User talk:Ceabaird

And welcome to WikiProject Arthropods
Welcome to WikiProject Arthropods!

I hope you enjoy writing about arthropods, because in this project you will have plenty of occasions to do so (just see the tasklist!). It is still a young WikiProject, but it's taking off fast. You should also note that the guidelines given are only recommendations, and you needn't feel obliged to follow any of them strictly.

So please, be bold in the WikiProject and related articles as in any other field of Wikipedia. Any input is most welcome! And remember that if you need help, you can ask me any time. Take care, Iron C hris |  (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Sergestidshrimp.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sergestidshrimp.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sergestidshrimp-bbsr-edu-creature-feature.jpeg
Thank you for uploading Image:Sergestidshrimp-bbsr-edu-creature-feature.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 07:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima
I'm afraid I've reverted your recent edit to Iwo Jima as obviously POV, drawing unsourced conclusions. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to use labels like "right-wing" and deducing motivations of political correctness. The only time such loaded terms can reasonably be used is in quoting others from reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeffq I have the source document in my possession. The rise of right-wing elements is a very well known and understood phenomena here in Japan. And needless to say, historical revisionism, particularly related to WW2, is nothing new. In any case, the original name is supported by a US Hydrographic chart, from the US Library of Congress, dating from 1920. Since this predates the Japanese Government assertion that the name was mistakenly changed by IJA personnel stationed on the island in the 1940's, it seems the original English name should be preserved. I will be providing a scan of the map within 1 week.Ceabaird 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a world of difference between what people claim is "well known" and what is documented by reliable sources. No one sees the world except through their own unavoidably limited keyhole of experience. If something is "widely known", it should be reflected in professionally edited publications. Therefore, instead of adding claims, you can say "according to Such-and-Such Times, this name change is motivated by political correctness"1, with the reference including the exact citation of this statement, so that readers can check the source and verify that (A) the statement is there, and (B) the publication is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It is simply not possible for Wikipedians to maintain the quality of information in articles without this neutral citation of facts backed up by solid sources. Otherwise, articles just become the shouting matches between irreconcilable partisans that take the place of rational debate these days. (And that last bit is clearly my own unsourced opinion!) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's some scourced opinion: The mischief inherent in altering the phonetic rendering of Iwojima to Iwoto is that the change is distinct enough to require a new orthography in English, causing cartographers to spill unnecessary ink, or more ominously, causing the old name of the island to sink without a trace. With a deft linguistic sleight of hand, an islet with a contested history is permanently locked in the past, veiled in willful inscrutability. I think this qualifies as support of my thesis - published in a National Newspaper in Japan, by a published scholar. And speaking as professional marine biologist, I know that when it comes to the social sciences, a "professionally edited publication" can mean almost whatever you want it to mean.Ceabaird 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ceabird, regardless of your professional credentials, I would ask you to observe Wikipedia practices when editing. You have already violated POV with the edit I cited above. When I recommended sourcing, you provided a quote from a website with a bare link, which hides the nature of the source from the readers. A proper citation like this:
 * would suggest that this is an opinion piece, not a news article, an implication borne out when checking the link. (This is a reasonable source for quotes, but it is less satisfactory than proper news articles, which ostensibly try to avoid prosecuting arguments, much as Wikipedia does.) Finally, you have violated another practice by ignoring the banner message of the closed survey at Talk:Iwo Jima and adding a new vote and discussion against the standard specific request not to do this. (The reason we go through the trouble of putting the message " Please do not modify it. " in bolded red font and change the background of the closed discussion to green is to visually emphasize that people should not add to it after closure.)
 * would suggest that this is an opinion piece, not a news article, an implication borne out when checking the link. (This is a reasonable source for quotes, but it is less satisfactory than proper news articles, which ostensibly try to avoid prosecuting arguments, much as Wikipedia does.) Finally, you have violated another practice by ignoring the banner message of the closed survey at Talk:Iwo Jima and adding a new vote and discussion against the standard specific request not to do this. (The reason we go through the trouble of putting the message " Please do not modify it. " in bolded red font and change the background of the closed discussion to green is to visually emphasize that people should not add to it after closure.)


