User talk:Godfrey Daniel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Templates 2 IPA 3 Race and intelligence 4 The Bell Curve 5 IQ and the Wealth of Nations 6 Race Differences in Intelligence 7 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 7.1 Removed? 7.2 JP intro blurb 8 nasalized frics 9 Tar Heel Terrorist 10 List of terrorist incidents 11 July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting 12 Omeed Aziz Popal 13 Michael Julius Ford 14 September 11, 2001 attacks 15 Ainu language 16 Japanese language 17 Japanese language classification 18 Japanese phonology 19 Ryukyuan languages 20 Ryukyuan 21 African American 22 Asian American 23 Islamism 24 Muhammad article 25 Yukio Mishima 26 Welcome 27 Small intervention request on the Japanese version of Wikipedia 28 Civil Practices

[edit] Templates

cite news: ^[1]

refs:

link: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005628.htm

[edit] IPA

[edit] Race and intelligence

[edit] The Bell Curve

[edit] IQ and the Wealth of Nations

[edit] Race Differences in Intelligence

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Godfrey,

your edits on the Danish cartoon controversy page are quality edits, but there is a very contentious debate there about a particular section you've edited. I appreciate that you expounded on the section, citing a need for a reference to the example of capital punishment for propaganda under Western law in the 20th Century. I worked hard for several hours to preserve that reference over the objection of a couple of editors who strongly objected. The solution I finally proposed was that the section be moved to its own subsection about "legal traditions" -- not "opinions" and not "comparable references". But to maintain that section, references to Muslims calling for execution need to be calls for judicial execution, not calls for extrajudicial executions. Focus on Judicial Remedies Also, the debate has been so tedious as to concern itself over whether each concept has one or two sentences. The reference to the cleric has standing there because it is a specific reference to a call of application of Islamic law. But the protesters in the street aren't as specific. I don't want to relegate that to "opinions" on another page, but I can't immediatly suggest where else is should be placed.

My proposal, in hopes of buildin comraderie with you as a valuable editor, is that A. I place the reference you request re: judicial execution of propagandists under International law, B. consolidate the sentence about the cleric and protesters, or alternately, leave all reference to protesters calls for death out of this section unless it is a specific call for strict application of Islmaic law and C. store your thoughtfully sought out evidence of calls for killing by protesters on the talk page so you, you and I or you and somebody can find an appropriate home for them. I'm sort of hoping you recognize the rational for this, and the recent debate on the talk page and work with me to defend a hard won marginal consensus to that allowed this focus to emerge.

does this sound workable? I'm going to do something to this effect now, so reply via my talk page if you want and I'll get immediate notice. Thanks PaxTerra 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed?

Hi! Did you remove this part from the cartoons article?

- a group of Danish imams from several organisations created a 43-page dossier^[1]. This appears to have been assembled and added to until some point after 8 December 2005, with the first lobbying visits to Egypt having taken place before finalization.

If so, was it just moved to a sub-section, or deleted without discussion anywhere? DanielDemaret 15:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I made a mistake. I have a hard time following all the small edits :)DanielDemaret 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I edited that section to make what I thought was an easier-to-read text, but I didn't remove that part. (Sorry for the tardy reply.) Godfrey Daniel 19:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JP intro blurb

Hi Godfrey!

You have recently edited the short introduction to the Jyllands-Posten Cartoon article. Although there is nothing factually wrong in your addition, it would be better to keep the intro very short and move this text further down in the article. The aspect you describe might be there already?

For now I will comment it out so that you can conveniently copy/paste to an appropiate location. MX44 09:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I just think that the intro as it stands is unbalanced, as the language ("culturally insulting, Islamophobic, blasphemous, and intended to humiliate a marginalized Danish minority") is very strong, and the pro side deserves an equally strong rebuttal. Godfrey Daniel 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nasalized frics

link: [1]

Hi Godfrey,

I reverted your note on the IPA page. Nasalized fricatives may be rare, but they do occur - in South Arabian, for example. And far from being impossible, they're quite easy to pronounce. kwami 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

, I'll go along with the revert for now. However, I know that John O'Hala specifically denied the existence of such segments, saying something like "buccal obstruents require velic closure" (paraphrase, not quote). While I personally can say, for instance, a nasal [z], I don't recall encountering nasal fricatives in Ladefoged & Maddeson's Sounds of the World's Languages (or did I just miss them?).

Any references? Thanks. Godfrey Daniel 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For a buccal obstruant without velic closure, how about [n]?

My refs are handouts from a conference talk. A UEA linguist working on S Arabic langs reported the nasalized [z̃]; in her pronunciation it was clearly a fricative, and she was quite adamant about this when I expressed amazement.

In SOWL they say "Ohala (1975) offers persuasive reasons for believing that voiced nasalized fricatives are difficult to produce" because of the conflict between two directions of airflow. In languages like Guarani, the nasalized allophones of fricatives are actually approximants, and therefore claims of nasalized fricatives in languages like Waffa (PNG) must be taken with a grain of salt. However, Umbundu contrasts phonemically nasalized [ṽ] from allophonically nasalized [w̃]. Schadeberg (1982) maintained that Umbundu [ṽ] was a fricative even after commenting on Ohala (1975). —kwami 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. It seems to me that nasalized sibilants like [z̃] are significantly easier to maintain than other nasalized fricatives like [ṽ].

You wrote:

For a buccal obstruant without velic closure, how about [n]?

Ah, but nasals are, by definition, not obstruents, because the nasal airway is not obstructed (unless you have a cold ;-) Obviously, nasal [d] is impossible, which is why some languages have [nd] (e.g., Fijian) and even [dn] (e.g., Russian).

