User talk:Himatsu Bushi

article is needed, I think

You don't think there's a difference between "George Bush is president of the United States" and "George Bush is a president of the United States"? The article is definitely needed, if there are more than one professor emeritus (emerti? emerituses? hmmm ...) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The two examples you give are clearly different, however there is no need for the article specifically in the case of "professor" (c.f. [1],[2] ). I'm not sure why - it is a peculiarity of English. I think most people who recognize the validity of the form would agree it sounds "better" without. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the normally accepted plural of emeritus is emeriti (and don't forget emerita (sg)/emeritae (pl) for women), but as with almost all Latinate plurals in English, these are probably going the way of the dinosaur in favor the native plural. Emeriti will probably survive longer, however, because (a) it is the sort of word that only educated people have reason to use in the first place, and these are more likely to use Latinate plurals correctly, and (b) "emerituses" is a tongue twister. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Other examples of the same sort of thing in standard, idiomatic English.

• John Doe, retired President of the Flat Earth Society ...
• Reserve goalkeeper, Tuleft Fete, commented ...
• Amy Lou Jones, mother of three, bemoaned ...
• Irma Brain, professor emeritus of cognitive science ...
• Officially retired (but still "professing") senior academic, Brain also commented that ...

The use of the indefinite article is fine in many contexts, though redundant in some, certainly not mandatory in all.

I'm with Himatsu on this one. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sige-Yuki Kuroda

Arigato gozaimas for this article. I hope, in time, we can expand it further. All the very best to you in your work at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

William Gleason

Hi Himatsu! thanks for your help (and patience) in orienting me to WP. do you recommend that an article is created for shobu aikido - it's a collection of his students' schools within asu. if so, how can it be linked to the william gleason article? not sure how the automattic redirects work. in addition, there's a seminar that is unique that gleason is doing - "shobu okugyo". it integrates aikido, meditation, discussion of kotodama, kotodama chanting and macrobiotic eating. is that worthy of an article too? Bazarnick (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've already redirected Shobu Aikido to the Gleason article. I think this is appropriate at this point. One of the key factors in determining what should go in WP is notability. I believe Gleason is a notable figure in the aikido world, but I don't believe his org is, particularly if it is merely a subgrouping w/in ASU, and I don't believe most of his other activities (such as you mention) are notable enough to warrant inclusion (as articles in their own right - as a sentence or two in his article, sure). But this is just my personal feeling. The idea of what is notable is, clearly, somewhat subjective, although I think the WP powers-that-be have done a decent job of nailing it down. If you have other concerns, feel free to consult me here on my talk page. Although I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert on WP, I may be able to help point you to the resources you need. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

makes sense to me - the subgroups of ASU are maybe not all that important... how can a piture of him be posted? i can't seem to be able to create a gallery. there are a bunch on www.shobu.org that are able to be uploaded that would fit the bill. will put in a sentence about the shobu okugyo as this is the only such integrative seminar in the usa aikido world.Bazarnick (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

About aikidōka

I'm not overly bothered either way, it was simply a case of reading the summary & thinking that the was a better solution. The linguistic origins and legitimacy of the term are not things I know a great deal about, I've heard practitioners use them but not being one myself and not speaking Japanese means I'm not qualified to comment further without a lot of back ground reading. If it is a 'pet peeve' then it should probably be brought up for discussion on the talk page to get more input.--Nate1481 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Revised: Questions re editing Morris Swadesh

Thank you for your help.  Would you please clarify further?

I'm finally finding some time to respond to your questions. I'm converting your questions and remarks so they stand out better against my responses.. First of all, on a side note, I noticed that you put a lot of <br/> tags inside your text. While this doesn't hurt anything and you can continue doing it if it makes you happy, it's generally considered superfluous to use HTML tags to directly fine-tune the appearance of the text. WP is really about content, and the typographic appearance of the text is of little or no importance to most of us. That said, if you need to add vertical blank space, try just putting in a blank line, to create a paragraph break. The typographically relevant mark-up commands on WP are fairly few, and mostly simple.

