Content deleted Content added
Updating archived link |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 25:
[[User:Mr Tan|tan]] 13:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
:See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village%20pump%20%28policy%29&oldid=14734882#Temp_pages Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Temp pages]. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
== link to related news article ==
Line 32:
:Calling my revert "vandalism" is ridiculous. I changed the language, because "interred" is a genteelism for "buried", "columbarium" in English means a dovecote or similar (I've never come across this usage, and I doubt that many readers will have either; if you want to use it, explain it), and given that the citizens were Singaporeans (unless he wanted to be buried with citizens of other countries) I couldn't see the point of changing the word.
:The news story to which you pointed uses journalistic English, of course, but we should use encyclopædic English. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
::I am beginning to wonder if this is a case of an over-zealous attempt by Mel Etitis in "correcting" pages, just because he has differences with a particular wikipedian, which ends up stepping on the toes of other well-meaning wikipedians. The place Mr Wee Kim Wee's remains are kept is the [[Mandai Columbarium]], and not the Mandai Cemetery, the later of which simply does not exist. We are talking about a place name here, not a discussion over "journalistic" and "encyclopedic" English. If I remember correctly in the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming conventions]], arent we supposed to name objects and such according to local spellings and usage, in particular over the British English vs American English debates?--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 15:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The text didn't use a name, but a common noun, so your main point is irrelevant here. The noun "columbarium" is (so far as I am aware) unused in British English except as an antique and obscure name for a kind of dovecote. If the proper name had been used, I shouldn't have had a problem (though I'd still have liked to have it explained). The MoS states, however, that while local English is to be used, it should be explained or disambiguated where it might cause confusion of incomprehension to readers, and I'd have said that this was a clear case in point. I have today asked colleagues and undergraduates if they know the word "columbarium" (about half from the U.S., the rest from India, Cyprus, Australia, and the U.K.); no-one had come across it before. As I said above, if it's to be used, it should be explained; that's why I've made it a link to the Wikipedia article.
Casting doubt on my motives isn't justified, nor does it help the discussion (especially as I've already discussed this with [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] and apologised for confusing his edit with one on another page). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:Just wish to point out that the two words "interred" and "columbarium" can also be found in the article of [[Arlington National Cemetery]]. Back to this article, I personally feel that "interred" is more appropriate than "his ashes placed". -- [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
::The trouble is that "inter" just means "bury" (from the Latin "in" + "terra" — in the earth). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:::And the problem is he was not buried either. We dont bury burnt ashes. We store them in urns, which are often stacked up on walls.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Which is why I've changed the text as I have. Have you read what I've written? [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] clearly has, and is discussing the issues with me in a sensible and pleasant way; I don't understand why you feel the need to be so aggressive. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:Perhaps, but your captivation with "grammar" and such with a supposed Singaporean member seems to be driving your over-enthusiastic response in many Singapore-related edits here, to the point that they sometimes crosses the line. Your behavior in the [[Nanyang]] incident was one I personally came across, and now, you actually dismisses my point for no better reason.
Line 57:
::Secondly, your comments about common and proper nouns again suggest that you didn't really read the article, or my changes to it. the text originally read: "A humble man even in his death, he had asked to be cremated and interred at the Mandai columbarium together with other ordinary citizens, instead of the [[Kranji War Cemetery]], where people of his stature are usually buried." Note that "columbarium" had no capital, thus there was no indication that it was a proper noun; I therefore changed it because the word "columbarium isn't used in British English (nor, as I explained above, was it familiar to a wide range of people of various nationalities; the usage in this article isn't listed in either of the two dictionaries I have to hand). Your insistence on pushing this issue after the text has been changed, together with your aggrassive sarcasm, suggest that you're not really interested in the article, but in attacking me. Again, why?
::Perhaps it's because, thirdly, you're turning this into a rather unpleasantly nationalist issue, in a way alien to and unacceptable in Wikipedia. I suggest you calm down and stop before it gets out of hand. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:::Firstly, I call it a "captivation", because based on the edits in this particular page, the edits you tried to revert are mundane, if not even questionable, as we see above. How more grammatically correct is a change between "Singaporeans" and "Citizens"? It looks like nit-picking over a small edit in that particular instance, and I do wonder how much benefit this site gets from it.
Line 66:
:::Anyhow, I am off for the day. Enjoy your edits.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 22:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't understand most of this, I'm afraid; you say that you write all the text, but deny that not capitalising "columbarium" was your reponsibility? You claim that my edits were minor, yet you've spent paragraphs attacking them? I'll withdraw form this debate, because it's not going anywhere. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:::Calm down, calm down, the both of you. A matter of grammar this is not. Choice of words perhaps, but not grammar. First of all, may I kindly request you two to calm down a bit. Fighting is going to get us nowhere. Huaiwei, please do not get too excited about this. I know you've had some problems with Mel in the past, but put them aside for the moment, please? And Mel, please try to act less aggressive, since Huaiwei is a bit annoyed with you.
