User talk:Grant65/Archive Mar06-Nov06

Touch
Yeah, and Australian rules is known as AFL, American football as gridiron. It was never called touch rugby, and still isn't. Just because Europeans and Americans (lol) mistakenly started calling it that when they discovered it is less than compelling. But you know what, I really couldn't care less. Also, I think you'll find that except for the small part of England where league began, rugby means union, as league isn't played to any great level anywhere else. Where it is, it's "league" --Paul 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

invasion - of vandal
Hi I noticed a vandal attack Snottygobbles user page so i reverted there, i check the vandal to where else he edited and noticed he applied the same format to your page so reverted he as well hope you dont mind Gnangarra 09:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

AFL season article naming convention
As a participant of WikiProject AFL I thought you might be interested in this. I have started a vote to get a consensus on the naming convention for AFL season articles. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL. Cheers. Remy B 13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

South Australian English reversion
Please respond to Talk:South Australian English --Scott Davis Talk 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Looks like Licinius is back
See User talk:Mr nice guy and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban for Licinius. Snottygobble 00:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Licinius has posted an apology and promise to reform at User talk:J is me. There's currently a (counter-)proposal under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban for Licinius] to unblock Licinius' IP to allow him to reform himself under a new account. You might like to comment. Snottygobble 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this is not my proposal. It is CambridgeBayWeather's. I have merely agreed not to stand in his way. My opinion on the wisdom of the proposal shall remain off the record for now. Snottygobble 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

History of football (soccer)
Stop removing valid and relevant material from the article, there is connection between harpustum and association football, as it was the first introduction of ball sports to britain, and calcio was the first codified fottball ever. It has far more relevance tha Tsu Chu, which has been officialy recognized as the first ever form of football by FIFA, and so I challenge you to come up with a valid foundation for your accusations that there is no relevance, when I have valid sources which state there is, I shall be replacing the text with citations, should you challenge this again, please review them first. Philc TECI 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian Commandos
Hi - I think the restructure of the page has made it look pretty bad. Rather than revert your changes can you take out the large space between the the heading Special Units and the text that goes with the heading. The space has been caused by you moving the images to the right I believe? Krait 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Grant. I like what you've done with the page, great stuff. I only have access to ie so couldn't check with another browser. Thanks for the nice words. I had not seen the Jack Wong Sue article before, and it is a great story. Keep up the good work. Krait 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark L - SA English Page
Hi Grant, the "dark l" information comes from the Dorothy Jauncey (p2) book that is already mentioned on the page that I am reading at the moment. I'll try and footnote it somehow. Plus also from general observation as well (me thinking that I actually had a speech impediment for a while!) Frances76 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Can you please try and help with the ref. I can't seem to get the reference section working. Thanks Frances76 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Goumier
Hi Grant. Thanks for the note and i am sory for not being able to give a reason to the NPOV section tag.

If you read the added section about raping men and women in Italy, u'd find it totally biased and all what was added was taken from a lone source (which is Italian). I am not saying that there was no rape cases but the section treats it as a rule instead of exceptions. There's a new title "Ana! Frères d'armes marocains dans les deux guerres mondiales" by Jean-Pierre Riera which gives another view and perspective about the Goumier participation in WWII including 500 photos (many showing goumiers assisting victims and helping others). Another book "Mon ami le goumier" by Roger Barge (who was a young activist within the Red Cross at the time) witnesses good behaviour of the soldiers as well and his stories about their courage. My point is that the section is written taking into account only one side leaving out the other. Please let me know about your opinion. Cheers -- Szvest 11:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Talk:Football (word)
Just my tuppence worth --Philip Baird Shearer 08:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and Neo-Marxist
You have put in a mildly inappropriate link to neo-Marxist several times. I think you are a bit unclear on what the term is used for: it's not exactly the same thing the morphemes might suggest. Neo-Marxists are the specific school of post-Marixsts associated with Critical Theory, Freudo-Marxism, and also with the "return to Hegel" (in certain variations). None of the people who get labeled with that title are really economists, and none of them have any extensive writing on the specific topic mentioned in the Capitalism article (co-existing economic tendencies).