Do I sign the edit summary on the article page but sign the comments directly on the talk page? That may have led to my confusion.

You need to see that articles are treated somewhat differently in WP than Talk pages (and other sorts of administrative pages). Every time you make a change to any page on WP, your change is "signed" in the page history automatically and outside of your control, so in some sense you don't need to "worry" about that. Articles are different because they are single, "evolving" texts that numerous people make various sorts of big or small changes to, all the time. If you make a change (or set of changes) to an article, you can't sign it within the text of the article itself, for obvious reasons, so the history alone suffices for articles.

However, Talk pages and admin pages are different: here there are a sequential series of comments left by people (like this one), which are self-contained "blobs" of text that typically do not ever change. It certainly would be considered obnoxious for someone to edit someone else's comment made on a Talk/admin page, and it's rarely necessary even to modify your own comments. While it is true that we can find out who wrote what by looking at the history, that's a pain. Because comments are added sequentially and are essentially "static", we ask people to sign their comments with the 4 tildes, to make such pages easier to read, and to follow the discussion, such as it may be.

I'm trying to make this sound sensible, and it all seems very obvious to me, but .... is this helping? Bottom line: when you leave a comment on a Talk/admin page, sign it immediately following your comment, within the page text, with 4 tildes. Don't put 4 tildes in an edit summary, anywhere, because they are not interepreted there (they don't hurt anything either, but the edit summary is really meant for you to explain briefly about the change you made).

I wasn't able to figure out how to list the Spanish WP entry on Swadesh in the English version--I tried various times.  The list of references in
the version in Spanish is far more complete than the one in English. Where specifically can I find information on doing this?

You can link the Spanish WP directly like this (edit this section to see the source code): Here's the Spanish language entry on your father.

In the English version in the section Work in Historical Linguistics, it says, "Swadesh is best known for his bold but arguably flawed work in 
historical linguistics"--a negative, unsubstantiated statement.  Isn't there a WP rule against unsubstantiated statements, especially from 
professionals? (Also, what followed would be hard for a lay person to follow).
One thing is the work my father did in systematically analyzing 
Amerindian language connections; it took the overwhelming majority of his time for many years.  Another is theory of language change, something 
that needs many good minds. It would be surprising if my father, doing relatively early work in the field, didn't make any mistakes.
And having lived through the consequences of him being blackballed, I was amazed to encounter, 40 years later, a repetition of the negativity
(although, counterintuitively, probably the fact of him not having a regular job allowed him to do the work he was best at).
  And I believe 
(although this is more a personal intuition)that because my father wouldn't be intimidated, some of his problems were that he irritated people in 
positions of higher authority. 

As for the negative comments about your father: you're right that the phrase "arguably flawed" is what we call POV, and such verbiage is normally not sanctioned on WP, at least without proper documentation. However the aforelinked page does say that (when necessary) "The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." Based on my own experience, I would imagine many linguists, even those experienced in WP editing, would pass over "arguably flawed" without blinking, treating it as a "fact" accepted by nearly everybody (esp. when "arguably" is used to soften the blow).

Specifically, I believe the assertion refers to glottochronology and lexicostatistics. I myself have been taught in grad school that these techniques, while interesting and provocative, have been essentially discredited by the field of historical linguistics as serious tools for the study of language change (mainly because they are crucially based on assumptions that turned out to be unfounded). I don't know of anyone in the field who still uses these techniques (but then I'm still a beginner and my not knowing doesn't prove anything :-)

I have added a "citation needed" tag to that assertion. For the reasons I've explained above, however, I don't think there's any need to remove the claim, because it is likely to be accepted by almost all linguists nowadays. If you want to remove it, you should replace it with an explanation that adds clarity while being fair to your father's legacy, but that does not try to hide or whitewash over the basic fact of glottochronology and lexicostatistics having been discarded by the field for decades now.