 * I highly recommend that you move your recents edits to a new section, so that (A) you will not misrepresent the state of the old survey; (B) you will not encourage others to worsen this misrepresentation by adding their own new posts; and (C) you will give you opinions and evidence the proper new airing they should have by being identified and positioned as a new topic. (You might also take a look at Talk page, which explains why you should indent your posts for easier reading.) Thank you for your attention and cooperation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first case "the readers" are you and I. And even as an opinion piece, it cites recent events and historical and linguistic facts, in support of the original edit. As for your original request for back up material regarding the rise of the right in Japan, here are a few sources:

Asking for a "peer reviewed" newspaper article is very interesting - maybe you could show me an example of one? In any case, the rise of the nationalistic right in Japan is very well documented, and the original article I quoted outlines the background and implications of the "returning the original name" fallacy regarding Iwo Jima. In any case, I am appending a letter from the US Library of Congress - does this satisfy the need for reliable sources? Ceabaird 07:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This image is from the Library of Congress.Ceabaird 07:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ceabird, you may not be aware of the fact that "the readers" of article sources are not only the two people discussing an issue at the moment. There are many Wikipedians who actively check sources for accuracy of summarized article content and potential reliability or POV issues. Each and every Wikipedian is entitled and even encouraged to do this fact-checking, made necessary by the unfortunate truth that anyone can add plausible but inaccurate sources to articles. (I've run across some myself.) Please also note that talk page discussions are typically available for years, and there are many Wikipedians who will use old discussions to educate themselves before entering new discussions. So whenever you post to an article or user talk page, bear in mind that your arguments and opinions will be available (in one way or another) forever and for everyone to read.


 * I agree that opinion pieces from reliable sources can be cited; it's just that they can also attract POV arguments rendered less likely by using more objective pieces. Your additional set of sources looks quite promising as raw material for making your point in the article.


 * As for a "peer-reviewed newspaper article", I don't know how you read that into what I said above. If you are referring to my statement about "professionally edited publications", I was distinguishing what Wikipedia considers reliable sources from unreliable ones with no editorial oversight, like blogs, discussion forums, etc. (And please don't read into this statement that I somehow am accusing you of using the latter. This is just my standard talking point about how wiki-reliable sources are a means to identify truly "well-known" information, as opposed to the "well-rumored" material of these lesser sources. But stating that something is "well-documented" is totally irrelevant; it's citing the documentation that counts.)


 * I believe you have shown above that you have a number of solid sources. Now what remains is to summarize their point(s) with your own text, quote opinions where appropriate, and cite the sources in the article. (By the way, you might want to use the information at Extended image syntax to shrink your image above. It's incredibly unwiedly at that size.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Read Japanese?

 * Hi! Can you read Japanese? Oda Mari 07:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If so, I'll show you 2 Japanese news paper articles in 1922 useing Iwo To. Oda Mari 08:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oda Mari - That would be great. However, the Map I am referencing dates from 1920. Ceabaird 02:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) 1922 article. The top page is here and Iwo To is here in the top column on page 25. 2)1921 article. The top page is here and Iwo To is here in the second column on page 10. According to the Japanese WP, the army and the islanders used Iwo To. And the Navy and charts used Iwo Jima from Meiji. You know this part is tagged with citation needed. I think the map you are reffering to was probably made from the Navy chart. Anyway Iwo To was used among citizens then. Oda Mari 05:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see いわうたう, the expected historical spelling for modern いおうとう. I do not see Iwo To. Even in the 1920s, historical spellings were generally romanized as they were pronounced rather than spelled. So Iōtō would be expected, but Iwōtō is still reasonable. (It is interesting that no one is arguing for Iwautau, though.) However, the long vowels do not simply vanish except in sloppy writing. Bendono 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an 1887 text that attests Iōtō (retroactively Iwōtō in the historical spelling). It is just the nature of the language that the correct reading can not always be determined due to kanji usage. On the Japanese side, both Iōtō and Iōjima are well attested. On the English side, there are historical spelling (dealing with the "w") and phonological (handling long vowels) issues involved here as well. Consider that prior to the war, the island was virtually unknown to all but a few. Due to the war, this once virtually unknown island became very well known throughout the world. It had to take a name, and it was unfortunately propagated as Iōjima. The original inhabitants have long insisted that the correct reading is Iōtō. The recent name correction was bound to happen for decades.
 * Also note that there is an entirely different island off the coast of Kagoshima with the exact same kanji (硫黄島) but read as Iōjima. Confusion over the issue is to be expected. Just for reference, the name for this island is attested in c. 13th century Heike Monogatari. Bendono 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of this invalidates the English name of the island as "Iwo-Jima." In addition, the Japanese government's rationale is that the name was incorrectly changed by JAPANESE military personnel, in the 1940's. The 1920's map has a number of distinct qualifications - it gives a precise geographical position, and is an internationally used government document - a nautical navigation chart. Maybe if you provided some of the text from the document by Matubara Shinosuke, that would provide more context.