Interesting data. Thanks for sharing. BTW, the note with nasal frix is gone. Godfrey Daniel 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We can have fun with the semantics: by this definition, [z̃] is not an obstruent either, and nasalized obstruents are impossible simply because they're a contradiction in terms. ([n] is often classified as an obstruent, and is the direct nasalized equivalent of [d].) kwami 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you are mistaken when you say that [n] is classified as an obstruent. It is sometimes called a nasal stop, but the term obstruent, by definition, is understood to exclude nasals. A quibble, perhaps, but we have to know what the terms mean in order to make any sense of them and the ensuing exposition.

Also, there is no "direct nasalized equivalent of [d]." That implies that one could, in theory, write [n] as a [d] with a tilde (~) over it, but that would be an abomination in the eyes of St. Henry, St. Daniel, and St. Peter (Sweet, Jones, and Ladefoged). Such a creature simply does not exist. (Or am I so far out of touch with the phonetics & phonology literature that I am simply unaware?) Godfrey Daniel 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're correct that no one would ever write dee-tilde for [n], but that could simply be because there's no need, and it's completely counter-intuitive to someone raised on the Latin alphabet. (I suspect that people would think you meant pre- or post-nasalized.) But you do see fish-hook ar with a tilde for a nasalized flap, which is to [n] what [ɾ] is to [d]. In some languages nasalization spreads, turning vowels into nasalized vowels, flaps into nasalized flaps, and [d]s into [n]. (Don't ask me for refs though!)

There are two definitions of 'obstruent', articulatory and acoustic. Phonetically, [n] is an articulatory obstruent, for it completely obstructs the mouth. However, it is acoutically a sonorant. Phonologically, it may behave as either, depending on the language, or may be ambiguous, just as [h] may behave as either a consonant or a vowel, or be ambiguous, depending on the language. I remember that in my intro phonetics class we had to always clarify whether we meant 'obstruent' in the articulatory or acoustic sense. kwami 22:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(Coming back out to the left edge of the page)
I think the basic issue is that nasals are inherently sonorants, and stops are inherently non-sonorants. Since [n] and [d] differ in more than one respect (i.e., nasality, continuancy, and sonority at the least), it is only natural to have separate symbols and not just modifiers, and this is (in part) why dee-tilde is an abomination.

Flaps/taps are stops that are so short they've become sonorant, and have therefore lost their obstruency. Of course, all sonorants are able to undergo nasalization, so there's no contradiction between what you and I are saying.

As for the historic--and even synchronic--change of d > n, this is not one change but a set of changes, because each of the relevant features must be changed. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but give me some data and I could break it down into the appropriate phonological processes.

Interesting about the articulatory/acoustic obstruent distinction. It's not one I ever encountered in grad school, or since, before now. I would put it in terms of phonetic description vs. phonological features/functions, but that's me.

As for [h] (etc.) being "ambiguous," I think it would be more accurate to say that in some languages, it acts in both consonant-like and sonorant-like ways. English is one such example, where it clearly patterns with the other obstruents in its distribution (i.e., consonant-like), yet does not block nasalization (i.e., sonorant-like). Godfrey Daniel 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tar Heel Terrorist

Merged, as you suggested. Please check out my comments in the Talk page, where you made yours. Best wishes, Godfrey Daniel 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work, thanks. --TeaDrinker 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of terrorist incidents

• July 28: An American Muslim of Pakistani descent opened fire inside the Jewish Federation of Seattle, killing one and wounding four.

Hello. I actually removed the Jewish Federation shooting from the list of terrorist events (again). And, actually, if you look at the article, you can see that it still says to take it up in the discussion page if people really think it should be included.
My thinking was that, since it didn't fit a strict criteria for terrorism, and nobody has yet to cite a single reasonable reference suggesting that it was, it shouldn't be listed as a terrorist incident. (Feel free to reply here, or on my own talk page, if you like; whichever you prefer) Bladestorm 04:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly doen't see what the debate could possibly be. The American Heritage definition of terrorism, from the definition of terrorism page, is

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The killer (one person) unlawfully used violence against people for religious, i.e., ideological, reasons. As for the intimidation, it can be inferred from his shouting "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel." (I leave the logic of attacking American Jews for the actions of the Israeli government up to you to figure out.) As far as I can see, this murderous attack fits the definition perfectly. Go to any of the other definitions, and you'll see basically the same thing.

I appreciate, however, that my opinion is not the only one on the planet. If you would like to tell me why it isn't terrorism, I'm certainly willing to listen, and even be swayed by a persuasive argument. But I really do think that the burden of proof is on those who deny that this shooting spree was a terrorist act. Godfrey Daniel 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, even your own definition doesn't strictly fit. The key point is the idea of intimidation, or forcing political or social action.
It easily fits the criteria for many terms: Hate crime, despicable, brutal, and a ton of others. However, there was no indication that he wanted to do anything other than kill jews that he perceived had wronged him. Terrorism isn't defined by the number of casualties.
For example, killing a thousand black men just because you don't like black people doesn't technically qualify as terrorism. (it'd be a massacre, serial killings, and obviously murder) However, erecting a burning cross, even if nobody is technically hurt, does qualify. (at least, I'd say it does) It's largely about motivation. What a person is trying to accomplish.
The primary principle of terrorism is the desire to inflict terror onto a larger people. In the absence of any citation to show that this was the case, it can't possibly be included in the list.
For example, even though I do realize it isn't terribly appropriate to cite one wikipedia article for another, take a look at the actual wikipedia page for the shooting. The FBI said it wasn't terrorism. The prosecutor said it wasn't terrorism. Put simply, not every act of hate or racism counts as terrorism. And if you think it deserves to be on the list, in spite of the statements of the FBI and the prosecutor, then you really need to either provide a reliable citation, or at least present a reasonable argument proving that it was his intent to instill terror into jewish or israeli people in general. (as opposed to simply hurt people based on their race/religion) Bladestorm 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting rebuttal. You have some good points, but I still think it's terrorism.