Line 104:
Do you have a particular objection to the phrase "his ashes placed"?
With regard to "columbarium", I'm afraid that funeral companies and similar organisations have a tendency to use euphemisms and genteelisms not in common or current use, and not suited to an encyclopædia (See [[Evelyn Waugh]]'s novel ''[[The Loved One ]]'' to see how this isn't a new phenomenon). I can only repeat my findings among a wide variety of respondents. Still, that one's back in the article, so there's no need to argue about it. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
: However, I feel that the word also carries with it a sense of ceremonial/memorial service, for someone to honour, etc. Therefore its aptness in articles like "Arlington" and "Pope" and more appropriate than the simple "buried" (which can be used for nonliving things, e.g. "buried a treasure", etc). I'm not a writer and definitely don't write dictionary entries. [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 23:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Line 132:
:I think that that advice is good for differences in vocabulary; it may be that most Singaporeans wouldn't associate "inter" with burial, while most British people (and, I think, Americans) would — so it's a good idea to find a term that's equally suitable for both.
:With regard to the "funeral rites aspect, I'd have thought that the context provided all that was needed, but something could be added to emphasise that, if you feel that it's necessary. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
::I’m afraid my main question is not addressed: what is the gold standard? How to decide what is suitable for an encyclopedia? Your premise is that the word "interred" is not common use (based on style or otherwise) without suggesting any way to verify or falsify. For example, a test can be "have the British government used it in this context?" or "have the UN used it this way in an official statement?" Are these acceptable as evidence of common use? These are not "journalistic" English if that’s your objection. To my knowledge, that’s how dictionaries are updated, don’t you agree? Most slang or dialect phases will not qualify. I don't think I have misunderstood your reason at all. But, without setting a standard, you are presenting me a shifting goalpost, while rejecting the examples provided: you may suggest "no diplomatic English" later, etc.
Line 146:
Secondly, yo've replaced the word "interred" despite everything that I've said, and without offering any reponse except the irrelevant claim that other articles use it. First, do other articles use it with regard to placing an urn of ashes in a niche in a wall? Secondly, do other articles use it correctly?
Thirdly, you're still insisting that the issue is over whether the term is used; I've repeated that it isn't. You can find thousands of Google hits for the use of the word "wicked" to mean very good, for "guy" to mean man, for "portal" to mean doorway, etc. In certain contexts these uses might be acceptable, but they're not suitable for an encyclopædia article. The technical term is "[[register (lingusistics)|register]]": different kinds of language are used in different contexts (slang, texhnical language, more and less formal langauge, etc., and a mistake in register can be as misleading as (often much more misleading than) a mistake in grammar or spelling. "Inter" and "bury" are different in register. Not only that, though, my points about the etymology and meaning of both "bury" and "inter" still stand; they're not appropriate for the placing of ashes. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
Line 173:
Fourthly, my attempt to use examples to illustrate my meaning can not fairly be seen as an attempt to distract attention, or whatever. Wikiquette demands that editors assume good faith; you and Huaiwei seem determined not to do so.
Finally, your accusation of racism is groundless and unpleasant, and not worth responding to. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:I see that my name has been mentioned. Despite my attempts to be as fair and objective as possible in assessing this situation, it does appear to me that Mel Etitis's behavior is getting close to breaching proper conduct of an admin (if it has not already been breached), and may I add, also breaching overall rules for all wikipedians. I found the evidence presented by Vision above reasonably persuasive and extensive. In contrast, I dont see much evidence provided by Mel Etitis despite repeated requests to do likewise.
Line 200:
I don't base my understanding and defence of English on Googled references; the Internet is notorious for being the home of every mistake in English that's possible (and I believe that the same is true for other languages). However, I note that "interred in columbarium" gets exactly three hits: [http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/fl/pinellas/cemetery/holy.txt] refers to bodies not ashes, [http://www.dmva.state.co.us/viewpage.php?UGFnZUlEPTIx] is unclear (but manages to combine three of the worst sources for correct English: the U.S. government, the U.S. military, and the U.S. funeral business), and [http://home.flash.net/~cdz/aldine/vaother.htm] is the only clear reference to cremations in this context (but the same ap[plies to it as the the second).
