User talk:JALockhart/Archive02 200701–

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Battle of Hurtgen Forest

It's good to see that there's more interest taken in this battle. I came across it last year and I was amazed how little it said for such a traumatic action. So I added to it in June 2006: my main source was The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neillands, a British author. It's a relief that while plenty of minor changes have been made, the substance seems to have held up - partly ego, but mainly, as a Brit, I didn't want to be "found out". Apart from the British English spellings, of course! Regards, Folks at 137 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What’s wrong with being found out?! :) I’ll dig up details on your source and add it to the references section at the end of the article. I’m originally American myself, but it sometimes the American-centric tone of articles (this was wasn’t so bad, though) annoys me. The German articles are also quite fascinating for their difference in perspective. Thanks for your encouragement! Regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Admiring the U.S., it could be too hard for me to join you in works on “Schlacht (in this case actually “the butchering”) im Hürtgenwald”. There were not many U.S. "war affords" as senseless as this one! But please, inform me whenever you need some help with German sources or help in accurate translations of them, especially regarding those little things between the lines. Sincerely yours --Dionysos 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: von Gersdorff

Probably you have seen my name on same talk pages or in connection to some minor adds to the existing material. But instead of just criticizing others I am now willing to contribute from time to time a full article in wiki. With all the newest digging up putative dirt of the Wehrmacht going on (e. g. latest publications of the infamous Christian Gerlach of the University of Pittsburg) it has been my desire to do something against it by presenting some facts. That’s why I just had to write this article on von Gersdorff. This pal, even if outstanding, actually represents the large group of prussian officers who committed for generations their privileged life to the best of their country. Moreover, he stands for the majority of the German nobility who had rejected those proletarian Nazis from the first day on but nevertheless did their duties as soldiers. Clearly I am not a native English speaker. Thank you again for your help! Regarding your article Wilm Hosenfeld: Great work! Never came across this guy. He reminds me of my own father. My father was not drafted but joined the Reichswehr in 1934 because in the “Offizierskorps” he saw his last refuge from the Nazis (and was not dissapointed). He also helped his former jewish girlfriend to escape the holocaust. He was able to survive the war and later helped building up the Bundeswehr. Much later he even managed to marry my mother who is actually 30 years younger than him. With her he “created” me in 1970 ;-).

Mit freundlichen Grüßen (MfG! Not MvG!!) from Montréal, Canada sincerely yours --Dionysos 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear JALockhart,
I do appreciate your contributions to the article “von Gersdorff”. Nevertheless I do feel uncomfortable with some of your changes:
Re: “lastly as a colonel under Sepp Dietrich during the final phase of Germany’s 1940 invasion of France.” … The invasion of France is a specific article in Wiki which states: Decisive Axis victory. … Though the German article is said von Gersdorff had served under Sepp Dietrich this can be considered nonsense because a colonel would have not served in an SS-Army. Sepp Dietrich just took command over Fifth Panzer Army between 9 Aug 1944 - 9 Sept 1944.
Re: “A group of top Nazi and leading military figures—among them Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler, Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, and Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz—was present as well.” …. I consider neither Keitel nor Dönitz “top Nazi figures” like Göring or Himmler!!
Why did you remove the pic?
--Dionysos 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Dionysos! :) I’ve replied on the article talk page, so please have a look there. Meanwhile, it’s time for me to go to bed! MfG, Jim_Lockhart 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear JALockhart,
I’d like to draw your attention to Red Army atrocities. I have just added “background” and I am willing to do more on this in the next couple of days. Best regards --Dionysos 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I’ll have a look, though I might not be able to contribute much over the coming week because of workload. I’m also looking to do some work on the Battle of Hürtgen Forest article with some additions from the German article (about Leutnant Friedrich Lengfeld), as well as articles related to my primary interest, which is Japan. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

After reconsidering the talk page, I decided to create a new article: Red Army atrocities (WWII). --Dionysos 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Admiring the U.S., it could be hard for me to join you in works on “Schlacht (in this case factually “the butchering”) im Hürtgenwald”. There were not many U.S. war affords as useless as this one! But please, inform me whenever you need some help with German sources or help in accurate translations of them, especially regarding those little things between the lines. Sincerely yours --Dionysos 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Willingly and on purpose, I have just (as you already know) put my hands on one of the most controversial disputes, going on in Wiki: Crimes and atrocities of the Soviet Union in the Stalin area (Red Army atrocities (WWII)). I do appreciate your extraordinary and necessary help in this matter so far. May I ask you to correct my clumsy English, whenever you’ll come across it? With best Regards --Dionysos 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celle article

