Talk:Wee Kim Wee/Archive 1

I will be adding a lot of facts and doing cleanup at Wee Kim Wee/temp.

Tan 10:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason in keeping the /temp page to yourself. Everybody who is interested in adding to the temp page, please do! But by no means forget the main page! JMBell° 20:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If anybody still do not understand why I did this, please kindly ask User:Nichalp for Maharashtra and Maharashtra/temp. I got the idea from him, and what I wanted to do is to do a major edit by adding a lot of new content. I got a lot of information of him in newspapers. Please do not interrupt. Thanks.

Tan 14:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you still reverting, mel? didn;t my explanation makes it clear to you?

Tan 16:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that minor edits, especially spelling should be allowed in the /temp page. When I have completed my major edit, which has its roots in the original article, I will shift all the content to the main page. Hopefully wikipedians will tolerate this for the time being.

Tan 17:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Everybody has a right to contribute at the temp page. Please do all your edits there instead of here. Thank you! JMBell°

I allow minor edits. In Maharashtra/temp, Nichalp states that no edits are allowed, while I allow minor edits. My reason for this is that I want to edit the article like Nichalp, so that there will be little interruption. Anyway, I am following a similar attitude with User:Nichalp. He also has put up a message in Maharashtra. If he can, there is no reason why I can't. Please take note of that.

tan 13:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Temp pages. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

link to related news article

Information of the funeral arrangement are described in [1]. Vsion 08:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling my revert "vandalism" is ridiculous. I changed the language, because "interred" is a genteelism for "buried", "columbarium" in English means a dovecote or similar (I've never come across this usage, and I doubt that many readers will have either; if you want to use it, explain it), and given that the citizens were Singaporeans (unless he wanted to be buried with citizens of other countries) I couldn't see the point of changing the word.

The news story to which you pointed uses journalistic English, of course, but we should use encyclopædic English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if this is a case of an over-zealous attempt by Mel Etitis in "correcting" pages, just because he has differences with a particular wikipedian, which ends up stepping on the toes of other well-meaning wikipedians. The place Mr Wee Kim Wee's remains are kept is the Mandai Columbarium, and not the Mandai Cemetery, the later of which simply does not exist. We are talking about a place name here, not a discussion over "journalistic" and "encyclopedic" English. If I remember correctly in the naming conventions, arent we supposed to name objects and such according to local spellings and usage, in particular over the British English vs American English debates?--Huaiwei 15:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The text didn't use a name, but a common noun, so your main point is irrelevant here. The noun "columbarium" is (so far as I am aware) unused in British English except as an antique and obscure name for a kind of dovecote. If the proper name had been used, I shouldn't have had a problem (though I'd still have liked to have it explained). The MoS states, however, that while local English is to be used, it should be explained or disambiguated where it might cause confusion of incomprehension to readers, and I'd have said that this was a clear case in point. I have today asked colleagues and undergraduates if they know the word "columbarium" (about half from the U.S., the rest from India, Cyprus, Australia, and the U.K.); no-one had come across it before. As I said above, if it's to be used, it should be explained; that's why I've made it a link to the Wikipedia article.

Casting doubt on my motives isn't justified, nor does it help the discussion (especially as I've already discussed this with Vsion and apologised for confusing his edit with one on another page). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Just wish to point out that the two words "interred" and "columbarium" can also be found in the article of Arlington National Cemetery. Back to this article, I personally feel that "interred" is more appropriate than "his ashes placed". -- Vsion 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that "inter" just means "bury" (from the Latin "in" + "terra" — in the earth). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And the problem is he was not buried either. We dont bury burnt ashes. We store them in urns, which are often stacked up on walls.--Huaiwei 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I've changed the text as I have. Have you read what I've written? Vsion clearly has, and is discussing the issues with me in a sensible and pleasant way; I don't understand why you feel the need to be so aggressive. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your captivation with "grammar" and such with a supposed Singaporean member seems to be driving your over-enthusiastic response in many Singapore-related edits here, to the point that they sometimes crosses the line. Your behavior in the Nanyang incident was one I personally came across, and now, you actually dismisses my point for no better reason.