First, I'd disagree with your claim that the attack lacks an element of intimidation. If someone shot up my co-religionists at a place where we congregate, I would be pretty intimidated. I just might not want to go to that place, or any other place, where we gather. That's intimidation.

Furthermore, I'd say that there is also an element of forcing political action as well. America is Israel's ally, and most American Jews support Israel. However, it is reasonable to assume that most American Jews will have primary loyalty to their own country, the United States. If American Jews perceive that their support of Israel opens them up to murderous attacks like this one, they might change their political stance in order to secure their physical safety. So this attack qualifies on both elements mentioned.

Also, there is a trend in modern America to instantly dismiss any attack by Muslims as terrorism. While this is a separate topic, it is certainly germane here.

You're absolutely right: terrorism is not defined by body count. It's not defined by membership in a group. However, if an attack makes people scared to go about their daily lives, makes them afraid to maintain or express their political opinions, or is committed with the intent of achieving even one of these aims, then no matter how many were injured or killed, it's terrorism. Accordingly, the shooting at the Seattle Jewish Federation clearly falls within the scope of terrorism.

What's more, I'm afraid that you, like the FBI and the prosecutor, are missing the big picture. The big picture here is how Muslims have, since the time of Mohammed, used terrorism and terrorist-like tactics against non-Muslims. One of the most infamous incidents was the massacre of the Jews of Banu Qurayza, in which all the men were beheaded, all the children were sold into slavery, and all the women either taken as concubines or sold into slavery. Mohammed is said to have personally approved of this course of action. If I were a non-Muslim in Arabia at that time, I certainly would have been intimidated by such events.

Another part of the big picture is the attacks by Muslims on Americans here in America. The victims were all strangers to the attacker, a hallmark of terrorism. A list:

• 3.1.94: A Lebanese Muslim opens fire on a van full of Hassidic Jews in New York, killing one and injuring several others.
• 2.23.97: A Palestinian Muslim opens fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, killing one and injuring several others.
• 7.4.02: An Egyptian Muslim opens fire on the El Al counter in LAX, killing two and wounding four. NB: it took the FBI a year to acknowledge that his anti-Israel sentiment qualified this attack as terrorism.
• Oct. 2002: Two American Muslims kill ten and injure three in the Beltway Sniper Shootings.
• 3.3.06: An Iranian-born Muslim runs down 9 in his SUV on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus.
• 6.15.06: A Muslim opens fire in a movie theatre in Maryland, killing one.
• 6.25.06: An American Muslim opens fire in a Denver Safeway, killing one and injuring five.
• 7.25.06: A Muslim M.D. shoots, without provocation, a bicyclist in Texas.
• 7.29.06: An Afghani Muslim runs down 19 with his SUV in the SF Bay area, killing one.

Do you see a pattern, or just a random assortment of utterly unrelated attacks? Godfrey Daniel 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thought: The reason that the FBI decided that the El Al shooting was terrorism is that the shooter expressed anti-Israel sentiments and was opposed to US policy in the Middle East. Isn't that exactly the same as the Seattle Jewish Federation shooter? Godfrey Daniel 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay... where to start...
First off, intent is paramount, and you're ignoring that entirely.

Interspercing remarks here. I'll sign them GD. Actually, I'm not ignoring intent. Did you read what the shooter said? Some quotes:

"I'm only doing this for a statement."

"I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel"

"[t]hese are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around, and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East."

He demanded that the US military leave Iraq. He is said that this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration for giving money to Jews, and for us Jews for giving money to Israel, about Hezbollah, [and] the war in Iraq. GD

Whether or not people feel intimidated is entirely irrelevant. It's whether or not there was an intent to indimidate.

Does it appear that Haq (the shooter) believed that he could order the withdrawal of troops from Iraq himself? Did he believe he could order the US government to stop providing support to Israel? In the absense of such delusions of grandeur, we must assume that he intended to coerce change through intimdation. GD

Otherwise, spiders would count as terrorists, and that, of course, would be patent nonsense. If you think that's unfair, then a more mundane example would be the fact that most violent crimes in general tend to make people feel very frightened. For example, Paul Bernardo had nearly the entire town of St. Catharines terrified. Everybody with a daughter, sister, or any female of similar age close to them was afraid of what might happen to them. However, his crimes were certainly not terrorism.
Were people intimidated? Of course. The lives and daily routines of countless families were affected. However, Bernardo was primarily interested in his own gratification than intimidation, and as such, it wasn't terrorism.

In contrast, Haq made it very clear that he was not interested in his own gratification, but in achieving certain political ends. I don't think someone needs to have an explicit manifesto to qualify as a terrorist. GD

As such, the fact that one might speculate that people would logically be afraid or intimidated is, by necessity, not evidence of terrorism.

Next, there's a tremendous difference between being politically motivated, and attempting to force political action. The gunman didn't yell, "get out of lebanon, or you will feel our wrath here!" He was taking revenge for his people against people he associated with the people he perceived as being the aggressors.

See the quotes above. GD

In the absolute and total absence of any evidence that he was trying to cause political change, this also cannot be accepted as evidence of terrorism.

First, I believe your defintion of terrorism as necessarily requiring that the terrorist try to cause political change is too narrow. Second, it's reasonable to assume that Haq knew that he could not personally effect the changes he wanted. The only way he could get those changes was by making people believe that if they didn't do what he (and, presumably, others with the same beliefs) wanted, they would be subject to more violence. Hence, he was, in fact, trying to cause political change; the evidence, far from being "absolutely and totally absent," is abundant. GD

And finally... well... I don't even know if there's any point in addressing this... You explicitly equated the actions of this muslim with terrorism, simply because of the actions of other muslim terrorists in the past.