In contrast, the economists who follow Marx' thinking—some in ways fairly heterodox to Marx' own writings—generally use the term "Marxian" (in contrast to "Marxist"). There are certainly points where the Marxians differ from Marx himself, some disagreements minor, others substantial; but I've really never heard any of them use the specific label "neo-Marxist". Your link simply clouds the sense of the actual schools and diversions, it does not clarify anything. I don't want to edit war over such a minor issue (especially given all the outragous POV mongering on behalf of the Heritage Foundation and friends), but it really is wrong what you've added (I'd rather you take it out than I do though). LotLE × talk 04:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hackett
Thanks for your comment; I've corrected the link to Hackett. In future, feel free to edit any of my notes, just as if they were in the main space. Snottygobble 00:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image listed for deletion
Grant, I've listed an image you uploaded for deletion. You might want to read the reasons on this page (basically they are non-free). If there are other war memorial images that have been uploaded, pending the outcome of discussion on the Cowra image you might want to consider deleting them as well. On the other hand, it might turn out that the AWM doesn't really have any right to insist on the conditions thay have placed on the images. John Dalton 10:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The limited discussion so far seems to be leaning towards the image being public domain. You might want to update the copyright tags on the image to public domain, with reference to the image's talk page, thus solvign the copyright issue. John Dalton 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Grant. I've no objection to the deletion tag being removed and have done so.  I've also put a note on the deletion page that the image should be kept as it seems to be public domain.  I've modified the source info on the image's page.  Please have a look at it and revert or modify it if you are not happy with it.  It strikes me that it is important to establish (and mention on the image page) the date the photo was taken and the contents of the Copyright: field on the AWM's website.  These are important for establishing the public domain status of the image if challenged.  I would love to know on what legal basis the AWM claims to have the authority to dictate that their watermark should not be removed.  I agree that it is polite to leave it in, but it is rude of the AWM to insist on conditions if they have no right to so do.John Dalton 05:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

British Pacific Fleet
Noticed your amends to this article. They give the impression that RAN ships were involved, although the list of vessels doesn't include any. Is there an omission here? I had thought that RAN warships were already integrated into the US fleets. Or were you prompted by the presence of Aussie personnel on RN or other ships? Folks at 137 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be strange, but it might be so! Wiki should reflect verified facts - so, do you know of RAN ships attached to the BPF? Or even Aussie air squadrons attached to the carriers? I think there were individual Aussies as pilots or sea crew - I'll rummage around. TTFN. Folks at 137 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Río de la Plata
Sorry about this morning's outburst. I took it out on you and I shouldn't have. Your edit was neutral and not worthy of my rage. Sorry.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

headline
Quite improper, lad, what does the future hold for one so bound by agenda. It is my (foreign) understanding that the NRL is considered the national football competition of NSW and Queensland. Anyhoo, Irish and Australian varieties is incoherent to the point of absurd. Changing them in that fashion seemed to be much more clever as I noted that fine fellow Licinius advocated. Thankyou for dignifying me as his clone, I learnt much about her very quickly, quite a top character by any decent estimation, Thirty or so sockpuppets to prove a point about football in Australia?

(Comment by User:Lcns July 17, 2006.)

dab pages
Hi Grant, don't know if you're aware but dismbiguation pages have their own manual of style which sets out recommendations for linking and ordering, among other things: Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), Disambiguation. Thanks/wangi 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese War Crimes
I've made the points on the talk page. John Smith&#39;s 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Grant, please stop reverting the point about the German apology and discuss it on the talk page. So what if a Japanese person put it in? There was another that disputed it just recently. John Smith&#39;s 16:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Grant, you've just reverted the page four times within 24 hours. If you self-revert, I'll take it as a sign of good faith and not report you. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s 00:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just going through the formal process, no offence.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. John Smith&#39;s 01:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm going to report you then. John Smith&#39;s 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Grant, I've been here long enough. I made a friendly gesture and you rejected it. That's your problem, not mine. John Smith&#39;s 13:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

World War II controvercy
Do you have time please to have a look on the World War II. There is some movement leading to Nazi apology end even saying Germany started the war some users call "bias against German people". Probably we need some meditation.--Nixer 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian military history task force
Just dropping you a line to invite you to and inform you about the Australian military history task force part of the Military historyWikiProject. The taskforce is concerned with improving Wikipedia's coverage of Australian military history, hope you join up. Hossen27 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested peer review of Axis naval activity in Australian waters
Hi Grant, FYI I've requested a peer review of Axis naval activity in Australian waters by the members of the military history task force. --Nick Dowling 08:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Sydney Harbour