Please keep this article in English, do not change it to American English. I thought that in Wikipedia you had to keep the original style it was in? Also, Celle is in Germany, a European Country so it makes more sense to use English, not American English. Thanks.131.227.231.73 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page for my response. Jim_Lockhart 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai

Hello. You recently categorized Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai as Category:Late Old Japanese texts. Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai is especially associated with Old Japanese. The very little that actually survived into the beginning of Late Old Japanese soon completely vanished. This phonetic difference is one of the defining differences between the two linguistic periods. If anything, I suggest categorizing it under Category:Old Japanese texts. However, it really is not a text as much as a linguistic and textual device, so it may be not be appropriate. Bendono 13:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll fix that right away. My rationale for adding the category is to associate that particular kanazukai with the texts that would be written in it, but perhaps—as you say—that’s beyond the scope of the category. If someone disagrees and removes the category, then so be it and I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for bringing the mistake to my attention. Btw, do you know whether someone is working on the later divisions of the language—the Japanese used during the Kamakura-Sengoku periods and then the early and late Edo varieties? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see from your user page that you're preparing to write about the later divisions of classical Japanese. Hooo-raaah! Can’t wait!! Thanks again, Jim_Lockhart 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I plan on writing similar articles for the remaining periods as I did for OJ and LOJ. I will not try to keep you waiting too long, but my free time is really not what it used to be. I should be able to create at least a basic skeleton soon. Bendono 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can the Gaijin article ever be like these?

I continue to be impressed by some of the high quality articles that are being carefully researched for Wikipedia, especially in subjects that interest me the most: military history, European and Asian history, science, technology, and political biographies. Take, for example, this interesting article that I was reading over morning coffee: Theodore Roosevelt. It's the featured article today. This article does everything right: meticulously cites its sources, further background reading, primary sources, secondary sources, photographs, hyperlinks, and pretty good use of NPOV language. For all of the bad press that Wikipedia sometimes manages to attract, there are some anonymous contributing editors out there who really deserve a round of applause for all the thankless work they do. I would contribute to these subjects myself if it weren't for the fact that they're pretty darn good already.

In any case, the reason I'm writing to you is that I would be interested in working with you on re-doing the Gaijin article if we get permission from the Wikipedia administrators to "bend the rules" a little bit. As I said on the Gaijin discussion page, it's seems that we've got three further options to explore. I notice that most of the old contributing editors have thrown up their hands in disgust and walked away. Even Exitmoose seems to have moved onto other things recently. Assuming the administrators (or RomaC?) can help us out with this, I would like to start gathering some useful primary sources and brainstorm on what we can and cannot do from there. Best, J Readings 21:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ve got a bit of a full plate today (the result of fooling around with user boxes for the past three! ——See my user page for details. <g>), so I’ll have to get back to you on this later in detail; for now, suffice it to say that I see we’ve got a lot in common as far as interests go. And yes, I would like to work with you on the gaijin article. And perhaps some others, too. Later, Jim_Lockhart 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sakura

I provided links and had the pasted material in quotation marks, so you shouldn't have deleted them in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.238.122 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Goethe Eiche

Dear Jim, The sentence is important because it explains Goethe's association with the camp better than his link to Ettersberg, which (incidentally) is not sourced or explained. As for sources, are websites acceptable? Numerous are found by searching 'Goethe oak' on Google. Perhaps I could cite this. I don't understand your point about conflicting with the Nazis' rationale: it strengthens the Nazis' rationale, because it strengthens the unwanted association of Buchenwald with a lionised Goethe. ZephyrAnycon 07:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, perhaps you could cite that, though I’m not sure it would pass any litmus test of credibility, since it seems to be about a book describing a work of fiction rather than one presenting factual information about the real-world Buchenwald. That said, the statement is probably correct: Indeed, a Google search does turn up plenty of hits (I particularly like this one); but of real consequence is choosing one that will pass muster.

