User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive08

Long sentences

Thanks for your friendly nudge about shorter sentences (in the Adorno article), and for creating them. My "default" sentence is always a long, rather Germanic one, and I have to remind myself, or be reminded by others, to aim at shorter ones. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've written some pretty daunting sentences in my time. But I feel like a principle of respect for others mandates that I reserve them for people who have explicitly declared their interest in participating in sado-masochistic role-play, i.e. subscribers to professional philosophy journals. :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

Thanks to the anti-vandals

Thanks muchly to Kirill Lokshin and Antandrus for reverting the random squiggles that some anon vandal put here on the talk page, and on my user page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:36, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Re: GIF patents

Hello,

apparently the Unisys patent has expired, but IBM still holds a patent on the LZW part of GIF. -- JeLuF 10:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Really! LZW as an algorithm is quite a bit older than is GIF as a format. It's hard to see how it could either not be prior art, or how it could still be in effect. But anyway, IBM hasn't been evil, as Unisys was. And anything could be patented, since there's no real way of knowing (nor any limit on the triviality, obviousness, or antiquity of "inventions" for which patents are granted). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:02, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

If it's not one thing, it's another

A -> (A or B or C)

No? :-) (above is by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)

Mathematically it's certainly the case that "Discordianism was founded in either 23 BCE, 1958, or 1959" or that "Wikipedia is either an online encyclopedia or a dessert topping". But the implication, in English, is that all such options are equally likely, or at least that all of them have unknown truth values. DenisMoskowitz 20:53, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

What do you use categories for?

Lulu, after reading your user page, I'm wondering what you use categories for? I find that I just use them to find articles that are similar to ones I find interesting, a mechanism to surf. Considering the technology, and the users of Wikipedia, I suspect that an accurate, comprehensive organization of categories is impossible. Perhaps because of the way I use them, I don't want people deleting categories that seem interesting or useful. I'd rather try and find some middle path that lets the categories exist, yet satisfies the desires for those that see categories as a way to structure knowledge. Yes, put the information in the articles. -- Samuel Wantman 06:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My ideas about this are evolving. Honestly, the first time I gave much thought to categories at all was when I stumbled across two inappropriate ones used in the Wittgenstein article (the secular jewish and lgbt philosopher categories). The first was successfully CfD'd altogether, the latter was removed from the particular article (with consensus on the talk page).

But as much as I've formulated it in my mind, I think I mostly prefer the "browsing" to be via links in articles themselves. "See also" sections are great, and I would love to see more of them, and to see them more populated (I've done some edits along those lines). A "See also" has a lower burden to qualify, IMO. For one thing, you can explain in the text why a reader might want to see that other thing. But for another, it's not only things that are "alike" that you might want to see. You might "see also" something opposed to or contrasted with the thing in the article itself. Overall, that's more parsimonious to my thinking.

That said, some categories are OK. You can see that I've created some, in fact. Well, the Category:Philosophy of sexuality is partially as a counterpostion to the Category:LGBT philosophers that I don't like. You know why: the former is about what the actually do/did, the latter easily descends to gossip. And I made some slightly silly categories in the "Wikipedians" space, but I think that's harmless (and since it's a matter of self-identification, I would mildly oppose a CfD on them). And I like the mild irony of categorizing myself a bunch of ways right after I rant against categories (but not really against them, just for parsimony).

Even the philosophy of sexuality category, however, might really be better off in the article Philosophy of sex. It might be nice if there was a way to automatically insert a category into an article (not as a categorization of article itself, but as an merged "See also" or the like). Maybe I'll work on that; the article as it stands is quite stubby, though it basically just mentions my real-life friend/colleague Alan Soble, which is kinda a nice accidental connection. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:17, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Rfc on Monicasdude?

Hi....

Is there any news on the progress of this situation?...... I've been to the page and seen many testimonials, but no decisive action. Will there be a resolution?

Thanks BGC 13:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, but it doesn't really seem like it so far. As you say, there is lots of testimony, but no indication that Monicasdude recognizes any underlying issue. His response has just been evasive and tangential. Actually, mostly just self-rightous. Any ideas on how to move it forward in a more helpful way? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:54, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Hey Lulu,...