 * Does anyone know why this article is not referred or linked to in the Pacific War article? In other words, is the "Attack on Sydney Harbour" not recognised as part of the Pacific War? Does it need to go through some sort of official process in order to be included? Who on earth has the power to make that decision and where? Is the Start Class thing a barrier delibrately placed upon this article so as to bar it from entering the Pacific War article? I feel extremely confused and disappointed.Wilfred Pau 10:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Scheme/Project
Hi Grant, havent met you yet! Ian and I had started on the goldfields article, and realising there are a huge range of issues that come from something like this article - we had considered the title of the article with some considerable deliberattion - parliamentary debates, "official names", what is found on the SLWA and other catalogues, and a number of other issues - including the more recent mouthfuls of what the scheme was known as in the 1960's.

Specifically 'Goldfields Water Supply Scheme' seemed from all evidence to make it easy for someone who might have come across refs in the slwa, and w.a. history article, or the o'connor article.

It would be appreciated of you are to do a change like you did - that you could at least - put an explanation on the talk page - with a good ref to see where this notion of a project name comes from - its a bit hard to pin down exactly what the phrase in the edit summary actually refers to. In the end you are probably off the mark as we were as to what it was known as in O'Connors era - I am sure in Vosper's company it was in expletives deleted ! Unless you are one of Tony evans, or Merab Tauman's relatives or something like that.

I do hope you understand where I am coming from on this one, if you arent - please reply on talk. SatuSuro 10:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've commented at Talk:Goldfields Water Supply Project -- I@n 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Grant - thanks for your comments on the GWSS (or whatever we end up with) - thanks for your version, lets hope the article will get to something of substance in time! SatuSuro 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

4th generation jet fighter
''17 January An F/A-18C from Saratoga’s VFA-81 was shot down by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. Pilot Lieutenant Commander Michael Speicher became the first American casualty of the Persian Gulf War.'' http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART12.PD  TestPilot  01:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Goumiers
Marocchinate is an article about their rapes and it needs some attention. Perhaps you know some editors who are working on this topic. Wandalstouring 14:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Empress Augusta Bay and Bougainville campaign
I saw that you made some changes to both these articles. I've been thinking of incorporating the land battle of Empress Augusta Bay in the Bougainville campaign article and moving the Empress August Bay article to "Naval Battle of Empress Augusta Bay" since the land battle was an early part of the Bougainville campaign. I didn't make these moves yet because I've screwed things up in the past when I tried to rearrange articles this way. If however, what I propose passes yours and others sanity checks, perhaps we could go ahead and do it. Cla68 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PT-109
is the most famous of any of these actions, military importance notwithstanding. So why kick it out of this group? --Sugarcaddy 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Negationism vs Revisionism
I kept the changes you made on Japan war crimes but I think revisionism has a broader sense than negationism. For example, when Fujiwara analyse the directives of Kan'in and the direct implication of Hirohito in the war, he is not denying the facts but he is doing revisionism because the traditional point of view fronted by Mac Arthur was that Showa was a mere figurehead. Tsukurukai however is doing revisionism AND negationism when they argue that there was no "rape" of Nanking. I think negationism was mostly use by anglo-saxon in reference to nazi crimes because 1) the complete analysis of showa crimes began only fifteen years ago and 2) unfortunately, the occidentals are generally not very interested by a bunch of yellow-skinned individuals slaughtering each others. So, denying the crimes or worshiping war criminal is not so shocking... --Flying tiger 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In response
Thanks for your civility. I should have contacted and explained my side to you earlier, anyways I hope to do that now.

Under military regimes, the propoganda department always decides the "news" to be served to the civilians, especially during wars. MM Alam's kills were reported even before he touched down after his supposedly spectacular dogfights. Once the war was over and the euphoria faded, the news transmission from Radio Pakistan did too. Well, not entirely, it served as a case of morale booster in local Pakistani legends, that's why you'll never find it in any government accounts, Indian or Pakistani.