This is because Islam has a very, very, very long history of religiously-sanctioned and religiously-justified terrorism (even if that term might be considered anachronistic. Replace it with "unprovoked violence against non-Muslims" if you wish). Have you read the Koran? Have you read the hadiths? They're full of bloodthirsty passages exhorting Muslims to "smite the necks (i.e., behead) the unbelievers" and the like. Have you studied Islamic history? Islam started on the Arabian Peninsula, and expanded through violent invasion into neighboring regions, where non-Muslim peoples, including animists, Christians, Hindus, polytheists, Zoroastrians, and others, were slaughtered or forced to convert, and if they didn't flee and survived all that, they were oppressed, as required by the Koran. GD

You're applying what you believe to be a general tendency of the religion to make unsubstantiated claims about specific instances. If this was an act of terrorism, then you should be more than capable of proving it without having to use such a reprehensible argument as, "well, those muslims are prone to terrorism anyways. He's a muslim, so this was terrorism."
Seriously, how in the world could the past actions of other people possibly be relavent to this specific case?

That, no doubt, is due to my scientific training: I've learned to see patterns amongst bodies of data. GD

By your own words, you're trying to apply "a pattern" to a specific individual.
I tried talking about the specific actions of a single person in a single event. You used a stereotype of a larger people as a starting point for how to approach the event. Bladestorm 04:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I gotta go now; I'll add a little more later. Godfrey Daniel 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional remarks.

Bladestorm wrote,

Seriously, how in the world could the past actions of other people possibly be relavent to this specific case? [...] By your own words, you're trying to apply "a pattern" to a specific individual. I tried talking about the specific actions of a single person in a single event. You used a stereotype of a larger people as a starting point for how to approach the event.

Your characterization is not quite accurate, and I would argue that your "case-by-case" approach to terrorism is, in this case, inappropriate.

Group membership can be relevant when analyzing terrorism. If a person whose actions might be considered terrorism were a Boy Scout or Freemason, those group memberships would be irrelevant, because neither of those groups have any history of terrorism or terrorist-like activities. On the other hand, if the person were a member of The Order or the Black Panthers, both of which have histories of violence, then that group membership becomes relevant.

In this case, the murderer in question, Haq, is a self-proclaimed Muslim. Obviously, not all crimes committed by Muslims are connected to their religion, and would never even insinuate that. However, he did mention "our people," i.e., Muslims, and he not only directed his violence against Jews, he specifically mentioned Jews and Israel.

How are these points relevant? Well, Muslims have a 1400-year-long history of violence against non-Muslims, with a particular focus on Jews. In the modern day, newspapers throughout the Middle East regularly run vile, horrendously offensive cartoons featuring Jews as snakes, rats, Nazis, baby-killers, and drinkers of Muslim blood (see here and here for a few examples). The level of anti-Jewish Islamic vitriol is unimaginable for most of us, but is an ordinary fact of life for far too many Muslims.

On top of that, Muslims have committed, and continue to commit, terrorist acts; these acts have overwhelmingly been directed at Jews. In the light of these facts, that Haq is a Muslim is one of the very most salient elements of his murderous, unprovoked attack, and should figure prominently in the determination of whether or not it was terrorism.

However, in the modern day, the mantra is "it's not terrorism." What's more, the authorities chant this mantra within the first few days, even hours, of the investigation. Considering that the police and politicians usually have no expertise in terrorism, it's doubly inappropriate to rule out terrorism so early. Furthermore, it can take even the FBI a full year to come to the determination.

I will grant that Haq was not part of a terrorist organization, and so his attack was not organized terrorism. However, "freelance" terrorism is real, and I can't see any reason why his murderous rampage should not qualify as such.

In re-reading your earlier post, I just noticed something I missed before:

However, there was no indication that he wanted to do anything other than kill jews that he perceived had wronged him.

He did not shoot the specific Jews whom he thought had wronged him; he shot Jews because they were Jews, and he perceived that he had been wronged by Jews as a group. Violence against innocents who happen to members of the same group the attacker feels aggrieved by is a hallmark of terrorism.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify my thinking on the issue, and I look forward to your reply. Godfrey Daniel 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I guess I forgot to come back here to reply to you. However, that isn't license to re-add the entry into the list.

Actually, it is, because it implies that you were unwilling or unable to respond, thereby conceding defeat. GD

While although I don't mind discussing rationale on an academic level, the fact is that, no matter what, it'll never be re-added to the list and stay. Why not? Because it absolutely can't.

My, isn't that a convenient Point Of View! "It isn't because I say so!" I'm sorry if this upsets you, but that is an extremist, and juvenile, way to "argue" a point.

See, regardless of your opinions, it wasn't widely accepted as a terrorist attack. The fact that the prosecutor and police refused to classify it as a terrorist attack; and actually explicitly stated that it wasn't; means that it can't be treated as 'obviously' terrorism.

Are the authorities in question experts on terrorism? I doubt it. See the link above about the "it's not terrorism" meme. GD

As such, it can't be added to the list. The possibility of it being misclassified may have a place in the article for the shooting itself, but it can't be added to the list.
Incidentally, no argument that the actions of a specific muslim can be proven terrorism just because they're muslim could ever be logical.

Again, this is a fallacy on your part. It also shows your ignorance of Islamic history and Islam. May I suggest you go read the Ghazw section? Better yet, read the article I linked above. While there is no evidence that Haq was affiliated with any terrorist group, that does not, in and of itself, mean that his actions were not terrorism. I hope you can see that distinction. GD

In fact, I can prove it. I don't have to prove whether or not Islam promotes violence, because that's immaterial to the point. The fact is, even if every single muslim on the planet was a terrorist (not saying that's what you're saying; I'm talking about an "even if it were true"), that still wouldn't make every action they perform terrorism. If they double-park, it isn't terrorism. If they rob a convenience store, that isn't terrorism.

