User talk:Bendono/June 2007

A query

Dear Bendono, A clarifying link to Kizama Kiyozo on the Ono Susumu page, with a stub on that linguist (I would be interested eventually in creating a category of profiles on Japanese scholars of classical Western languages) has been deleted by an administrator apparently interested in birding and rock groups, Jimfbleak. Is it normal practice for administrators unfamiliar with a terrain or discipline to interrupt work in progress so mercilessly, without even signposting for the author that the article they wish to delete is unsatisfactory, or without consulted with informed colleagues in the area concerned?

Regards (Nishidani 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Hello. Unfortunately really short articles with little information and references are often deleted quickly. Ideally it would be best if a little bit of time was given to allow that to be improved. Kazama Kiyozō is an important linguist, and I would like to see an article on him. As a start, you could begin with the Japanese content: ja:風間喜代三. I suggest that you take the issue up here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards. Bendono 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Actually, I have one of his books awaiting me in the library and will do more when I get to read it. I know quite a bit from memory, but can't clearly write from personal recollection.

I'd like to restore my stub, adding the little the Kazama Jap.stub has, but I have the distinct impression Jimfbleak looks bleakly on my stubs as bumf. For, unfortunately, after I took up the issue with the administrator who deleted that small stub, I suddenly found he'd taken umbrage within minutes, and started hunting or stalking through the entries I'd written on Japanese scholarship, branding 'unreferenced' 'could be deleted unless' (Ueyama Shunpei, Takeda Taijun (which is a translation of the Japanese text in Wiki (unbannered), slightly touched up); Murayama Shichiro etc.)on every single stub that could warrant the banner. (I note that no adminsirator has wasted time bannering the Japanese stub on Kazama, which has no footnoted references). I've done twenty in the last several days, some reasonably detailed, but I must admit that this behaviour does not strike me as 'neutral' but rather a petty abuse of authority. I'm rather disappointed that an administrator/editor, when questioned on one issue, especially in an area he knows nothing of, can be allowed to run amuck, running down everywhere I have posted and putting up 'banners'. That smacks of personal vendetta, and I confess I feel like withdrawing from what has been an interesting new hobby. I dislike working, freely and happily as I have until now, under conditions of an abused right of surveillance. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Sorry for this note. But I have been impressed and instructed by your many contributions, and have appreciated your own mode of quiet but firm suggestions, not bannering but by direct intervention in the problem at a textual level, or by dropping notes on a user's discussion page. Forgive me the impropriety of discussing another administrator/editor on your page, but I don't know how to protest to Wiki at what looks like a personalized campaign against my honest efforts to pitch in. Please feel disobliged from replying, which would only embarrass me, and perhaps the person referred to.Best regardsNishidani 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)).

Gaijin

Hello Bendono: First, please let me apologize for any misunderstandings that might have resulted from the quick back-and-forth on the Gaijin talk page. It was never my intention to be rude (to anyone really). I try to word carefully my replies, but I sometimes can't convey the appropriate tone (especially when I'm pressed for time and rushing between work breaks). Second, I also wanted to very much thank you for your contribution to date and I certainly hope that you will continue to offer your input to the article. It's always welcome.

With that in mind, I do have a few substance-related questions for you. Regarding the Gaijin-Gaikokujin graph, what is your reading of the WP guidelines on WP:OR on this issue? You mentioned that it was taken (mostly?) from one tertiary source (a dictionary). Is that correct? Would it still be allowed? (I'm just asking at this point). Also, are you aware of any secondary sources that discuss in English or Japanese (even if it's just a footnote) when this merging of the two words took place? Best regards, J Readings 16:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the easiest and clearest reference is the cited dictionary (the second edition of Nihon Kokugo Daijiten, volume 3). "Mostly" means that I also have the original sources for most of the literary quotes that are quoted in the dictionary, too. We can quote one or them all individually. There is no WP:OR with the graph. It is just a visual depiction of the historical facts as documented in the references. We need not use it as long the same information is conveyed in a clear fashion. And no, besides dictionaries and literature, I am not aware of any specific discussion regarding the semantic merger. It can all be inferred from the historical record. The only aspect that interests me is the historical usage of the term. Let me handle that and I'll leave the rest to you and others. Bendono 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As long as the other source materials surrounding the Heike Monogatari quote are included in some form, I have no objection. Best, J Readings 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, even if that graph does test the bounds of original research, I think it would be worthwhile to include it into the article with a footnote (embedded in the graphic) to the effect of: "Source: User Bendono, with data from [list of dictionaries]" or something like that. Although I agree in general principle with the NOR policy, I think it sometimes imposes restrictions that make it hard to give a complete picture of something. Gaijin, including the controversy of its use, is one such example. I’m wondering if there isn’t some way to include information that, while indispensable, would probably count as “original research” because there is little or nothing to source it to other than “common knowledge” among the affected people—for example, via footnotes that inform the reader of that status. Any ideas? Jim_Lockhart 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While I do have access to many historical linguistic resources, I assert that none of the contents in that graph are my original idea. It is merely a visual depiction of the same information for clarity. And perhaps not a very good one at that. Artist design is not one of my strengths, and I would welcome someone to improve upon it. Nor will I be offended if it is not ultimately used. I fully intend to quote all relevant resources as should be done in any case.