Have you ever eaten this?!!![1]:)Voice of All ^@^|E|Merit 02:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why, does it seem like my lotus-eating is all bluster? :-)

If you mean it as a reference to "Magic, the gathering", I've only just heard of that game, so the username isn't a reference to that. Actually, I've used the same username way before WP existed; probably starting about 1993 (check google groups for probably the oldest usage). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monicasdude about to break 3RR

Hey... I added song timings, a better-looking infobox (let alone filled the missing info) and songcredits to Dylan's Live at The Gaslight 1962 - removing, in the process, biased, self-promoting external links to Monicasdude's own webpages. And he's reverted the page WHOLE back to his own verison - TWICE (of course, because it's HIS page, is it not?). I don't know who to make aware, but he's set to break the 3RR. I've only reverted twice and have stopped there. This is why I'm contacting you since you're WELL aware of his habits and perhaps you could alert an admin who is familiar with this user's lack of co-operation and hopefully impose a block. I will contact JDG as well.

Thanks... BGC 18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the page to my watchlist. I'll restore your version if Monicasdude reverts it again. If Monicasdude violates 3RR, you should file a report on it, with a brief description of the background (a sentence or two, not the whole RfC discussion). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message - will keep a watch. I reckon his attempt to get me blocked didn't work. BGC 20:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in music

Hi Lulu I know you're not picking on me :(( The reason I chose Jews in music as the category name was that I wanted to create a broad short category that would cover a lot of people. Why don't we just change it to a parent category with sub categories such as Jewish classical musicians, Jewish conductors, Jewish song writers, Jews in pop and rock, Jews in jazz etc. and maybe when something like this http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_flatten is implemented it will kind of have the same effect I intended (an easily scannable list) Arnie587 14:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulu I'm not really against taking the "in" out of most of the titles but I still think the parent category needs to be one of these "Jews in music", "Jews in the field of music", "Jews in the music field", "Jews in the world of music" or something similar as the current proposed rename does not properly cover singers or impresarios so please can you change the title of the rename to one of those then I will create the sub categories and move the entries in this category using User:Pearle Arnie587 19:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like "in", it just sounds wrong. And I don't at all like "Jews" rather than "Jewish" either, it sounds even more wrong, and completely breaks the pattern of categories. Ethnic/national terms get adjectives not nouns: African-American Foos, Swedish Foos, etc. I'm not sure if there are categories for religious membership, but if there are, they will be Buddhist Foos, Hindu Foos, etc.

I'm not sure how you can say Jews as a category sounds wrong as this is the parent category of all things related to the Jewish people (it is not Jewish people which would fit your method). Therefore I cannot see how Jews in the world of music does fit in with the parent category of Jews. Category:Jews Arnie587 21:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for Category:Jewish musicians, with a description in the category page that said "musicians includes these other music-related occupations". You could subcat as you liked from there, whether by genre or more specific occupation, e.g. Category:Jewish jazz pianists to be really specific. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why make a poor compromise? I don't think that Jewish musicians is accurate enough, whereas I think Jews in the world of music is (I concede that Jewish scientists and Jewish visual artists are acceptable alternatives). Arnie587 21:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulu, this is the category heirarchy for music in France:

Category:France > Category:French_culture > Category:French_music > Category:French_musicians > Category:French_classical_musicians Category:French composers Category:French singers etc.

so can we implement a similar thing starting with renaming the category to Category:Jewish classical_musicians as a sub category of Category:Jewish_musicians or Category:Jewish_music (I will remove anyone who doesn't fit the new title) (I have re-named the change category to Category:Jewish classical musicians as this generally fits the people who I currently have input into it) sorry this is so drawn out but hopefully now we can get it organized correctly ? Arnie587 22:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Arnie587 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in space

4 medieval jewish astronomers!!!:

WOOHOOOOOOO Arnie587 15:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr mid vote

Hi.. I've put a note on all the talk pages of the voters, do you think Category:Jewish musicians is the right parent category for Category:Jewish classical musicians as I have a feeling what is in the category currently is mostly Hebrew music related. Maybe I should create a sub category Category:Jews in western music in Category:Jewish music I know you really are against using "Jews in" but I'm not sure there is a better way of differentiating to Hebrew/Synagogue music as Category:Jewish western musicians doesn't really work Arnie587 16:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am really against the tin-eared form "Jews in Foo".