Up to this point, I'm with you. GD

Even if they kill 17 people in their sleep, even that isn't terrorism.

It Depends. Specifically, it depends on who the victims are and what the killers' motives were. Were the victims murdered during a burglary? Not terrorism. Were the victims killed because they were Jews? Probably terrorism. But you can only see that if you know something about the Koran's official line on Jews; if you know that ever since the time of Muhammed, Muslims have had special enmity for the Jews; if you know that the hadiths specifically mention Jews as targets for murder. GD

Get the point? Bringing his religion into the discussion accomplishes absolutely nothing to proving your point. And it's kinda offensive. Case-by-case is the only way to judge specific events.

Not necessarily. This sort of nominalism, cutting incidents out of their contexts, prevents us from seeing the larger patterns that can inform us. GD

An action either is or isn't terrorism; who commits it is irrelevant. Incidentally, muslims aren't the only ones with bloody histories. The oldest tribes of judaism weren't always so friendly. The crusades come to mind. Israel's murder of thousands of civilians comes to mind. Oh, and I don't have a problem with modern germans, in spite of a rather nasty recent past. Nor do I blame every chinese person for the cultural revolution.

This sort of relativism is also counterproductive. OK, not every Chinese person is responsible for for the Cultural Revolution, etc. Similarly, not every Muslim engages in terrorism. However, it is foolish to fail to see that in the modern day, while not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims. As I said before, group membership can be relevant. GD

Anyways, like I said, it isn't widely accepted as terrorism, so it isn't making the list. If you wish to discuss further, you should probably do so in the List of terrorist incidents article's talk page, since that's on my watchlist. Bladestorm 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your illogical refusal to even entertain the the chance of the possibility of letting the notion cross your mind that, just perhaps maybe, this could, by some interpretations, possibly, in some contexts, be considered terrorism, I see no point in further discussion.

And I will continue to put it back. That is my right as an editor. You, as well, are fully justified in taking it out. That is your right as an editor.

See you at the List of terrorist incidents! Godfrey Daniel 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting

• July 28: An American Muslim of Pakistani descent opened fire inside the Jewish Federation of Seattle, killing one and wounding four.

[edit] Omeed Aziz Popal

• August 30 An Afghani Muslim hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV in the San Francisco Bay area.

[edit] Michael Julius Ford

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit] Ainu language

Hello Godfrey -- I've a question for you about the similarities and differences in glottal stop usage in Ainu and Japanese, and I'd appreciate any wisdom you might have over on the Ainu Talk page. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese language

Hello Godfrey --

I'm interested in possible etymological crossover between Austronesian and Japanese. I noticed your edits over on the Japanese language page, and I'm curious about what you might have read. I certainly don't think Japanese is Austronesian, but I wonder about possible loanwords. Ika pops to mind, as "fish" in Polynesian and "squid / cuttlefish" in Japanese. Given that modern J sakana is a compound, I wonder if ika might be an older root for "fish" in Japanese as well. Elsewise, you'd noted about kaku -> kākau that no language has to write as part of its basic vocabulary. Granted. What of the possible interpretation that "to scratch" was the base meaning, from which "to tattoo" evolved (one way of tattooing is to scratch the skin), and the meaning shifted from "to tattoo" to something more like "make marks that don't go away", and thence to modern "to write"? Meanwhile, looking at かく again as "to scratch", when one scratches, the thing scratching catches on the thing scratched. Noting that かかる "to catch (on something)" comes from かく, might we have a word root meaning "to catch (and stay)"? かかう (modern かかえる "to carry") also looks like it's related, coming from かき + あう.

I think it best to avoid positing compounds unless you can clearly demonstrate that that's what they are. "Scratch" + "meet" = "to carry in the arms" is an awfully far stretch. Maybe it's better to treat kakaeru as a different word that juts happens to resemble kaku. Oh, and the older form was not かかう; it was かかふ.

If I'm way off base here, do let me know. I have only a passing acquaintance with Polynesian through some self-study of Hawaiian and Māori, and I was interested in the small number of apparent cognates with Japanese. That plus some papers I've read suggesting a possible Polynesian presence in the Japanese archipelago and the potential for loanwords and other linguistic influence struck me as interesting. I've been ferreting out possible word interrelations within Japanese on my own for a while, and the traceable etymologies between words also strike me as fascinating.

On a less conjectural note :), where did you study? I'm seriously thinking about delving more deeply into Japanese linguistics. My background has been a bit of a hodgepodge, with a BA in international relations and an MA in translation with some interp thrown in for good measure. I looked at linguistics briefly years ago, but it didn't scratch any itch at the time, and I didn't pursue it. I now find I've grown intellectually itchier in these directions since then. I was beginning to study up on classical J while living in Tokyo, but work and family considerations prompted me to leave before I could get very far, and now I don't know where to turn. I'd love to find a community of similar word geeks to talk with before I bore my wife and friends too badly.  :)

Anyway, hope all is well with you, and I'm happy you're contributing to Wikipedia! Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Eiríkr,

I do think that the comparison of Japanese to individual Polynesian languages is methodologically ill-founded, plus the time depth is wrong. (ADDED LATER: The Japanese language entered the archipelago about 500-300 BCE, while Hawaii wasn't populated until about 1000 CE.) I also think that comparing Japanese and Proto-Polynesian is weak, at the very least for geographical reasons. If you're going to compare Japanese with any Austronesian language, it should be one from Taiwan, preferrably the north. However, those languages don't look anything like Japanese, phonologically, morphologically, or grammatically. What's more, the further back in time you go, the less Austronesian Japanese looks. Also, I've never seen a proposed Japanese-Austronesian "cognate" that stood up to any rigorous analysis.