I do not have any useful "ideas" for the dilemma. In the case of controversial topics, I think that references are all that much more important. While not every sentence needs to be referenced, if there is any opposition, anyone is free to flag sections as biased, needing a source, etc. If none are found, they may fairly be deleted. The only thing to prevent that is to provide appropriate references. Common sense really should not have any opposition. If that still fails, bring it up specifically on the talk page for discussion.

I have neglected to comment on my own person feelings and experiences with the word "gaijin" for two main reasons: 1) My opinions and experiences are not encyclopedic and 2) Wikipedia is not a chat forum. However, if anyone would like to pursue that conversation, though, feel free to e-mail me. Bendono 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the WP guidelines and rules, I agree with Bendono. Ultimately, it's the only way to research and write a professional encyclopedia article. Reviewing all of the reference materials in libraries is also a fair and reasonable way to assess undue weight. See WP:UNDUE or WP:WEIGHT. As I mentioned before, the only source (so far) for the alleged "controversy" is ultimately Arudou Debito, and a questionable source at that. More reliable sources do make mention of the word's connotation, history and usage in their professional writings, but not to the extent that the article should be anywhere between 50% to 90% solely about that particular issue. It merits,at best, a small referenced mention. The usage section, including carefully referenced media guidelines in historical perspective will probably merit more space, but we can discuss those change on the talk page as we come back with more research. J Readings 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with the two of you, and concede the point about citing reliable sources as the best way to go forward. Thanks for setting me straight. Bendono, for the graphic: I might be able to put something together that won't look too bad. Just give the word. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Metathesis: Japanese ≥≠ English

Further to that question you asked about "-tennō" ...: I'd like to expand the context a little by incorporating one other word "bakufu" within the context of our discussion. In the internal logic-structure of the English language, the presumed purpose of definition is to achieve clarity and precision; therefore, the Weltanschauung which arises from unstated axioms will tend to produce: (1) "-tennō" = Emperor, and (2) "bakufu" = Shogonate.

My reasons for wanting to incorporate these two Japanese terms in my writing are manifold, but they all revolve around conjuring an opportunity and a possibility for users of the English Wikipedia to move beyond a perceived language barrier in a process of better understanding the non-English language context of Japanese history. I do understand that this cross-cultural objective is too lofty for a Wikipedia venue; but in the sparing use of Japanese terms which are inherently and deliberately ambiguous in a way not contemplated by the OED, the small seed is planted. In my view, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide answers to questions, of course; but there also needs to be some room for growth -- for that difficult-to-parse alchemy in which the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

It took a while for me to remember where I'd gotten this idea of non-English metathesis in language. There were probably a great many opportunities which simply flew over my head -- I just wasn't ready, I guess; but for me, this concept comes from a trivial footnote in Ponsonby-Fane's Kyoto: The Old Capital of Japan (at p. 57 in the 1956 edition: "The group of buildings composing the Kōkyo ('Imperial residence')" ... [which is] ... "[f]requently called the Dairi ('inner interior'), a term applied even to the Emperor himself by a metathesis common in Japanese. I have adopted the term Kōkyo throughout this description to avoid confusion with the Daidairi, or entire palace enclosure.") It also took a few drafts for me figure out how to shorten my explanation. If this one is too distilled, I'm sure you'll agree that it's preferable to rambling on and on.

Another aspect of this topic still troubles me a bit: I can't clarify my thinking enough to be able to distinguish what I'm trying to say about "-tennō" and "bakufu" from a conceptually different phenomenon: In the first paragraph of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran, my initial draft identified the daimyo who subsidized Hayashi Gahō's work. In that draft, I followed the protocols in Titsingh's translation of the dedication; and thus, the patron was identified as the "Prince of Wakasa." LordAmeth's edits of the paragraph substituted "daimyo" for "prince."

LordAmeth's word-choice preference, I suspect, is best explained by a quite different decision-tree.

It's been a long time since I attempted to construct a linguistic argument, and I'm not convinced that what I've done here is persuasive; but I didn't want to put this off any longer.

I guess I'm proposing this syllogistic argument about a sort of differentially permeable membrane which separates the English language and the Japanese language --

PREMISE I: (A-1) "-tennō" = Emperor, and (A-2) "bakufu" = Shogonate.

PREMISE II: (B-1) Emperor ≠ "-tennō", and (B-2) Shogunate ≠ "bakufu".

THEREFORE: Japanese ≥≠ English

Ooperhoofd 16:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s very clear information about metathesis in linguistics suggests very little to help clarify what I was intending to explain – and, if anything, this causes me to worry. Despite my intention to be precise, I may have muddied the waters with a strained reading of an otherwise well-understood term. My OED didn’t help me very much -- neither convincing me that I’m on the wrong track, nor suggesting a better strategy for moving a little bit closer to addressing the problems I'm trying to parse. Perhaps an entirely different approach is needed.