In any case, we're being told a narrative, by the Japanese government, that tells a lovely story, but isn't supported by the facts. This island was known and charted before 1945, by people other than the Japanese, and as such was known in English as "Iwo-jima." The war in this case, did not "unfortunately propagate" anything. In addition, wikipedia is not to advance any political agendas or, as I have been made aware of above, engage in POV. Regardless of any Japanese assertions otherwise, it is not clear that there was any definitive pronunciation, and even common place names in Japanese tend to have several readings - even when referring to the same object (Yamanote and Yamate, and several other readings for 山手 were common in Tokyo, until JR decided which to choose). Regardless, the Japanese government claim is demonstrably false - that the English name was changed by the 1941 mistakes by Japanese artillery officers. Ceabaird 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're reading in to it too much. As already discussed, the island was known as both Iōjima and Iōtō prior to the war. I shall assume that you comprehend how such a situation can (and still does) happen. Who copied who I can not say or speculate, but mistakes (Iōjima and Iwo Jima) were made or at least propagated by both sides out of ignorance. At the very least, the correct (according to residents) Iōtō is attested (see above) in Japanese prior to the war. It would appear that the US got it wrong consistently from the beginning. Japan has now since fixed the problem. America is a little slower. However, various references are slowing emerging with the corrected name. One example is Encarta: Iwo To. (Not an ideal spelling, especially considering the official press release does not give a Latin (script) spelling, but still an improvement.)
 * I am not sure what POV you are accusing me of. The original inhabitants claimed that the name was wrong. It has been fixed (you can even read the official press release). Whether you agree or not, it is veriiable. Bendono 08:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Yamate Line, its origin is a mistake too. See the name section. Though it is a homepage, the writer is a professor and he wrote about Io To like this in 2006. [[User:Oda Mari|Oda