Btw, whether the other statement (about the Ettersberg) is sourced or not is irrelevant for whether your addition should be sourced (though it is relevant in the broader sense that everything should be sourced—that’s why that whole paragraph is tagged); further, it does appear in other Wikipedia articles about Buchenwald (specifically the German one—and I assume this article started off as a translation of that one—which does not mention Goethe’s Oak), which means lots of people will be tempted to question it.

Perhaps you’re right about the connection between the Oak and the Nazis’ rationale—it just seems to me odd that they would avoid one association (Oak=Goethe > Nazi ideology) but not the other (Ettersberg/Ettersburg=Goethe > Nazi ideology). Jim_Lockhart 07:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You simply can't doubt the fact if you do a Google search: there are actual photos of the thing. It's so well-attested you'd have to assume conspiracy to disbelieve it. I'll find a decent web source to cite. (Btw, I can't read German, and a German source would be best – perhaps you could help?) The article explicitly states the Nazis wanted to avoid the association of Goethe with Buchenwald by declining to give it an obvious & specific name, Etterburg, which recalled him; the 'oak' addition explains 'the close ties of the location to Goethe' which heretofore were vaguely defined [my italics]. ZephyrAnycon 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's ok; I've done it now. Found a journal on JSTOR. ZephyrAnycon 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks. :) Jim_Lockhart 09:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct interwiki removal by bot

Hi, Jim.

About your notice on my bot's (User:MalafayaBot) page, regarding the removal of a valid interwiki link in the article Japanese literature, I tried to run the bot manually against the article. Again, it was going to remove the link. I couldn't find a reason for the fact so I submitted a bug at SourceForge, for the maintainers of the Pywikipedia framework. Sorry for the hassle. Malafaya 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Check here [1] Malafaya 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Malafaya, thanks for your attention to this situation. This phenomenon could manifest with Interwiki links between Chinese and Japanese, and perhaps even Korean, articles when variations of the same character are used (for example, 学 and 學 in the titles of the articles on Japanese literature; or 桜 and 櫻 for cherry blossoms). Hope all works out well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaijin

Thanks for both the vote of confidence in the process and archiving the discussions. I think that most people will find the threads easier to follow now. Most (all) editors certainly don't seem to object to serious research being done on the article, which is a good thing. Frankly, based on experience, it's the only viable solution. Having tried it Exploding Boy's way the first time around, adding undocumented potentially hyperbolic claims will just attract more undocumented POV assertions from all sides like a magnet to the article. I wholeheartedly agree with Exitmoose on that point. More importantly, I don't object at all to mentioning Gottlieb's small comments from her chapter (which dealt mostly with the Burakumin discriminatory language; some foreigner concerns were a small sideshow), but (so far) giving undue weight to the "controversy" (if that's even the appropriate term for the subsection) in this article seems unwise given the dearth of publicly verifiable, third-party reliable source materials. I'll keep looking. Best regards, J Readings 09:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J R. The other editors are definitely coming around to seeing things your way. Personally, I have to thank you for teaching me—by your example—the importance of the Wiki policies and guidelines, which definitely have a purpose. I think the others, too, have the right motive, and that they will learn from your and Bendono’s example. The initial problem, I suspect, was that they were all unsure of our and each others’ motives to a certain extent, and they’ve been through a lot of bullshit on this (and probably other) subjects; so it took a while for us to all figure out where the others were coming from. It’s all been very interesting to me so far, but I’m kind of ashamed of myself for not being able to contribute more positively as you and Bendono are. Anyhow, keep at it; I’ll do what I can to cover your flanks or keep things on an even keel, whichever seems to be necessary! :) Best, Jim_Lockhart 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iōtō