Historical linguistics is the hardest branch of linguistics, because it requires both mastery of large data sets and strict adherence to demanding principles. It's much easier to make up silly "movement rules" and "empty categories" and the like in what passes for syntax than it is to do historical linguistics properly. Also, some of those principles--like regular correspondences are important data, while similarity often isn't--are hard to grasp, even counterintuitive.

Japanese is just one of those languages that looks like a lot of others. In fact, it's possible to find English/Japanese "cognates" that are, of course, totally valueless, like OJ womina : E woman.

Looking just at J kaku : Hwn kaakau, the first problem is that the Hawaiian word is twice as long as the Japanese one. Second, long vowels come from the loss of an intervening consonant. I don't know much about Austronesian anymore, but if I were sufficiently motivated I could find out what the Proto-Austronesian source is, and find the lost consonant. Next, Hawaiian k comes from earlier t, and finally, au in Japanese changed to oo, so this correspondence is wrong. In the end, this becomes OJ kaku : Proto-Polynesian (or maybe PAn) *taCatau (C = consonant unknown to me as I write this but not unknown or unknowable). I don't mean to tear you apart, but this example is demonstrably non-cognate.

I got my Ph.D. at the University of Hawaii. Thanks for the nice thoughts--everything is going fine for me. I hope all is well with you, too. I'd write more, but it's past my bedtime! Best, Godfrey Daniel 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I'd known about Polynesian T - K, but I wasn't sure if this was a defined shift or a general correspondence occurring variably in the population. Nor did I know about the long vowels equating to missing consonants, so thanks for filling me in.  :) For Japanese au -> oo, though, I was under the impression that that change was much more recent?

The shift t > k was completely regular in Hawaiian, and is in process now in Samoan. Both were preceded by the shift k > ? (glottal stop).

What I'm saying about au > oo is that if a word had -au- in it long ago, it has -oo- in it now.

I'll take a look at the U of H. I sure wouldn't mind spending time there, though I suspect the cost of living isn't too comfortable. After Tokyo and the San Francisco area, I wonder how it would compare...  :) Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No better, possibly worse. Everything is either an import (and it's more expensive to send by ship than by rail, as is possible on the Mainland) or locally produced (with limited land for production, there's no economy of scale). Housing prices, after going through a lull 3-4 years ago, have shot up. Also, cronyism is rampant, with the Democrats being the entrenched political class. Then there's the problem of extremist native Hawaiian activism, in which the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies serves as the primary indoctrination center, to train impressionable minds that they are "victims" of whitey. In fact, the commoners have always been taken advantage of by the elite, and that elite was the Hawaiian royalty and nobles who continued their activities after the arrival of Caucasians in the islands. That's another problem for another time. Godfrey Daniel 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As for ika "fish" (in which language(s)?) : ika J "squid, cuttlefish," the semantics are plausible. However, the older Japanese word for fish is uwo (Modern ou, as in tobiou "flying fish"), which may be from earlier iwo (found dialectally and in some Ryukyuan languages). So, while the semantics aren't bad, they aren't good, either. In a case like this, you really need examples with exemplary semantics before you can start saying that ika in Japanese is like deer in English (i.e., more specialized than it was in the past, cf. German Tier "wild animal," preserving the original meaning of the cognate).

What bothers me most about any proposed Austronesian connection is the randomness of the vocabulary. While this is expected if there were a genetic relationship, the morphology and syntax of Japanese are very un-Austronesian, so there's no secondary supporting evidence. Also, different researchers have come up with different "cognate" lists--not a good sign (Alexander Vovin dissected two such lists in an article in Oceanic Linguistics, as I recall).

If there is an Austronesian stratum in Japanese, it might be concentrated in a specific semantic field, such as rice cultivation, seafaring, or the like. Nope--no such luck. While I can't categorically deny any and all premodern contact between the Japanese and one or more Austronesian groups, I have seen no evidence for such a relationship. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I believe the best position to take is the cautious, principled one, so I conclude that in the absence of evidence, there was no contact that can be demonstrated.

This then ties into what a proper hypothesis or theory is: falsifiable. If someone were to start saying, "well, the contact between Japan and Hawaii/Tahiti/New Zealand/wherever was secret," well, they're veering off into fantasyland. If it were secret, then there's no way to disprove it--and you have a non-scientific fable.

Anyway, all for now. Godfrey Daniel 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese language classification

While I don't support this theory, nor think it supported, here are some cites for you:

(He's talking about the Japanese-Austronesian hypothesis. GD)

Benedict, PK 1990. Japanese/Austro-Tai. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

Kawamoto, Takao (1977, 1978, 1979) Toward a comparative Japanese-Austronesian (1) - (3). Nara Kyo^iku Daigaku Kiyo^ 26. 1, 27. 1, 28. 1 Kawamoto, Takao (1981) Proto-oceanic paradigms and Japanese. Kyo^to Sangyo^ Daigaku Kokusai Gengo Kagaku Kenkyu^jo Shoho^ 2-4. RS:18-1-1 Kawamoto, Takao (1982) Toward a comparative Japanese-Austronesian (4). Jo^etsu Kyo^ikudai Kenkyu^ Kiyo^ 1 Timothy Usher 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I knew about Benedict's work, but not about Kawamoto's. Why don't you add this to the Japanese language classification page? Godfrey Daniel 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese phonology

[edit] Ryukyuan languages

[edit] Ryukyuan

[edit] African American

[edit] Asian American

[edit] Islamism

[edit] Muhammad article

GD, I just reverted your latest edits there. First of all, you'd duplicated a bunch of text. Second, the stuff that you think is being slighted is discussed more fully in the third part of the article. The article as it exists now is in three parts:

• Summary, of material even the most skeptical academics would accept
• An explanation of why it is so difficult to write a biography of Muhammad, and how dubious the sources really are
• A very full biography, basically the material accepted by those academics who are willing to trust the Arabic sources

The article is relatively free of controversy, because all the controversy has been moved into separate articles, where there is room for people to give their arguments in full, cite hadith, etc. We are not trying to cover anything up, we're just trying to make the article readable and keep it under 100k :) Controversies are clearly indicated.

