that in fact I'm itching to be proved wrong :)-- Prof. Afshar 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Too bad you'd like to decline. Do you know anybody who may fit the bill?-- Prof. Afshar 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new Portal:Korea

User:Visviva has worked hard to create a brand new Portal:Korea. Please take a look & contribute if you can. I think the new Template:Korea-related topics has the potential to be a more useful reference tool than categories or lists, if editors continue to expand and update it. It's also a good reminder for help & requests on ye olde notice board. Hopefully, this will help revive some activity all around. Appleby 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSDATE

WP:MOSDATE had 'Avoid overlinking dates' section until 7 May 2006. The section contained this: "This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." I didn't know it was changed and based on that reason I unlinked them. In my opinion, linking every dates is not much useful and I would have unlinked them per WP:MOSDATE#Partial dates and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context anyway. Thank you for let me know the change of WP:MOSDATE. --Kusunose 08:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korea

In order to maintain the neutrality of this article, you have to delete the part where an opinion is opposed to each other. Because, there are another articles to argue it. If you write the opinion of South Korea, we also have to write the opinion of Japan. However, then, this article becomes diffuse. You should understand that this article is not an article of Japanese Annexation of Korea. There are another articles to write about Annexation of Japan-Korea.

Did you read the discussion?Objectman 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kind Words

Thank you for your kind words. I have no problem with my edits being reverted when it's done with the right attitude--to make the articles the best they can be. Working on controversial topics is naturally difficult, I think, and it is always nice to meet an editor who particularly cares about making them into great articles that explain the controversy in question without catering to it. Thank you for putting forth the effort. LactoseTI 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] systematic analysis of 2ch.net

Actually that text was archived one. Maybe it was deleted in the current version. Not only that part, but the whole context was full of analysing Korea realted articles in english WP and how to attack them. Anything favorable to Korea means manipulation to them. Just before I got an dubios message from Hnyun that my edit maybe copyright violation so I had to delete it, but I'll check that. It's just amazing how systematic users in 2ch.net study the contents here. Ginnre 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get fully what you meant with non-obvious threading, but the whole text in that thread was entirely devoted to analyse edits of Korea related WP articles, especially Imjin War, Dokdo, Yayoi, etc. In the beginning somebody put an objective of the thread (We need to take steps against Korean manipulation of eglish WP) and introduced what is english WP and basic english words regarding Japan/Korea and then the rest is active Q&A and discussion of the contents. You can have a feeling in my talk page as I put more parts of the text from the thread. It was 12th series of the campagne and each series has 1000 replies and it's ongoing. Ginnre 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake of deleting the whole comments section; I don't know how that slipped through (shows what happens when I edit things when on the phone). —LactoseTIT 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The North Korea article

Reuben, if you have a dispute you should take it to the DPRK talk page. There are already topics on the "dictatorship" issue and the western point of view issue. You should not just continue to state your opinion as fact, to state opinion hostile to the DPRK as fact, to delete sourced information about the DPRK. The North Korea article like all articles needs to maintain a neutral point of view and disputes should be addressed in the talk page.


Reuben the only issue on the DPRK talk page that you're addressing is the "dear leader" usage. If you want it i would accept that but you cannot continue to maliciously revert the other sections, removing sourced content, and introducing bais into the introduction. You need to respond on the talk page to the issue of 'dictatorship' and western point of view. NoJoyInMudville 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Hook

Thanks for your comments Reuben. Precise lat/long I'm unable to help with although I have some photocopies of battle maps archived in 1DWR Regimental War Diaries archived at the Public Record Office, London. I'll look through my files. Some contain grid references that allow reference to larger scale maps. My understanding is that the Hook feature is now in the DMZ. The reason the Hook map was produced was for a family history. It was re-used for Wiki. A cousin served with D Company, 1st Battalion Duke of Wellington's Regiment on the Hook on the night of the battle. He was WIA and evaced to Japan then home on the troopship Empire Windrush, being shipwrecked en route. Brian.Burnell 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps to ID the position, the river shown on the right of the map is the Samichon, and is a tributary of the Imjin River, running northwards. Descriptions Point 121, Point 146, etc is military-speak to ID peaks by their height above sea level in metres. Superimposed on a large scale map the heights should help ID the exact location. I have a photcopy of the official dispatches with a detailed account of the battle. If they would be useful I could photgraph them and transmit as an email attachment. Brian.Burnell 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korea

I didn't realize the version I reverted to had equally problematic issues; basically the reason I reverted it was that I had recognized the IP of the user making the changes as a POV pusher and just looked at the diff. I was hoping someone else would catch it if there had been more serious things at play (which seems to be the case)--sorry, I was too much in a rush this morning to check myself. Did you get a chance to set it straight? —LactoseTIT 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

If you'd like to weigh in on the proposed split, I would welcome your view. Kaisershatner 17:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia seems POV in many ways

This version is the only one allowed to stand in the Japan Kofun period and Kofun section, but if you actually read the references this is not exactly accurate. I'm so tired of the lop-sided POV. If you read the actual reference some of the people misinterperted it and if you look at additional references you can see counter arguements, but that keeps getting deleted:

This reference which is used in the Kofun sit definately states that Koreans think Gaya influenced Japan in the Keyhole tombs. Someone keeps deleteing that sentence if I put it in, even though the reference they provided is the source of that statement.