Part of the problem is it doesn't connote what you want. "Jews in science" would normally mean something like "How does eugenics discuss the Jewish race"? And "Jews in music" would normally mean something like "Song lyrics with Jewish characters." Of course, the fact it just plain sounds bad doesn't help (they all sound like Brooks' joke about "Jews in Space"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so what category do you think Category:Jewish classical musicians should be in? Category:Jews, Category:Jewish musicians Category:Jewish music, Category:Jewish culture or something else Arnie587 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a classical musician is a musician, right? That's equally true of a Swedish classical musician or Indian classical musician (though the latter insinuates a different sort of classical music). I think of "Jewish music" as more about the musical forms (e.g. Klezmer); if Yehudi Menuhin plays Bach's "St. Matthew Passion", that's not exactly Jewish music :-). Probably the same for the broader culture... though I guess some argument could be made that any Jewish artist who does whatever contributes in some sense to "Jewish culture" (it's more tenuous though). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so maybe it's best I hide it in the Category:Jewish musicians category (Category:Jewish musicians is a sub category of Category:Jewish music which is a sub of Category:Jewish culture. Arnie587 21:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category dispute

Re: I took out Lenin on exactly the same grounds (Lenin is absurd to include; though I myself added Stalin). But I also added in many of those you took out, where the case seemed at least plausible (certainly not undisputed in any case; that's the whole problem with the cat). The original cat creators clearly have an anti-Communist schtick to push, so adding some pro-American dictators like Somoza and Papa Doc sort of fleshed out what the category would amount to if retained. It's hard not to think of them as totalitarian dictators.

There is no page where the addition of this category fails to be anything but POV and "original research." It is up for political scientists to flesh out where the case seems plausible, focusing on ambigious cases that you noted such as Lenin. Political scientists always disgree on what totalitarianism is, when and where to apply it, and even whether or not it is a useful concept for researchers. Thus, making any of these decisions one way or another is POV... Further, adding the leaders whom you call "pro-American dictators" such as Somoza and Papa Doc only makes things much worse. In the case of Lenin, it's at least plausible to many specialists that his regime was totalitarian. But no serious scholar ever classifies the Somoza and Duvalier regimes as totalitarian. These regimes will be described as a "personalism," "sultanism," "kleptocracy," or simply "authoritarian." Their regimes were way too under-institutionalized to exert the kinds of regular reach into the privite sphere as Stalin's Russia or even Lenin's Russia. 172 | Talk 19:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on inherently POV. Just see how vehement I am on the CfD page, for example. But what if the CfD fails, then what?

Remove all the categories from the individual pages on grounds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning that category schemes based on original research POV must be removed. 172 | Talk 19:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I cannot at all agree with your "plausible" claims above: Only the John Birchers and the like would ever call Lenin totalitarian, and even then it's only under the counter-factual speculation that "had Lenin lived longer, he would have done what Stalin did." You might have a point on the under-institutionalization of Haiti, but that's surely not true of Nicaragua (nor even more so Chile and Pinochet). Of course, there is that awful Jean Kirkpatrick thing that "the guys we like are authoritarian, and the ones we don't like are totalitarian"... but surely she doesn't count as a "serious scholar!"

I don't think that Pinochet's Chile is ever classified as "totalitarian" either. It's not just Kirkpatrick saying that it was "authoritarian" and not "totalitarian." It's also scholars like Juan Linz fleshing this out as a clear distinction. At the same time, I'm aware of some comparativists who argue that Lenin was laying the groundwork for a totalitarian regime working in the tradition of Ardent's work. At any rate, these problems should just go to show the creators of this category how probelmatic it was in the first place. 172 | Talk 19:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently successfully CfD'd "Political corrrectness" which was the same nonsense "comment by cat". However, in that case, the category autonomously depopulated itself. Longtime editors of each of the 20+ pages contentiously added removed the cat because it was nonsense for that specific article. But in each case (AFAICT, I didn't rigorously look through all the histories), it was existing page editors who did it, not someone new to the page who disliked the cat. That seemed much more proper to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I hate these damn nonsense categories that keep popping up. 172 | Talk 19:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Merkey (repeating) comments