Hello. Regarding one of your edits to I[w]ōjima, I think that the name has in fact changed. That seems clear in the linked news articles. And along with that name change, the pronunciation also changed. My full first name is Benjamin. I have never used it in my life, but for various reasons I am considering having it officially changed to Ben. Once that is done, my name and pronunciation will change. Sure, Ben is still a nickname for Benjamin, but it will still be an official name change that will be recognized throughout the world. Unlikely, but assume that the US changed the name of the state New Jersey to Yahaha. I would fully expect that it in Japanese the name would change from ニュージャージー州 to ヤハハ州. I would find it extremely odd if it did not. If Japan does not have the right to change the name of one of their islands, then I must ask who does? For I would like to take the issue up with them. The only reason that I will not support the move request is because of the spelling (Iwo To). I will not support moving a poorly named article to another poorly named article. Bendono 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I respect your opinion on this, though I disagree about there being no difference between a name change and a pronunciation change. I believe that Iōjima and Iōtō are both valid Japanese readings (pronunciations) of 硫黄島 because that’s part of the nature of the language. In fact, most Japanese seem to give a rat’s ass about this sort of ゆれ (variation) in readings, and they rarely get upset about them. (They begin to care when a fight brews <g>.)

Anyhow, before renaming the article itself, I think we should wait to see whether the Iōtō reading catches on in the Japanese vernacular, and how far the English-speaking world’s media follow up on it; until then, we should report the change, but not advocate either way. (I think we should also watch the American and Australian reaction to the change, since I’m willing to bet that some groups are going surface with accusations that this is just another ploy in Japanese attempts to distance themselves from WWII and their associated responsibility.)

As for the comparisons with name changes in other countries, I’m not sure that they’re all valid. For example, Peking to Beijing was not the result of a name change, it was the result of a change in romanization schemes, and the change was advocated by the Chinese government and backed by international organizations. Further, with Iwo Jima (my preference is actually Iwojima, but that’s neither here nor there) I think we have a special case because of the island’s history and position in memory, let alone cultural references.

Btw, I was a little irked at some of the comments yesterday—not those from you, but those from people who have hitherto shown no interest in this article and further, have little or no knowledge of Japanese naming conventions, yet were ready to tear every detail to pieces and challenge established convention merely because they couldn’t see how wa+u “magically transformed into” ō! I copy-edit a lot of articles in Wikipedia, but when it comes down to details like these, I always defer to those who obviously have more specialist knowledge, something that can usually be verified by checking out someone’s edit history and user pages. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Two minor details in regards to some of your comments at Talk:Iwo Jima.

  • There are in fact historical spellings that use をう. Examples include...
  1. The verb をうむ (績む), exhibited in Shinsen Jikyō and Wamyō Ruijushō
  2. をうし (雄牛)
  3. をうすのみこと (小碓尊) [=Yamato Takeru no Mikoto]
  4. This list is far from complete.
  • Historical spelling was for 硫黄島 was いわうたう, not *いわうとう. You may want to edit your comment accordingly. Bendono 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on たう for 島—I should be more careful.

On the をう combinations you note, though, I think you're talking about a different phenomenon: Although I’m not sure about をうむ, with the others, をう is not representing a single sound, is it? をうし was parsed を + うし; をうす, を＋うす, and so forth. In contrast, the わう we’re talking about was the single phenome (sp?) for 黄; but I don’t ever recall seeing an 音読み that was rendered をう or をお. (That doesn’t mean there weren’t any—I'm always ready to be enlightened!) I think the を (/wo/)sound was used only in 訓読み, and suspect to may have been distinct from any わう-derived /wo:/...

Btw, I have a couple of interesting old books laying around here that might interest you, one of them a 昭和17年 “how-to” guide on using kana “properly” called 常用國語便覽. It’s a bunko-bon sized book that I found at a 古本屋 in Nakano back in April 1982.

Another btw: I was poking around the Japanese Literature article after you’d made an edit today because I wanted to go to the Man’yōgana article, and I found that it needs some work. The English is a bit dodgy in spots (run-on sentences, etc.). Do you plan on giving it an overhaul anytime soon? If not, I might take a whack at it in the next few weeks. Regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your morphological analysis above. I was merely commenting that there are such words, even if they are compounds. By the way, をうむ is を(麻) + うむ(績む). I should also note that the etymology of 硫黄 is not clear. It appears to be a Chinese compound. However, historically there are two forms: いわう and ゆわう. The old word for sulfur was 湯の泡 (yu no awa). Various etymologies suggest that yuwau is a contraction of yu awa. No proof either way.
I do not think that I will able to get around to editing the Man'yōgana article any time soon; I have a lot of stuff that I want to get to first. Please help yourself. On the Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai page I began (but did not complete) a far more complete Man'yōgana chart. They should probably be merged, but neither are complete. One of the issues that I ran into were a few of the characters were not yet available in Unicode (I'm a member of the consortium, so I should put together a proposal.) Another is formating the table for non-uniform columns. I'm sure there's a solution to be found. Happy editing. Bendono 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I was referring to the Japanese Literature page, not the Man’yōgana one. That one (Man’yōgana) looked fairly solid, if incomplete, except that I noticed 尓 appearing for, I think, の, when it was used for に.