Current version of kofun:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan.

My modifications which keep getting reverted for POV, I think it is more neutral or at least summarizes the actual reference better:

Whether keyhole Kofun in Gaya was for local chieftain influenced by Japanese culture or for immigrated Japanese aristocrat or flow of culture from Gaya to Japan is also argued. Korea doesn't want to recognize the culture inflows from Japan to Korea in the ancient times. But it can't be denied that the burial mounds with square fronts and round backs in the Korean Peninsura were formed strongly affected by Japan. Similarly Japan dislikes adding more cultural inflow from Korea to Japan's ancient history. This lead to Japan refusing to open the tombs after a couple of the tombs they opened had definate Korean artifacts in them. Horse shaped artifacts and Korean style pottery were initially excuvated, then the Imperial family stated the tombs will not be disturbed because they are sacred to our people. No further excuvation has been done on these tombs leading many to speculate and both sides insist on their version of theory.[1]

Here is another weird interpertation, and if I bring in counter arguements with references it is deleted. Look at this counter arguement reference, why do people keep deleteing it.

Here is the current version in the kofun period section

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy.[2]　According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan.[3] According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[4] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.[5]

You can see this current verion is definately biased There are reasons why you can't find certain Japanese references in english cause most historians have nullified or discredited those references for lack of evidence or confusion in interpertation. But someone keeps using these Japanese references and will delete other references that counter their arguements.

Here is my version, I thought this was more neutral than the current one:

According to the Book of Song, of the Liu Song Dynasty, the Chinese emperor appointed his king of Yamato to also be ruler of Silla, Baekje, and the Gaya confederacy.[2]　According to the Book of Sui, Silla and Baekje needed the power of Yamato Japan.[3] According to the Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms), Baekje and Silla sent their princes as hostages to the Yamato court to ensure military support; King Asin of Baekje sent his son Jeonji in 397[4] and King Silseong of Silla sent his son Misaheun in 402.[5] Baekje's influence on Japanese culture has been a contentious issue in contemporary relations between South Korea and Japan. The exact nature of the relationship is always investigated. The above interpretations are not exactly accurate because ancient Chinese writing are difficult to deciper. People do not know when a sentence ends and where the puncutation such as commas are suppose to be. Even more confusing is one character can have multiple meaning depending on the context. The same sentence in the Book of Song can be translated to Yamato being an colony of Baekje's expansion efforts.[6] Then if this sentence structure is followed, the Book of Sui would show that Koreans were already the rulers of Yamato. Another point of arguement for contemporary historians is whether the Silla and Baekje princes were hostages or guest teacher who came to transmit culture. In addition, the Korean rulers were always put ahead of Japanese rulers, but below the Chinese rulers in all the text, leading people to see this order as the confucian rank. This situation has lead to both nations to further investigate the situation.

I'm not as jumpy on reverts on these theories as I am with the definate misrepresentation reverts in the Japanese War Crime section and WWII/Korea section. Most of my info are from the East Asian studies courses I took and I try not to be POV. I'm only trying to correct the current POV. Anyways thanks for leaving me a note. --4.23.83.100 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working group?

Hi Reuben,

Thanks for your hard work on many Korea-related articles. I notice that you've done a lot of work on North Korean articles, and I wonder if you'd be interested in joining the newly-formed DPRK working group in the Korea WikiProject. Not sure how useful (or not) it will be, but it would be great if we can build some momentum towards improving Wikipedia's coverage of this area. -- Visviva 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More of the same

Hi, it looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now at Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer. Please help. Thanks. Room218 06:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I have a good source about the Korean war history published from Korean National Army Department, but it is written in Korean. So, I would like to send it to you if you are Korean. --Hairwizard91 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can see PDF icon in this page [3]. It is military history from Gojoseon to Unified Silla.
This page[4] may have more books including the Korean war--Hairwizard91 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need some help

hello. can you please help me find some information about town of Onsong? im very curious about this town in northern north korea.

[edit] North Korea map

I do see the resemblance on the maps, the map's I used were unclassiffied US government (military) and public domain maps to make mine, along with news reports of administrative changes. I did run into a similar problem on a map for Somalia I was making until I noticed that the Marine Corps map seemed to rip off a Mapquest one (IIRC) so I didn't make it. In this case though I don't think it should be a problem since the detailed map I have is from '98 and this one seems to be from 2000. And if you are wondering, maps published by the US Government are not copyright protected, so that should not be a problem.Orthuberra 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Baekgwa

The "map" link should render automatically now in all articles with empas_b specified. Of course, there are some such articles that have no image associated. If that becomes an issue, maybe we should add a "nomap" option or something. By the way, I've never been very happy with the formatting for that template -- it's a little bulky for my taste -- so if you have a notion of any other good changes, please do feel free to make them. Happiness, -- Visviva 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, think I've got it now. empas_desc sets the label (defaults to "Map"); empas_m specifies the extension if it something other than 001. Setting empas_m=no makes the link disappear; some existing uses of the template need to be updated to take advantage of that. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/u/User_talk%7EReuben_e1a3.html"