If it actually happened, It's something that would have deserved a Nishan-e-Haider, my friend, and yet it only resulted in a single medal. anyways, your sources themselves say :-


 * "This list has surfaced still more problems (of course! If it was easy, someone else would have done it!). Much of the dispute lies in the accuracy of claims and credits. WWI was a mish-mash and will require substantial work before the results are comparable to later works. " - Fighter Pilot 'Ace' List

I know that you worked hard on this, but these names belong in fictional aces not real ones. If you could cite anything from the BBC, Doordarshan etc. media involved in the actual war or the governments of India, Pakistan etc. it would be a start. But seeing that legends don't make their way into reputable news media and government press, it's going to be difficult. Please help in the deletion of this article, based on fabrication by private media, and help maintain credibility of both your article and this logbook of knowledge. Thank you. Freedom skies 11:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Dukakis
Thanks a million for agreeing on my terms! It seems as if I am quite unpopular about my conversation on taking away those photos themselves.

Thanks again!

Dukakis 00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific campaignboxes
With the organization of the Pacific War campaignboxes that me and you seem to be involved-in, it looks to me like the campaignbox for Template:Campaignbox Pacific 1941 could probably be elminated. Most of the battles in that campaignbox are already listed either in the Southeast Asia, Southwest Pacific, or the Pacific Ocean campaignboxes. The Battle of Australia could probably go in the Southwest Pacific box. The only one I'm not sure of is the Battle of Hong Kong. Since it was between the UK and Japan, it doesn't fit easily into the Sino-Japan campaign. And it usually isn't included in the Southeast Asia theater. Where do you think it should go? If we can find an appropriate place for it, then I thinkwe can safely take the Pacific 1941 box out of circulation. I'll post this text on the talk page for that box also in case others have an opinion on the matter. Cla68 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Cla68 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Heel and toe
Hi Grant - I'm just thinking off the top of my head - you are correct that those terms are used in English quite often and represent a very accurate way of pinpointing certain events that occur in that part of Italy - but I am not aware of any equivalents in Italian. The reason could well be that the whole of the "toe" is occupied by the region of Calabria and the whole of the heel is occupied by the region of Apulia, and if that is not enough, Italians would have the names of the provinces to pinpoint the extremities of either region. So I would judge that as being the main reason for the difference in references, the Italians would rely on the actual name of the location, whereas for an English-speaking audience - heel and toe probably does a pretty good job! As to causing offence - I can't really say, but my instinct is to say unlikely. Bear in mind that I am a native English speaker (with a Sicilian background) so I'm not necessarily aware of how local populations would view such terms. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tanzan Shrine
Hi, Brad thanks for the Kemari pics, one of which I have added to Football. Regarding Tanzan Shrine, I just noticed that Sakurai, Nara has a link to Danzan Shrine. I guess this may be a Japanese-to-English transliteration issue(?) Thought you might like to know. Grant65 | Talk 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Grant. I'm glad you like the photos. I have plenty more if needs be. :) As for Danzan, yeah, that's a translation quirk. I've fixed the link on the Sakurai page in the event we ever want to create an article on Tanzan Shrine. There are also some photos of the shrine on my photography page as a foresight. --Brad Beattie (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect. I'm not a Japanese speaker or expert in Japanese culture so I will defer to the experts in this. Grant65 | Talk 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked with a native Japanese speaker today and apparently both are okay, Danzan might even be better. However, the pamphlet from the actual shrine said Tanzan. Ugh. How about we just stick with Tanzan and redirect Danzan to Tanzan? --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, just to clarify: I don't speak Japanese. :) I just happen to live here and therefore have access to those who do. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

POV on "relationship" between Gaelic football and Aussie Rules doesn't belong on wikipedia
You have theories confused with facts my friend. --Rulesfan 23:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And you don't understand that history is innately controversial. Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

National institute for Defense studies of Defense Agency
Hi, you are right. I wrote to fast. The institute is in Tokyo, not Washington. I was thinking of another case at the same time. --Flying tiger 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth history
First, why do you want to repeat almost word for word the history of the adoption of the Statute of Westminster that is already given under the Historical Development section? It's just redundant.

Second, Menzies is famous for declaring in 1939 that since Britain was at war Australia was also at war. Australia did not issue a separate declaration of war. Even the article you cite says that Britain ran Australian foreign policy until the 1940s -- i.e. AFTER 1939.

Third, the status of Ireland as a Dominon was highly ambiguous between 1936 and 1949. Probably deliberately so. See the article in Irish head of state from 1936-1949. You may have one view of its Dominion status but other people have another, and it's not the job of Wikipedia to take a position on this debate. The word arguably is correct and appropriate.