In any case, I still don't see what you think is wrong with the alternative wording that I supplied. Even if "interred in a columbarium" was clearly understandable by most people (and I've asked a couple more of my colleagues (an Italian Fellow, and an Australian Research Fellow in Chinese studies), and neither had heard of columbaria; that makes something like thirty of forty people that I've asked, from many countries, and none had heard of the word in this usage), the alternative is understanable by anybody, and is at least no worse. Is it so unacceptable to you that it's worth all this? [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
: Why does the google link [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-35%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=interred+in+columbarium&btnG=Search | google ] returns 5,000+ pages to me, and only returned 3 to your computer? This is a hugh difference. Maybe we are dealing with a technical problem all the while. May I asked anyone else reading this discussion (especially neutral party) to verify? Just click on this [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-35%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=interred+in+columbarium&btnG=Search | google ] link and write in the list below how many returns you get. Our purpose here is to examine whether the word "interred" has been used in the context of "cremation/columbarium", and in which ___domain the usage has extend to. Thanks alot, hopefully, it may help us to resolve the issue. : ) [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 21:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Line 221:
::[[User:Vsion|Vsion]], I followed your link, and di indeed get thosands of hits; at first I wondered why, but then I noticed that you didn't use inverted commas (that is, instead of '''"interred in columbarium"''' you searched for '''interred''' + '''in''' + '''columbarium'''); you thus get any article that includes either "interred" or "columbarium" ("in" is ignored). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
Oops, I was wrong; Vsion's version gives all those articles containing ''both'' "interred" ''and'' "columbarium" (still ignoring "in"). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
::: (after edit conflict) I think the last few comments in the discussion (including Mel Etitis's) have been amicable and controlled. (There were some misunderstandings, but we were able to clear them up promptly) I thought that my numerical listing will make it more manageable and easier to refer to. We are dealing with a technical issue here (whether "interred" is "common use"); I have many questions and I have asked them many times, but I got no reply. In addition, why is my data (examples of word usage) less appropriate compared to anecdotal evidence? Many linguistic books / papers are using the same method for analyzing trends. Please enlighten. : ) [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 22:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
The answer depends upon what's meant by "common use". If you mean, is it used by ordinary people? then I'd say no — I don't think I've ever heard it used in everyday conversation. As so often in English, Latin-derived words are used in specific contexts, German-derived words are more everyday. In this case, "interred" is used commonly by journalists, funeral directors, etc.; thus, "inter" is rather like "slay". Newspaper headlines frequently say things like "Thirty nuns slain by mad axeman", but you'll not hear people use the term in conversation; they'll say "did you see that a mad axeman killed thirty nuns?" Generally speaking, factual, formal writing prefers the everyday vocabulary, leaving the fancy stuff for journalism and the pulpier end of the non-fiction market. It's not simply how many times a term is used, therefore, but in which contexts it's used. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:In response to JMBell's first paragraph: Wee Kim Wee chose to be cremated, instead of being buried at the war cemetary without being cremated. So "intered at the columbarium" is not suggesting he is "buried" in the columbarium at all. We dont bury cremated ashes in a columbarium here. We store them in elevated "units" (or niches) almost like book shelves in a library. In [[The Straits Times]], dated May 10 2005, page H5, it was indicated in a report that his ashes are stored at Block E1-01, 0322, Mandai Crematorum and Columbarium.
Line 245:
:"stalemate" Yes, "we've decided... ..." No. No, I do not agree that "interred" (the original version) be removed just because of personal style. I have contributed material to this article, if another person is just copy-editing, he should not insist on changing a word just because of personal style. Why I called this personal style? Because I am more convinced now that "interred" is acceptable in encyclopedia, because I have found it's use in Britannica encycleopedia (in the same context). But I don't think this evidence will have any effect, because Mel have already made up his mind. Mel refused to accept that the usage of "interred" has evolved and is now in "common use in this context and in this genre" despite all the evidence I've shown. And wikipedia does not have good mechanism to resolve this kind of dispute if one side is wrong but adament. Anyway, thanks JMBell. -- [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 17:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
::I've explained what I take to be wrong with "interred" in terms of its meaning and its register; Vsion has pointed to a number of places where "interred" is used, but mostly not with regard to ashes, and mostly in contexts where the register is very different. The vague reference to the Britannica doesn't help. I'm still not clear, on the other hand, what's wrong with "ashes placed". [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