So what I'm trying to say is: I think the field as a whole has concluded that this work is essentially flawed, and so it is probably quite reasonable to write that on WP. It's natural for you to take it personally, I suppose, but please try not to. To me it doesn't feel like it is intended to attack your father's reputation, but merely to report the state of public opinion.

In every field of science one sees even substantial errors being corrected years later, and at times these are errors that have been ignored 
systematically over decades until someone did the hard work of proof despite opposition.
It's been said that "if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist." This has often been used to ignore obvious facts.  I believe it would be far more 
scientific to say, "if it hasn't been proved or disproved the question must remain open." Today the world is rapidly losing not only many languages 
but cultures, yet we still don't understand how languages or cultures began or sustain themselves.  The formation of a healthy global culture would 
be greatly helped by that understanding.

For what it's worth I do agree with you about these points.

I'm not a computer person,(i.e. good on procedure, precision and details), rather my brain is 
wired to be visual, nonverbal, holistic and generalist. I've printed out over 40 pages of WP rules and wouldn't be able to find or remember all of 
them unless I was working with them on a regular basis. I would be grateful to you for any further assistence.
--[[User:Hijasegunda|Hijasegunda (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate your efforts to play by the rules of WP. Good for you for trying to read 40 pages and learn it all, but really no one expects editors to know and remember everything before they begin. We all learn as we go along. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing, POV and more

Thanks for the tips on editing. When I don't know, I err on the side of caution, but better to know an easier way. I still don't understand how to link the Spanish WP with the article.

Concerning the POV, it's one of those sweeping generalizations which suggests all of Swadesh's work in historical linguistics was flawed. Also, I'm painfully familiar with how, in science, if one authoritative person says something, others will repeat it without checking the facts carefully so that it becomes a consensus-by-default. Then, to correct it, another person must study the matter under the harsh criticism and isolation imposed by that professional peer pressure.

Another matter--you'd have to have lived through the McCarthy Era to understand to what extent people were accused of being communists simply for having any connection with another accused person. For that reason many hastened to divorce themselves of any connection or agreement with the accused. That POV in the WP article sounded very much like the rejection of his work related to that. Also, in the 1930s Depression many people lost their faith in Capitalism and many looked to Communism in hopes of greater economic and social justice. The post-WWII era of fear of nuclear war and fear of communism brutally reversed that trend. (By the time pop Freudianism in the late 50s came along I was able to understand the routines of intimidation). But not until the 70s did many learn that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" had quickly become a simple, and brutal, dictatorship. However, so many years have gone by. The context in which that consensus developed is gone.

The question is, what to do with a hypothesis? Hypotheses must start somewhere; what matters is where they take you. As I understand it, MS presented a hypothesis that promoted thinking in terms of greater precision in a timeline of language change. And as time went by it helped him think more in detail what influences language change, (the consensus when he began being that it was impossible to determine a timeline for language change in the past at all. "A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events which are of course unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable"--from the WP article on glottochronology).

With Latin to Romance languages, there's extensive written evidence. With the older language shifts of Indo-European and with the indigenous languages of the Americas there's only archeological evidence and the present structure of the languages themselves.

If you check the December National Geographic, you will find a one page article (titled Science) dealing with language that refers to the 200 word [Swadesh] lists. Mark Pagel, of the University of Reading, UK an evolutionary biologist is working on linguistic evolution and put the 200 word list in a computer...and has "developed the idea of the linguistic half-life" (on his homepage).
P.S. As a rightbrained, nonlineal thinker I usually have to rewrite.--Hijasegunda (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarity, please

One of the reasons I started working on editing the entry on M Swadesh was the section on historical linguistics: at that point it was written purely for linguists familiar with the issue, and incomprehensible to laypeople. And I hope and believe Wikipedia should be for laypeople. So could you put that section into comprehensible and relevant words?
Also, although my father didn't know anything about complex systems theory, he certainly understood the concept because of his focus on comparative work and that his mind worked in that mode. As Gregory Bateson (who connected systems theory with anthropology and discussed the problem in the intro to his book Steps to an Ecology of Mind) pointed out, without systems theory the connections between many things are incomprehensible). This is one of the frustrating areas of prolonged delays in advances in science that I've been aware of since the 1970s.--Hijasegunda (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New publication

Diachronica: International Journal for Historical Linguistics, Vol. XXVII, No. 2, Summer 2010, John Benjamins Publishing Co. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, has a special issue: Quantitative Approaches to Linguistic Diversity--commemorating the centenary of the birth of Morris Swadesh.