If you're interested in discussing Muhammad as a caravan raider and warrior, there's an article on Muhammad as warrior. Right now it is in the hands of Muslim apologists who have filled it with material on Islamic rules of war. It's unbalanced, but nobody has wanted to rebalance it. If that's the subject that interests you, that's the place where you can unpack it all. I hope you have copies of Watt, Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq, and possibly Uri Rubin's book (which I don't have). Good research and references elevate polemic to usefulness.

I live in Hawai'i too, in Makiki, and if you want to come look at my collection of Islamic scholarly books (limited, but with some things you won't find at UH), send me some Wikipedia mail. Yes, you can send me email through WP. Zora 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think that it ought to be a clearer that Islam spread mainly by military means, but I can't disagree with anything you've said. Also, thank you very much for the offer, but I no longer live in Hawaii. Still, I'll have to follow up on your references--I'm relatively new to Islamic studies. Godfrey Daniel 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yukio Mishima

I've removed the bit about the poll from Yukio Mishima. That's a story so outlandish that we really need a citation along with it. CRCulver 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a story that my Japanese literature professor told the class. I'll see if I can find a reference. Godfrey Daniel 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Godfrey Daniel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small intervention request on the Japanese version of Wikipedia

Dear Daniel,
In the light of the present debate occuring in the Holocaust Denial article talk page, and the fact several arguments in favor or Revisionism come from the Japanese version of the article on the Holocaust, I hereby request you cooperation in delivering the following message to our fellow Japanese editors, in regard to the verifiability of their claims and the apropriate use of footnoting:
In the "Doubts about the Holocaust" section of the Holocaust article, the Japanese editors mention, in point ten, the role played by the International Red Cross, namely the fact they directly supervised the Concentration camps from February 1943 to 1945 and that forced laborers were given at least 2750 kcals/day. Aditionally, point 11, mentions the celebration of wedding ceremonies, the birth of over 3,000 children and even the presence of a creche in the camp's premises. While all this is relevant information, there is hardly an footnoting at all. Where is the 1944 Red Cross report mentioned in the article? Where can it be found?
Under normal circunstances I wouldn't be bothering you with this request, but given your credicials as a capable biglot, I believe this to be the most apropriate course of action, due to my inability to write in Japanese (I can only read).
Earnestly waiting for an asnwer,
Ishikawa Minoru 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for thinking of me. I'm sorry, but I've scaled back my Wikipedia participation. While I appreciate your concerns, and wish I had the time to help you, I'm afraid that I won't be able to do anything about this. Still, I wish you the best of luck in getting your point presented, and in creating a better article. Godfrey Daniel 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Practices

I won't be making much of an argument in terms of the list itself here; as, like I said, you can continue the argument there if you want to continue, but I'll be making some very pertinent points here:
First, breaking up two parts of a person's point to make them look stubborn is pathetic. I said it can't be added, and then went on to explain why. Isolating the first sentence to make it look like I'm saying, "because I say so" is intentionally misinterpreting.
Second, it doesn't matter who is or isn't an expert on terrorism. The list isn't of possible terrorist incidents. All entries need to be pretty cut-and-dry. It's essentially a list of 'accepted' terrorist incidents. If there's bloody good reason to question whether or not the tag fits, or if there's enough citable evidence to say that it isn't generally accepted as such, then you'd at least need a much stronger argument than, "but he's a muslim".
Third, stop the bloody racism. I made a very simple point: An action either is or isn't terrorism. A non-terrorist action doesn't become terrorism just because a muslim commits it. A terrorist action doesn't cease being terrorism just because you find out he wasn't a muslim. I'll say it again. If you aren't capable of making a case without using his religion, then you have no case.
Fourth, again, stop the bloody racism. I don't care about the history of islam. I don't care if muhammed said, "smite ye all the jews, and while you're at it, fly some planes into as many buildings as possible!" It's immaterial. It's a tangent. And, frankly, it's disgusting.
If you want to try adding it to the list, then take it to the talk page first.
If you want to try making any more arguments, then stop using, "but islam is violent" as a justification for any argument. Sweeping accusations about a religion do nothing to prove your point. And you should really be careful about making such despicable sweeping statements, and unrelated racism, as it's likely to get you banned eventually. Bladestorm 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts.

Moslems are not a race, so how can criticism of them be racist? Or is all criticism of Moslems inherently "racist"?

Is stating historical fact "racist"?

Do you consider it irrelevant that most current-day terrorists are Moslems? (Of course, I know that the vast majority of Moslems are not terrorists.) Is there not the hint of a possibility that there is a connection between their religion and their actions? Or am I being "racist" again?

May I suggest that you try to learn something about Islam? Islam has a long history, and I'm sure you could pick out the patterns in it. I'm just summing them up.

Truth be told, it's zealots like you that have turned me off from Wikipedia. I'll keep coming back, but, if you like, you can turn me away again with your continued apologetics for terrorists. Even better, turn me in to Jimbo as a "racist." I'm sure that the suppression of dissenting opinions is in keeping with your worldview of "tolerance" and "diversity."

Ta! Godfrey Daniel 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, this is insane.

I know that muslims aren't a race. Though it's my first and only tongue, I still freely acknowledge that the english language is pretty crappy, and doesn't make it easy to make such distinctions. But that's splitting hairs and you know it.

No, historical fact isn't racist.

No, it isn't irrelevant that most modern-day terrorists are muslims.

No, I'm not a zealot just because I stick to facts rather than bigoted prejudice.