Also, I found three kanji whose pre-reform 音読み was rendered をう! They're 翁, 蓊, and 甕 (though I suspect other kanji with 翁 as 音符 might share this characteristic). Anyhow, good luck with your work on the consortium. Jim_Lockhart 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI. According to the Ogasawara village, it's Io to in ローマ字. http://www.vill.ogasawara.tokyo.jp/topics/information_000057.htmlOda Mari 09:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZARDの坂井泉水について

talk pageを見ました。言いたいことのだいたいは分かりますが、英語だといまいちピンとこない、母国語ではないということもありますので、もし宜しければ日本語に翻訳して頂けるとありがたく思う所存です。ついでに、talk pageの一部の英語による質問に答えておくと、ジャイアンツの終身名誉監督、長嶋茂雄が坂井さんに追悼コメントを寄せているのは、以前ZARDや他アーティストとのコラボレーションシングル「果てしない夢を」を出した際、長嶋自身もその曲で歌というよりは声という形で参加されており、（ZYYG,REV,ZARD&WANDS feat.長嶋茂雄という名義で書かれている）その時の縁でメッセージを寄せたと思われます。B'z、倉木麻衣に関しては同じ事務所であることに由来します。（レコード会社も同じビーイング系列であることも関連）坂井さんの音楽葬にも出席した大黒摩季と織田哲郎（ZARDの名曲を多く作曲した人物）もかつてのビーイング所属者です。ビーイングについて分からないことがあれば、こちらも参照して下さい。もう1つ言いたいことは、ZARDは日本では計り知れないほどの影響力がありましたから、俺も含め日本国民に坂井さんの死が大きな衝撃を与え、俺自身もZARDの事務所での献花・記帳も行い、先日の音楽葬も出席しただけありますので、追悼の意味も込めて坂井さんの英語版の記事を今以上にもっと大きくしたいと考えています。その時はご協力して下されば助かります。坂井さん個人の記事だけでなく、ZARDの英語版の記事も編集していますので宜しくお願いします。--Hatto 05:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ただいまちょっと取り込んでいますが手が空き次第きちんと返事をします。それまでは、Wikipedia は百科事典であり、百科事典たる内容は何なのかということを考えてください。
そこでTalk pageで羅列した問いかけと言うのは、百科辞典を読む人の立場に立ったものですよね。こういうふうに見ていただければ、少しずつ私の意図が見えてくると思います。要するに、いまの英文記事では、ハットさんを含めてファンや業界の人は坂井泉水さんの死をものすごく悼んでいるのが判りますが、そのそもそもの理由ーーいわば坂井さんの、歌手・作詞家としての人生の意義ーーが伝わってきません。しかし、坂井さんやZARDを知らない人にとっては、ここがミソなのです。そういう意味でSignificanceの小見出しで短文を挿入しました。坂井さんが、その音楽や優しさ、美しさで多くの人に感度を与え、また勇気付けてくれた、さらに生き方も一つ提案してくれました。ここなんです、前面に出したい分は。

なお、日本のいろんな有名人の名前を、何の説明なしに出すことは、日本の国内事情を知らない多くの読者にとって、何の意味もありません。

ハットさんの英語能力については評価する立場ではありませんが、とりあえず充分ではないかと思いますよ。こういった場に参加することによってかなり磨けると思いますので怖じずに間違いを恐れずに書けばいいと思います。容赦なく添削されるので、それを参考にしていけば腕がどんどんあがるのです。

ただし、Wikipediaは百科事典であり、主張したり、論戦を張ったり、死者を悼んだりする場ではないことを忘れないでください。

では、頑張ってください。おりをみてなるべく参考になるコメントを添えて添削します。取り急ぎ・・・ Jim_Lockhart 05:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)