I realize there are different schools of thought in many scientific fields and that bashing each other is done. However I think the main contribution of Swadesh is that he saw Europe provided a paradigmatic example of language change in the shift from Latin to the Romance languages; there was a time frame and with written language it would be easy to trace those changes. He simply applied the basic principle to all languages, and focused on the Native American languages. Hijasegunda (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KUED7logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KUED7logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of CECB units for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of CECB units is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of CECB units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:UofU logo color.png

The file File:UofU logo color.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Seidokan Aikido

Hello, Himatsu Bushi,

Thank you for creating Seidokan Aikido.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

* This article needs sources.

• This article needs a lead section.
• This article has a citation needed tag on the first paragraph.
• Kindly link this article to similar articles in the Aikido field.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shizuo Imaizumi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Roderick T. Kobayashi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Roderick T. Kobayashi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ASUKITE 14:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Roderick T. Kobayashi

Hello, Himatsu Bushi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Roderick T. Kobayashi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

On two dictionaries

Hi Himatsu, I'm glad to bring two Materials to your sight

1. (Tesing Silan = 廖英助)'s work in 2014 泰雅爾族語－漢語字典(Tayal-Chinese Dictionary), 1702 pg in A5. It's a work of more than 50 years of accumulation by Elder Tesing who is a Sqoyaw atayal native and long in Atayal oral traditions like lmamu/lmuhuw and daily corpus. Tesing also has linguistics background from Kochi university, which adds on integrity to his phonology analysis. The material features abundant folklore corpus spread in its entries. Complete if not ergodic paradigm of root derivation and without-limit inclusion of ideophone entries are two feature of not my interests(of typologists also). It's only short for being not enough a learner's dictionary and not enough for a morphology typologist reference, for its structure cause. I recommend you buy one directly from him. It's my considered opinion the best Atayal dictionary to date For an introduction please go to https://archive.ncafroc.org.tw/result;jsessionid=7A56A76D2B6A23022597C8E9871558D7?id=3d6f8135a37445d582eb349f81e6ab02

2. 阿美族語辭典 by Namoh Rata = 吳明義 in 2019. 1162 pg in B2. Namoh's work covers to this date the most complete of dialect variation and gives sophisticated explanation in each entry, much of it is benefited from Namoh's linguistics background. The dictionary's structure satisfies morphology interests while also works good a learner's dictionary. It even a better work to Tesing's dictionary except size of long scale folklore. For an introduction please go to https://namoh0915.wixsite.com/bookstore/product-page/o-pinafo-an-to-sowal/ Bob deserves his best honor but I guess he is more than happy for this two works if he'd ever browsed them.

Asvaghosa, thanks for the info. I will certainly take these books into account as I further edit Bob's article. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

About Wp/ryu project on Incubator

Greetings. The Wp/ryu project on incubator seems becoming active recently, so I would like to invite you to join us and contribute to this project. Thanks so much. --墜星璃月 (Talk) 10:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roderick Kobayashi has been accepted

Roderick Kobayashi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

HenryTemplo (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kumano Juku Dojo (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kumano Juku Dojo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Himatsu Bushi! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kumano Juku Dojo

Hello, Himatsu Bushi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kumano Juku Dojo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kumano Juku Dojo

Hello, Himatsu Bushi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kumano Juku Dojo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Beru Revue for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beru Revue, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beru Revue until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)