Here's the difference:

• Saying that a person's religion contributed to their behaviour: Observation.
• Saying that, yes, a person must be a terrorist solely because of their religion: Bigotry.

See the difference? I was saying it didn't fit the description, and that you should be able to classify an event one way or the other solely on the merits of the facts at hand; that directly pertain to the event. Adding in, "yeah, but he's muslim!" doens't really strengthen your point. And it's disgusting.

But, seriously, what type of zealot do you think I am? Islamic Fascist? I'm not muslim. Overly PC-hippie? I'm not PC, and I'm not a liberal. I just don't believe in bigotry, prejudice, or allowing personal predispositions enter into logical arguments.

And I have little desire to turn you in to anyone. I don't think anyone would care about your bigotry. Everyone has biases, some minor, some major. I have a buttload of them. I just don't let them interfere with rational arguments. Bladestorm 15:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere! I like you a lot more now than I did before. You're obviously much smarter, and more mature, than I thought, and I apologize for my underestimation of you.

First, I took your suggestion to heart, and argued my point(s) on the talk page, without mentioning Islam (except in quotes). Thank you for the suggestion; I believe it makes for a fuller argument.

To address what I believe is your main point:

You are asserting that bringing up a person's religion in association with their actions is bigotry (you were asserting it was racist, but have since altered your choice of words). The correct response to this assertion is: it depends.

To say that David Berkowitz (aka the Son of Sam) was motivated by his religion is ludicrous, because Judaism does not promote or sanction murder, and because he is known to be mentally ill.

To say that Adolf Hitler was motivated by his religion is equally ridiculous, because his actions were clearly out of line with Christian belief and practice. Furthermore, Christians repudiate him and his actions.

Things get trickier with Moslems. I've already stated I don't believe that every criminal act committed by a Moslem is automatically connected with their religion. That would certainly be a bigoted position. What I have been saying all along is that certain kinds of acts by Moslems may very well be inspired by their religion. If you don't believe me, just look at what Osama bin Laden and his ilk say. They quote the Koran as justification--and the verses they quote support their position unambiguously. They're doing exactly what Islam commands of them. Furthermore, while some Moslems may be opposed to terrorism and other acts of violence committed by their co-religionists, I have never heard them condemn such acts as un-Islamic. The reason they haven't is simple: the Koran supports the interpretation of the terrorists.

If you read the Koran (as I have), you will find passages explicitly urging Moslems to convert or kill the infidel (i.e., non-Moslems). ("People of the Book"—Jews and Christians—get a third option: living as third-class citizens if they pay jizya, which is more or less the same as "protection" money paid to the Mafia.) Going beyond that, one has to understand the interpretive traditions of Islam. There are two important principles. One is that Moslems believe the Koran to be the verbatim word of Allah (who, incidentally, should not be confused with the Judeo-Christian God), and that it therefore must be read literally. The second is that the Koran was "revealed" over a period of years, and that when there are later passages which contradict earlier passages, the later passages abrogate the older ones and are authoratative.

Now, consider that throughout Islamic history, Jews have been the special targets of Islamic scorn--and violence. Consider that this scorn and violence are part of Islamic doctrine, in both the Koran and the traditions known as the hadiths, which are non-Koranic sources on Mohammed and commentaries on Islam. Consider this hadith:

"...Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him..." (Salih Muslim 041:6985, accessed here, the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts)

In this light, the murderer's religion is highly relevant. Mentioning that this murderer is a Moslem is not bigotry; it serves to deepen our understanding of the motivation for the crime.

Now, I know the standard responses. I will debunk them.

• "That's just one line in one hadith." Yes, and there are scores of others that support it.
• "Moslems aren't the only ones being violent; Christians do it, too." Yes, and their fellow Christians condemn those acts as being non-Christian. In contrast, Moslems do not condemn their fellow Moslems for the violence they commit.
• "Some Christians have used the Bible to justify violence, too." Yes, they have. But if you read the Bible, you'll see that it doesn't actually support or condone violence. On the other hand, the Koran exhorts its followers to violence.
• "The Old Testament is pretty bloodthirsty, too." Yes, but in the modern world, neither Christians nor Jews are quoting it as justification for their violence, but Moslems do quote the Koran to justify theirs. Unlike the Koran, the Old Testament doesn't preach jihad against all others, does not preach the centrality of war, and nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments are there sections that abrogate all the benevolence promoted elsewhere in those books. Finally, Jews and Christians aren't quoting scripture before blowing themselves up; in fact, they aren't blowing themselves up at all. That's because it's only the Koran that promises paradise for those who die while fighting the infidel.

Finally, one of the reasons I dismissed you earlier was your use of the hyperbolic term "racist." In modern parlance, all it means is "your views are so different from my own liberal ideology that I refuse to even deal with you." Like the Communists who clamped down on all expressions of dissent, the "racist" label serves only to shelter the PC status quo from examination.

Having said that, I will happily concede that there are, indeed, racists and bigots (like David Duke and Jimmy Carter), and they deserve no place in civilized discourse. However, I find that the "racist" smear is applied to anyone who even questions any modern PC belief. For example, the conventional wisdom holds that all religions are "equal," and that criticizing someone on the basis of their religion is wrong. However, when you start to examine some of the tenets of Islam, like "holy" war, sanctified hostility towards non-Moslems, subjugation of women, oppression of non-Moslems, suppresion of free speech, barbaric punishments, and the like, you begin to see that many Islamic values are incompatible with Western values. So while none of these points may seem immediately relevant to the issue at hand--whether or not the murders at the Seattle Jewish Center were terrorism--when seen from the larger perspective of Islamic doctrine and history, they are. And for pointing that out, I'm a racist--well, now a bigot.

So, am I still a bigot? Godfrey Daniel 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)