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Request for WP:RFM opened on lulu. (unsigned comment by Jeff Merkey)

Btw. Context for other editors wandering by. I started a cleanup of the page Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Jeff Merkey himself (editing as an anon) is not happy to have a neutral point of view introduced into an article about himself. I have no idea if there's really an RfM connected with this, but we'll see. Merkey is sort of a SOLLOG type character, who threatens to sue anyone who says anything about him. Which is actually irrelevant to the article on him, which should simply be WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V; but just for reader context. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actual entry on WP:RFM, but it's a bogus one: only one party is named, no consent has been obtained, no other avenues have been tried, and the description is untruthful.Exabit 10:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Sollog type character" is a personal attack of Merkey. 67.177.35.211 08:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sollog probably has a contrary opinion... Exabit 03:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the JVM article. You certainly have more editing-fu than I have, and I admire your patience and persiverance in dealing with JVM's disruptions of the work the article is in dire need of. As for the anonymous editing; it feels as if Jeff is very much acting impulsively and thus forgetting to log in half the time. --MJ 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (repeated, unsigned comment by Jeff Merkey)

This is called 'editing', Jeff. Also, please stop making changes to your own article. --MJ 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I am not merkey, I am his attorney, and I will edit all I please. (unsigned, pro se comment by Jeff Merkey, 67.137.28.187)

Interestingly, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, we find this comment (Re: "I believe that the only source of the military awards so far is Mr. Merkey himself"):

I will scan and post my DD214 and Orders granting the awards from the Secretary of the Army. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Watch your pronouns, "Merkey's attorney". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the contributions log for the IP lists many comments first signed with the IP address, then subsequently edited to correct the signature to 'Gadugi'. --MJ 08:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Shapiro Frankfurt School chart

Thanks for the note. I did figure it out on my own, as you said. When I'd posted the question I wasn't aware that Jeremy Shapiro had returned for Wikipedia. He stopped editing in 2003, I believe, after he had written his brilliant overview of critical theory. Seconds later I found that you were conversing with him all along, so I went ahead and erased my question... For all Wikipedia's problems, it's quite a credit to it to have people like you and Shapiro contributing to its articles. 172 | Talk 20:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome... Sure, I'll take a look at your article... I also agree that there should be an article on Jeremy Shapiro. If you start one, I'll look into what I can add to it... BTW, I saw that Barrington Moore came up in your conversation. There is an article on him, but only a stub. Hopefully that article will get expanded too in the recent future. 172 | Talk 21:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention Barrington Moore, Jr.. Maybe elsewhere in a thread I was in. But yeah, that could use some cleanup. I don't really know Moore to work on it though (just the name, and about as much as the WP article says); I could look around for more info, of course. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd little connection though: I was amused and surprised to learn that I am cited in a book on Russian foreign policy. Nothing close to my area of expertise, but it's nice to be mentioned :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Sockpuppets

Lulu:

Unfortunatly, it requires a developer to check IP's; we admins aren't trusted with the power. ;-) I have a personal policy of not getting involved in these kinds of conflicts, as they almost always turn ugly. (Most of my blocks on the blocklist were username blocks from the new user log.) I'd suggest bringing it up on AN/I, where other admins can review it and intervene if appropriate. I'll mention it in the IRC channel and see if anyone there wants to take a stab at it. -- Essjay · Talk 06:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have no idea about how that admin stuff works. I was just guessing from the blocklist. I'll give it a day or something. Maybe Fvw who has acted on this before will do whatever needs doing (dunno what timezone s/he's in, but I'm sure s/he'll notice). Or obviously if some IRC admin wants to do stuff. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fvw is in the CET timezone (+1 hour) and has noticed Merkeys antics, judging by the reverts of CowboyLawyer/Merkey's edits to Linus Torvalds. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 18:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD List of born-again Christian laypeople

I will be placing the article in AfD in a coupe of days (I want to see what response my comment generates). If the Afd does not get consensus, so be it. But we ought to try. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Totalitarian dictators