::: As I've mentioned many time, once you fixed the "goalpost", then I will show you the specific Britannica reference (in the cremation context). This is a very small goalpost already; So, are you willing to accept this test to resolve our dispute objectively ..... Yes or No ? [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 18:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that you've missed my main point: I think that there's a problem with using "interred" here, and I've offered another term. If you have reasons for thinking there's a problem with using my version, then we have a genuine impasse, and we need to find a solution. ''Do'' you think that there's a problem with using my version, and if so, what? My goalposts have remained the same from the beginning; I'm waiting for someone to set up goalposts at the other end of the pitch. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:We're trying to look for "ashes being interred," not just "ashes" and "interred." There's a difference. Show us the Brittanica reference so that we can be able to decide whether or not we should use interred! I see no problem in using "his ashes were placed" in so-and-so, and saying "his remains were interred" is being too vague. If you think we should use "inter," give me ample evidence so that at least I can be convinced and support you! How can I support you when I have no reason to? Give me a reason. Show us the evidence, for goodness' sake, what are you waiting for? There is absolutely no reason to stand around here waiting for an answer that you know will and can not come for reasons I already stated! This, '''this''', is the stalemate I was referring to! You, Vsion, '''you''' hold the keys to the solution, for heavens' sake. Only ''you'' can solve this problem, that is, if you want to. So once and for all, ''show us the evidence so that WE can see if YOU are right and if WE are wrong and not the other way 'round''. You have to see this - this is '''not''' going to get fixed until you show us at least '''one ''reliable'' reference''' which shows that "inter" '''can''' be used with "ashes" and/or "cremation." This is not going to stop until you do something, so I suggest you do it now, for your sake and for my sake and for the whole (''censored'') encyclopedia's sake, DO IT<sup>1</sup>!!! [[User:JMBell|JM]][[User_talk:JMBell|Bell]][[Special:Contributions/JMBell|°]] 21:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Line 263:
Thirdly, the use in [[Humphrey Bogart]] is clearly different from here, in that the ashes were ''buried'' (that word is actually used in a bit of elegant variation in the same sentence). My position has been clear: there is some leeway with the use of "inter", so that it can be used for the burial of non-bodies, or (less clearly) for the non-burial of bodies — but not for the non-burial of non-bodies.
Fourthly, Vsion is evading my question. I've given an exhaustive (indeed, disproportionate) account of my reasons for rejecting the use of "inter" here; are there similar reasons for rejecting my alternative? If not, then what's the problem? [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
:Did I ever say this whole thing was a '''joke'''? That was a self-reference! Second, I '''have''' read through the whole discussion ever since the moment I took part in it so it is quite wrong to say that I am basing my opinions on short parts of the discussion! Thirdly, you two are turning this technical matter into a '''personal''' matter, to the point where neither of you will want to work with the other because, you say, "he is so stubborn." Fourth, I have '''not''' misinterpreted Mel's objections that "inter" cannot be used because it is not commonly used, and I support that. If you believe otherwise, show me '''ample reliable evidence''' that "inter" '''can''' be used with "ashes" and in a "columbarium!" You still hold the keys, Vsion. If you show a Britannica reference, I'm sure Mel will have to agree with you. But as of now, you have not done anything, just given a couple of references which are unreliable, to say the least. By reliable, I mean something written by professionals and not by people in the US Government, the US Army, the New York Times, or the funeral business/service! We need to see "ashes being interred" by serious, professional writers! I would ask a dozen English teachers about its use if only I knew a dozen English teachers. Fifth, in [[Humphrey Bogart]], (yeah, Mel's correct) "inter" meant "buried," like "buried in a cemetery?" We need to see "buried in a columbarium" or "ashes being interred" written by respected writers to be able to (see above). Sixth, don't evade questions. I don't what kind of personal problem you have with Mel, but it's certainly not my job to fix that up. You help yourself now. [[User:JMBell|JM]][[User_talk:JMBell|Bell]][[Special:Contributions/JMBell|°]] 10:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Line 271:
... enjoy moving the goalpost :D -- [[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
*[[User:Vsion|Vsion]], you need to make up your mind who you're discussing this issue with. If it's with me, then don't use someone else's comments as a way of avoiding mine, and do me the courtesy of answering my questions. If you've decided to ignore me (and your supposed example certainly ignores what I've said, as does your failure to address my points), then say so and have done with it. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<
For heavens' sake, Vsion! '''I''' am NOT moving the GOALPOST! Does it matter if I say "one piece of evidence" or "ample evidence?" Why do you magnify such a small thing? YOU are making me shift the goalpost. Now, once and for all, will you '''please''' show us the Britannica reference so that we can MAKE UP OUR MINDS and GET OVER WITH THIS??? Do I have to SHOUT every time just to make myself HEARD? We want reliable, encyclopedic proof that "ashes" can be "interred," not a storybook rendition or a journalist's jottings or an obituary, we need something more reliable! Now please get this over and done with. Oh God, these people... [[User:JMBell|JM]][[User_talk:JMBell|Bell]][[Special:Contributions/JMBell|°]] 23:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
| |||