--Chris Bennett 17:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, with my response inline:

Compare the position of Australia and New Zealand in 1939 with that of India, which had no discretion. Au and NZ did not have independent foreign policies because the government of the day had chosen not to have one (i.e. by not ratifying the Statute), not because they were unable to do so. That is my point.


 * And an irrelevant one it is. Whether or not Australia could have made a separate declaration of war in 1939, the fact is that it did not do so.  Robert Menzies, the PM of Australia of the day, who was the responsible person, explained very clearly to Parliament that this was because Australia was bound by Britain's actions.  His view trumps yours any day of the week.

There is nothing wrong with repeating material within and article if it is an important point, which it is.


 * Not in this context it isn't. Go back and read the whole section. The discussion is about whether being monarch of many countries creates conflicts of interest for the monarch in matters of war and peace.  The declarations of war in 1939 are discussed as an example of a situation where this question might have arisen.  There is a good argument to be made that Australia and NZ do not even deserve mention here, since no possibility of a conflict of interest arose with them; as far as I can see, they are only mentioned to complete the coverage of the dominions that existed at that time.  We certainly don't need to overburden the paragraph by going into elaborate detail about why.  It causes the main point to be completely lost under irrelevant detail.

As for Eire, see Dominion: it is a broad term and I defy anyone to show that Eire was not a Dominion before 1949.


 * Oh dear, a partisan convinced he Knows The Truth.


 * Don't you understand that it is not for Wikipedia to prove one side or the other right or wrong in such matters, but to recognise and reflect that there are different opinions about it? The English chose to consider Ireland as a Dominion under George VI. Eamon de Valera, who was a principal, was happy to let them, but he himself made no bones about it:  he considered that Ireland was a republic.  It only became an issue when the Irish decided to rub the English noses in it in 1949 by formally declaring a republic.  My own opinion is with de Valera -- as far as I can see Ireland ceased to be ruled by the king in 1936.  But I'm happy to concede that other people think 1949. --Chris Bennett 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Grant65 | Talk 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

I think you are still missing my point. I don't agree that it is "irrelevant" that the Statute of Westminter empowered Dominion governments, whether or not they chose to exercise that power. Menzies' speech declaring war, while it was technically correct, did not reflect the full range of options that were open to him — options which were not in any way available to the governments of India, Rhodesia or Jamaica.


 * I get your point. You don't get mine, which is that this is irrelevant in the context of what is being discussed.

In regard to Eire, you have mistaken my purpose, which is not to show that Eire definitely was a Dominion before 1949, merely that there is an argument that it was.


 * Sorry, I understood "I defy anyone to show that Eire was not a Dominion" to mean that you thought there was no doubt about the fact. If you merely think that there is an argument that "Eire definitely was a Dominion", then we are in complete agreement, but you should also have no problem with the word arguably, which reflects precisely that position.

By the way, I don't respond well to the kind of approach that you employed in your last reply on my talk page. Please tone it down in future.


 * If you use strong language to support a position which, forgive me, is not only wrong in itself but pays no attention to the context of the article, then you must expect some strong language in return. At least I got your attention.  Perhaps we can now try to settle the issue rationally. --Chris Bennett 03:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

I still don't understand why you think Australia and New Zealand's (latent) ability to remain neutral in 1939 is not relevant. Or is it just that you feel it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article? It certainly is not spelled out at present. Thanks


 * Because it is not relevant to the point being illustrated, which is that situations have arisen where the monarch's position wrt a foreign power differed between realms. Not hypothetical or latent ones, actual ones.  The focus is on the conflict of interest for the  the monarchy, not the position of the individual realms.


 * Your concern is whether a country that was covered by the SoW but had not ratified it could in theory have stayed neutral. There is some relevant evidence from before the SoW was passed, which is that the dominions refused to be bound by the treaty of Locarno in 1925, which would have automatically committed them to act with Britain if there was a European war; they also refused to commit troops to a war with Turkey in the Chanak crisis of 1922. Locarno is already nentioned in the article.  I think the matter is so extremely hypothetical and so dead that it doesn't merit any more discuyssion than that.  --Chris Bennett 07:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Korean abuse of POWs in Japanese camps
Actually, the book, Japan at War that's listed in the references for the Japanese war crimes article does give some examples of Korean guards abusing Allied POWs during the war. However, the book doesn't claim it to be "widespread" although I'll look at it again when I have a chance to be sure. Cla68 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)