After contibuting to Wikipedia for nearly 3 years, I can predict how letting this category survive by virtue of a technicality might open up a huge can of worms. First, there's little doubt that some will assert that the fact that no consensus was established on CfD means that they can repopulate the category everywhere it has been added. Second, there's a tendency for "inclusionists" on Wikipedia to vote to keep any category or article that has survived a process once. So there's no reason to expect a second CfD to go any better... But I think if we extend the voting (a practice common on VfD, nominations for admin, and FAC), it shouldn't be too difficult at all to make the strong case for deletion and thus establish a clear consensus with the votes. 172 | Talk 23:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously agree with your goal of getting rid of the category. But I believe it is more likely to succeed by letting it stand for a hiatus. Frankly, I think the ideologues who started the category, will get bored and forget about it with a little time; and a new vote would be among more informed and disinterested editors. But I defer to your decision on the course to pursue. But if you keep the CfD tag on the category page, I think you need it to link to the CfD discussion properly... the old discussion will get shunted off to archives pretty soon, won't it? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding... I believe that it is linked properly, since I reinserted the 9/23 thread in CfD, but I'll take another look. 172 | Talk 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit took care of the problem without having to create a new log. 172 | Talk 23:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, it looks wrong to me. I'm not an admin, so maybe I misunderstand procedures. But it would make more sense to me to copy the whole discussion up to Oct 1, and remove the notice that it was closed from the copy. I think new voters will be confused by the way it is arranged now. (none of this comment concerns the merit or wisdom of the specific re-opening; just its administravia). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, Lulu, for the revert of the lovely link suggestions from that retaliating vandal. Now, for me to actually put something of substance there.. ;) --MJ^(☎|@|C) 22:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I want to have your babies!

"Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th" - Thanks, this is perfect.

If it wasn't for Jeff, I would never have found your page. It's an ill wind... Vryl 17:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any interest in paternity, nor in maternity for that matter :-). However, I would love to have you propogate my slogan wherever you think it might want to travel (it's one of my email sig's, and some folks have cited it various places). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heteronormativity

Hi. Your edit comment, "C'mon look up a word in a dictionary before adding random cats," makes it hard for me to tell why it is that you removed Category:Sociolinguistics from Heteronormativity. To quote the very first line from Sociolinguistics:

Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used.

This certainly jibes with my understanding of both sociolinguistics and heteronormativity, so my question to you is: in what way did you feel that Category:Sociolinguistics was inappropriate? -Harmil 20:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did copy the definition of sociolinguistics here. I'm baffled by what connection you see to the concept "heteronormativity" in there. I can sort of make wild guesses about how one might draw an indirect connection, but it's not at all obvious. Like maybe since sociolinguistics is somewhat related to "discourse analysis", and understanding heteronormativity is in some (minor) aspect concerned with discourse analysis, there is a tiny thread of a relationship. This gets kind of like the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game though. I suppose we might equally well add Category:American actors because Pinkett-Smith is mentioned in passing in the Heteronormativity article.

But there's really a burden of proof matter here. If you actually think there is a connection that warrants categorization, explain it on the talk page, and see if you can get anyone else to understand it. Unlike the dreadful, and happily deleted, political correctness category, there's nothing pejorative about sociolinguistics. In fact, I positively love Labov's work. It's just that there's no category relationship here. Still, if you can get another editor or two to believe you that there's a category, I'll withdraw my... well, it's not really an "objection" so much as "utter bafflement". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm assuming that you are acting in good faith, here, and I hope that you are making the same assumption, and further that you realize that while I've defended critiques of the heteronormativity article in the past, I've done so because I believe it to be fundamentally correct, and thus worth the effort. OK, enough of that, on to your points.

Heteronormativity relates to the gender-roles that our culture imposes tacitly, and without explicit structure (e.g. laws) to enforce them (though heteronormative laws certainly exist). The most commonly cited example of this, and the one that is cited on heteronormativity in fact, is language. In the particular instance that that article cites, it's not that J.P.-S. should have consciously thought to include non-heterosexual lifestyles in her speech. Instead, the problem was that her use of language was a reflection of a set of assumptions which dismiss or maginalize such lifestyles. Time and again, we (those of us who aspouse the idea that heteronormativity is an important phenomenon) point out that "manpower" isn't just an unfortunate word, but the reflection of an unfortunate cultural bias, and specifically a point of view which is normative in most modern societies.