In the early contact with the West, an interesting misconception arose -– that a kind of Japanese pope lived in Kyoto. Obviously, the available information about a unfamiliar island-people must have been plugged into a some kind of array of preconceived pigeon-holes based on known European conventions. The flawed data-analysis strategy produced flawed results. There is no reason not to anticipate a similarly plausible, satisfying, but ultimately deceptive pattern of cognitive dissonance will affect a noteworthy cohort of Wikipedia users. In fact, I’d guess that this unremarkable mistake is likely to affect the way a broad range of Wikipedia users assimilate unfamiliar information. If this hypothesis holds even trivial merit, perhaps my current focus on Wikipedia "stubs" is not misplaced.

You’ve asked why I’m interested in adding “-tenno” when writing about the emperors of Japan. My answer to your question is still a work in progress. I would have thought the more interesting question would have to do with why I’m so eager to attend to mere sentences (or sentence fragments) rather than paragraphs? For the most part, the inherent limitations in Nihon Ōdai Ichiran and the current state of Wikipedia will mean that I currently plan to be editing subject-matter which is mostly at a pre-"start" level of sophistication. I do this knowing that within a decade at most, the work of other editors will probably over-write much of what I will have added. In this vague context, I guess I'm continuing to suggest a kind of wait-and-see curiosity about how this unfolds.

One thing now seems clear, though: I probably need to anticipate that, from time to time, I'll be distracted from my main interests as others invite me to defend what I would have thought were quite modest contributions to Wikipedia. One other thing seems clear: this enterprise is more worthwhile than I'd originally imagined. Ooperhoofd 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ben殿. Again! It was stupid of me. You can laugh at me. Thanks for the spelling correction of Kanabō. --Oda Mari 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not be お黙り, but hi :) There's nothing to laugh to about. I am just fussy about romanization issues. Thanks for your continued contributions. 弁殿 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, 辨殿. (How's the 旧字?) I won't shut up either. Thank you for the additional writing about the name on Iwo jima page. But civilians are not allowed to live there. Ex-islanders visits the island for 墓参り or something only when the government permits. It would be nice if you'd rewrite the word 'residents'. And as the user CES wrote on the notice board, the jima reading was first used by the Japanese Navy.Oda Mari 05:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also 辯 and 瓣. All three merged into 弁. I experimented with using 辯 and a few other characters about 15 years ago, but now I only use 弁 for life in Japan. I suppose the original reason was that I liked dialects (東京「弁」, 大阪「弁」, etc.); there is also the expression 弁が立つ, and other various linguistics nuances. I have kanji for my last name too, but that's not really appropriate for here.

As for I[w]ōjima / I[w]ōtō, please feel free to edit the page. I am not sure which notice board your are talking about or who CES is (I think I've seem the name before, though). I was watching the news last night and decided to add the event to Wikipedia. Bendono 05:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you read the Japan-related topics notice board talk page where I posted the news before you edited the article Iwo jima. Btw, when I saw 弁, it reminded me 弁が立つ. Well, I'm gonna edit the Iwo jima page. 怖いけどね。Because I don't trust my English writing.Oda Mari 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to edit but couldn't save. Because of some security reason. なんだかわからないけど、my security application warned me to save.Oda Mari 06:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

History

I found the pre-war history of Iwo Jima wrong. Did you know that there was a long history section on the page? Please look at the edit history;21:28 April 30,2006. It looks better. And please take a look at my message on history section on the talk page. I wrote a little bit of the island history and put a link to Ogasawara village Homepage. Could you do something about it ? Oda Mari 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the misinformation from pre-war history section of the island. I don't know why but I could save my edit this time.Oda Mari 04:54, 22 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.html Oda Mari 09:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Iōjima, Kagoshima: T'anx!

Ya beat me to it! <g> Looks pretty good, too—though I might make a few changes. Btw, according to ja:大隅諸島, the three islands of Mishimamura are not part of the Ōsumi island group—which conflicts with what it says in ja:硫黄島 (鹿児島県)! Go figgur. (Actually, I think it’s because fact checking and sourcing are not as rigorous on the Japanese Wikipedia as they are on the English one...). Have fun, Jim_Lockhart 16:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it just before I left from work. I would have gotten it up earlier but I had dinner with a friend in Shinjuku. Honestly, I really could not wait to get home to write that article :D It's quick and bare bones. I may stop by the library this weekend or next for some better resources. Help yourself at it. Bendono 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

お疲れ様

Sorry to see you take such a beating at the fingertips of so many poorly informed arm-chair critics. Although I disagree with your conclusion (as stated), I do not think your points are argued badly, illogical, or in bad faith, as some of the other contributors seem to think. At least you know what you’re talking about, whereas some of your critics have not even bothered to read through the discussions to date, let alone inform themselves about the intricacies of Japanese romanization! Anyhow, stick to your guns—or, at least, don’t let it all get you down. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)