Mari]] 15:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of what either of you have presented changes the situation - in English, the name is Iwo-jima. Any changes that have been made after the fact, which you support as "evidence" in no way invalidates the English name Ceabaird 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your opinion (and POV) does not change the fact that "Iwo-jima" is officially the historical term. It is out of date. Encarta, another English-language encyclopedia, has since updated the content to the current English term. If you have any issues with these verifiable facts, take it up with the Japanese government, Encarta, and the dozens of English-language newspapers that reported the same information. Bendono 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an official document - a nautical chart - for international navigational use, is not POV, but a verifiable source document, according to Wiki rules, which your POV is not. I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but these are the wiki rules. Please observe them, thank you. Ceabaird 03:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And it is now historical. The year is 2007, not 1920. You are arguing your POV against verifiable, modern English-language resources. Wikipedia is not the place for such actives. Please observe the rules. Bendono 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that an island's name is in dispute, and that the basis for that name change also being in dispute, based on historical documents, in no way invalidates my argument, and also supports the wiki rules - of which you seem to be in flagrant violation. This is not a POV situation, and your consistent insistence that it is, leads me to believe that you are pushing a personal agenda. You have not provided anything in the way or a "verifiable modern resource" especially in light of the fact that your POV is arguing that there are NO historical, verifiable, documents. Any "modern" documents will show that the Japanese government has said that an English name must be changed - because of a verifiably false historical scenario. This only makes my case stronger. Please desist with the goal-post shifting - it only relects badly upon you. Ceabaird 05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not disputed. An official statement was made by the governing body about the name. That was reported in many newspapers, including English-language ones. Encarta, another English-language encyclopedia, has updated the name. In the year 2007, the name officially changed. Whether you agree with the reasons or not is immaterial to this verifiable fact. If you are still confused, please review WP:V.
 * This is certainly not my POV. Since you seem to care so much about my POV, let me tell you about it. Iwo To is a misspelling for Iōtō. Regardless, Iwo To is what is being used in English-language, verifiable resources. I did not choose it, nor do I endorse it. I merely cite the verifiable resources. Bendono 06:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That it was announced in several newspapers is a fact. That the underlying story is true - that is false. No amount of linguistic gymnastics or hairsplitting changes the historical fact that the English name of this island is and was "Iwojima." That the Japanese government made the "renaming" announcement is not disputed. However, the historical records show, all too clearly, that the "islanders story" has no basis in fact. That is why you are pushing a POV. The English resources you mention all rely on the original announcement by the Japanese government - no other sources. We have a case of the dog chasing it's tail - that you offer up as proof. Sorry to disabuse you of this, but the historical record shows otherwise. The facts show, clearly, that you are wrong. Period. In addition, refer to this: Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. All from the Wiki-rules. I have verification - do you? No. Ceabaird 07:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not deal in "facts". It deals in verifiable information. Once again, please read the first few lines of WP:V. Quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact (no pun intended) that the name changed is verifiable in the appropriate press release, another encyclopedia, as well as the many newspapers that reported it. It is also verifiable that the English term "Iwo Jima" is historical and has been replaced with "Iwo To. Quoting a professional English encyclopedia: "Iwo To, formerly known as Iwo Jima [...]". Pleae re-read that statement. Notice the new term: "Iwo To". It is not Japanese (Iōtō or arguably even Iwōtō), but English. Next, notice what it replaces: "Iwo Jima", also not Japanese (Iōjima or historically Iwōjima). Also notice the term formerly. You may also repeat the same exercise with any of the English language newspapers that this was reported in as well. Are you honestly telling me that you can not verify this? Bendono 08:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the pronunciation change, it was decided at the Ogasawara Village Council in March and they formally requested the change to Kokudochiriin.page 4 and .Oda Mari 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And please see these.the last para of page 3 and .Oda Mari 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus nd .They all say Iwo To was used before and during the war. Why should they tell a lie about the name? Why can't you accept the fact Iwo To was used in Japan then? Oda Mari 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is your comment to me or to Ceabaird? I completely agree with you. There are plenty of references showing that Iōtō (as well as Iōjima) was used well before the war. Bendono 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's to Ceabaird. Because Ceabaird thinks the islanders story has no basis. I'd like to ask Ceabaird the name/s of the right wing activist/s who wanted and promoted the pronunciation change as Ceabaird seems to believe the change was the result of the right wing movements in Japan. Bendono, if you want more about it, please see Ceabaird's edit of the article Iwo Jima and the Iwo Jima section above on this talk page. I think the change had nothing to do with the politics. To the Japanese people, it's a matter something like if you pronounce tomato as to-ma-to or to-may-to.Oda Mari 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you both are being very disingenuous. These accounts (that you link to as sources) state that "Iwo Jima" became the English name after the war. However, I have been finding more and more sources - not newspaper articles, or essays (which while important, do not sufficiently address the issue) - that show the English name to have been "Iwo Jima" since BEFORE the war. The official narrative is that this change occurred during the war, and continued to the present day. I have located international governmental sources of information that continue to support my point. These also include official Japanese maps. This is why this issue is still in dispute. As before, all your support leads from the same source. Have you anything better to offer? No. You still haven't addressed the main story. Can you identify these mysterious Imperial Japanese officers, whose disdain for the "real name" of Iwo Jima has been "tearing at the hearts of the islanders"? No. Can anybody? No. So then, other evidence, in your minds, is meaningless. I also note how your own narrative is shifting. From 'it's always been "Iwo Tou"' to "They've used both!" At least keep your own stories straight. But thank you for providing the document links above.

Also notice that I am not advocating the use of "Sulphur Island" since that was obviously not used by the locals. The links provided above are interesting, but a website should not be used as a verifiable source, especially when compared to an official government document. Ceabaird 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I ask you to verify the resources. May I assume that you have done this? In particular to the English angle that you have been harping on, pay attention to the professionally edited English-language newspapers (available at libraries) and encyclopedias (such as Encarta, which in itself handles about 99% of this entire conversation). You may also present your verifiable resources as well, but not with the intent of advancing your own theories (see WP:NOR) because you disagree with the other resources.
 * The "narrative" (as you call it) has not changed. As I have always shown with verifiable resources, both Iōtō (arguably also romanized as Iwōtō) and Iōjima (also arguably romanized as Iwōjima) have been both used well in advance to the war. As well you have shown that English Iwo To existed as well. According to the original locals, Iōtō is correct and Iōjima is incorrect. Again, both English and Japanese made mistakes. Now in (present) 2007, Iōtō is officially the correct reading. English language resources such as newspapers and encyclopedias use the spelling Iwo To. Again, please verify the resources. If you disagree with the resources, perhaps you should publish your own book, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for your own theories. Bendono 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)