Hmmm... on the narrow point you mention, I'm not sure whether "manpower" is a reasonable example. Is it etymologically derived from the Germanic 'Mann' or the Romance "manus" (as in "manual labor"). In the latter case, it would simply mean "labor using hands". Just because someone ignorant of word history might misunderstand words doesn't, to me, motivate a critique of "implicit sexism/racism/homophobia/etc". Likewise, the word "niggardly" just don't mean anything negative about blacks, despite the superficial phonetic resemblance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, that's a narrow point. Let me address it quickly: you're running in etymological circles. You'll recall that the Old English "man" (or "mann") did not specifically refer to male humans, but to humans in general. It is a common misconception that "man" as in "mankind" is an abuse of the modern word for male human. In fact, it is a homonym, sharing the same origins, and has the same meaning that it had in Old English. That said, I don't have an OED handy here, but I'd be shocked if the claim is that "manpower" derives from anything but the modern, male-centric meaning of "man" (and thus from the same Old English roots). This is why I used it as an example.

I did not know that about Old English "man". I was just thinking that since the modern German or Yiddish (Dutch too, right?) took the same gendered course, that was in the original sense. That's interesting. I guess I'm falsely influenced by spurious criticisms of "man" as a transitive verb: "man the ship", which really does have the Latin root altogether. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I would not have remembered most of that without checking a reference. -Harmil 01:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, reflecting on the definition of sociolinguistics, I see the influence of cultural norms on language to be the core, defining attribute of any sociolinguistic topic. If you disagree, then I guess we can begin our discussion there, and see where this disconnect originates, but I suspect that's not the case. In fact, I suspect that you were quite correct in your initial reaction, but only with respect to implications that I was not making. I don't think that heteronormativity is a sociolinguistic concept, but that the category is appropriate because heteronormativity includes many sociolinguistic concepts. Does that make it more appropriate for a "see also" than a category? Dunno... maybe. -Harmil 21:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My hunch was kinda right then; you are really thinking more of discourse analysis than sociolinguistics. If J P-S had, e.g. palatalized her vowels because of a "heteronormative assumption", sure fine, that's sociolinguistics. I don't think anyone is claiming that. What people do claim is that things like word choice, or general rhetorical forms, are affected by assumptions about normative heterosexuality. That's interesting and all, but is at best at the far, far reaches of sociolinguistics, in the category just barely, if at all. While sociolinguistics is useful to know if what you want to do is ideology critique, or discourse analysis, or rhetoric (or even be a good dialogue writer), the core concern of sociolinguistics really is the effect of social context (registers, class, gender, etc) on morphology, syntax, and phonemics. It's not about "pragmatics" so much, and still less about outright ideology. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be splitting some fairly thin hairs there. Let me leave Wikipedia behind for a moment and refer to Douglas A. Demo of the Center for Applied Linguistics. His words:

The study of discourse has developed in a variety of disciplines-sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, and social psychology. Thus discourse analysis takes different theoretical perspectives and analytic approaches: speech act theory, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and variation analysis (Schiffrin, 1994). Although each approach emphasizes different aspects of language use, they all view language as social interaction. [2]

So, I would agree that there are, as he put it, "theoretical perspectives" from which I am either far off-base or at the very margin of the definition of sociolinguistics. However, the idea that language (and by language I mean grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in addition to other topics) is one of the primary topics of heteronormativity seems to me to be fundamentally a sociolinguistic subset of discourse analysis.

But, do we really need to split hairs over the definitions of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis? More to the point, does Wikipedia even offer us the opportunity to be so precise? Look at the sub-categories and articles of Category:Sociolinguistics and ask yourself: was I mis-categorizing heteronormativity by placing it along-side the topics that I did? Now, I would be the last to try to stop you if you wanted to go re-vamp the entire category and create more specific categories that are more appropriate. Until then, however, and given the above rationale, I ask that you either return the article to the category that I added or select a category that you feel more narrowly and correctly reflects the above reasoning.

Thank, you for your consideration and your time. -Harmil 22:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Political terms? Not in the sense the "heteronormativity" is itself a political term (though it is in a sense), but in that it discusses the political implications of "ordinary" terms. Looking at what is in Category:Sociolinguistics right now, I still think heteronormativity would be out of place. Well, FWIW, I think "political correctness" is out of place there too; but trying to take it out would probably be like jumping in a briar bush. Most of the other terms are pretty much classic Labovian, or at least not too far from the grammar/syntax/phonemics area. Hmmm... something like a Category:Speech acts might work. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political terms seems to overlap Category:Political neologisms (after all, is a neologism not just a "new term"?) But, I'll stand back at this point content in the knowledge that the article is clearly in good hands, and I have my hands full with my work on Native Americans and various sorts of mushroom (of which I have about 1000 photographs waiting for identification, cropping, uploading and article writing... sigh ;-) -Harmil 01:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your mushrooms :-). I think that you're right that political terms and political neologisms are close in meaning. But the former is a subcat of sociolinguistics, while the latter is not. So by adding the former cat, it indirectly implicates sociolinguistics in the way you want, while still choosing a subcat that is a bit more specific. Though "speech acts", as I suggest might be more useful... if I can think of a good list of other articles that should go in Category:Speech acts, perhaps I'll create that as a subcat of sociolinguistics (well, if I get around to it). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics. Banno 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I should edit more of the philosophy articles since I am, y'know, credentialed in that field (which is fairly rare I think... maybe 200 philos Ph.D.'s a year in the USA?) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I love it! Banno 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go

Here we go. See you out there, LotLE. JDG 00:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merkey

Hi thanks for the updates, it needs some more work yet but hopefully not too much! --Pgk 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On disillusionment

I agree with you but I have no strong opinion on the matter. I simply left that particular word as it was so that I would not be accused of blindly reverting unrelated changes. I also have no opinion on the picture to be chosen at present. --TJive 07:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have a moderate opinion on the picture, but not enough that I will revert whoever changed it most recently. Actually, it looks like the saluting picture that I somewhat dis-prefer is going to get yanked on copyvio, so that will become moot (but I won't do anything to hasten or prevent that outcome). However, the "disillusioned" is wrong enough that I'll keep trying to fix it. There are lots of words that would be non-wrong, but someone else's "alienated" seems fine to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of my name

Hi, Lulu. I don't think there's any special significance in the choice of Ann as opposed to Anne, other than parents' preference. It's probably like Catherine and Katherine – as far as I know, they have no special significance either. I was named after my mother, who was named after Saint Anne, but in literature, St Anne is often referred to as Ann or even Anna. Of course there isn't any evidence that she was called Ann in any form, or that her husband was called Joachim – we just have to use some names to refer to people whom we certainly believe to have existed!

As for the way my ancestors pronounced "Heneghan" – I very much doubt if there were any Heneghans before the middle of the nineteenth century, and it's probably even later. So it's long after the time when the Anglo-Saxons were pronouncing silent letters in "knight". My ancestors were called Éineacháin. Imagine the ch pronounced as in Bach, and then try Aynachawn. The men were called Ó hÉineacháin, the Ó meaning from. The women were called ní Éineacháin, the ní being a contraction of iníon uí (daughter of). The Éin part means bird, and the cháin part means little, in the sense of insignificant or minor, rather than physically small. My grandfather used the name Heneghan, but I'm sure that my great-grandfather, who would have been bilingual, used both names. Go back a little further, and I'm sure that the English form didn't even exist.

If you look at the article on the Irish town Drogheda, you'll see another example of an Irish name with ch being changed to an English name with gh, in which the g is silent. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to know. Thanks for the little name etymology: I figured you'd know it since you have a linguistics degree, and would have been bound to wonder during the course of that (if not long before). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weathermen

(In reply to Lulu's comment)

Yeah I must admit, looking at his/her edit history, he/she seems to have some issues with you :-( Do you know who he/she is? Akamad 01:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funny thing, I have no idea whatsoever who user:Tanya Ravine is, or where she came from. I tried some to ferret this out on talk:David Mertz, but the responses were ambiguous. But she seem to have been born into the world (well, the WP part of it) with the intent to defame my (extremely minor) noteriety. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]