Allow me to repeat. The place in question here is the name of a place, and the place is called Mandai Columbarium, and by no other name. The article is obviously not going to tell you specifically that it is a place name, and not a common noun as you claim, because, as you say, it is a "jounalistic" piece. If you still do not understand what I am getting at, this is akin to you insisting that Bukit Timah be named as "Timah Hill" because Bukit is not an English word, it is not in common English usage, and your believe that "Bukit Timah" is a "common noun", when it is actually a place name which cannot be changed at your fancy. Or it is like you insisting that Forbidden City could simply be called the "Forbidden Palace" because you think it is just a common noun, and the word "city" is a misnomer because it dosent really have city status at all, but is actually a vast palace complex. If you think these examples are ridiculous, then yes, that is exactly how ridiculous your insistance that Mandai Columbarium is a common noun and your attempts to give it a new name are. May I know where Mandai Cemetery is?

Again, I see reason to suspect that your unfamiliarity in Singapore-related topics and issues are producing some suspect edits on your part. I would certainly hope that you could at least recognise this handicap of yours, the same why you insist that Mr Tan accepts his.--Huaiwei 21:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

First, if by my "captivation" with grammar you mean that I think that Wikipedia should be written in good English, and that I do my best to ensure that it is, then I'm at a loss to understand your objection to it. Do you not think that correct grammar should be used?

Secondly, your comments about common and proper nouns again suggest that you didn't really read the article, or my changes to it. the text originally read: "A humble man even in his death, he had asked to be cremated and interred at the Mandai columbarium together with other ordinary citizens, instead of the Kranji War Cemetery, where people of his stature are usually buried." Note that "columbarium" had no capital, thus there was no indication that it was a proper noun; I therefore changed it because the word "columbarium isn't used in British English (nor, as I explained above, was it familiar to a wide range of people of various nationalities; the usage in this article isn't listed in either of the two dictionaries I have to hand). Your insistence on pushing this issue after the text has been changed, together with your aggrassive sarcasm, suggest that you're not really interested in the article, but in attacking me. Again, why?

Perhaps it's because, thirdly, you're turning this into a rather unpleasantly nationalist issue, in a way alien to and unacceptable in Wikipedia. I suggest you calm down and stop before it gets out of hand. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I call it a "captivation", because based on the edits in this particular page, the edits you tried to revert are mundane, if not even questionable, as we see above. How more grammatically correct is a change between "Singaporeans" and "Citizens"? It looks like nit-picking over a small edit in that particular instance, and I do wonder how much benefit this site gets from it.

Secondly, I do wonder how you could claim that I fail to read the original text, or the article. For one, I was the one who wrote that original text...word-for-word. I suppose it is my fault now that I did not capitalise "columbarium"? Your repeated arguments that the word was "not in common usage" is of no relevance here, because the phrase is a place name. Despite repeated reminders that this is so, you continue to avoid accepting this simple fact, and persists in arguing that it is not in common usage. So, why dont you go attack Bukit Timah now, coz I could bet with all my underwear hardly anyone in the West is going to have a clue what "Bukit" means either? In actual fact, I replied in this thread even before I have seen the latest version in the article itself. Since you called for an "explanation" on this alien term, then yes, this is the response you are calling for, irregardless of the final outcome in the article. If you did not call for this explanation, why would need to respond to you, and let alone "attack" you?

I do not consider this a "nationalist" issue. I consider this as your bout of edits which were prompted more as a response to a particular someone, than a geuine interest in improving these pages. Your ignorance in the topics under edit lends weight to this impression. If you wish to make any edit, at least demonstrate some basic knowledge in it, as is obviously the requirement in any other page in this site. In what way does nationalism have a place in this whole issue? I am calling for you to do some homework and research first before editing supposed "grammar" errors. Of coz, everyone makes mistakes, and I dont bite people for that, but I find it particularly unpleasant pointing out your mistakes, because of the way you respond with a fiercely stubborn and defensive stance (qualities which I bet you think I posses too anyway).

Anyhow, I am off for the day. Enjoy your edits.--Huaiwei 22:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't understand most of this, I'm afraid; you say that you write all the text, but deny that not capitalising "columbarium" was your reponsibility? You claim that my edits were minor, yet you've spent paragraphs attacking them? I'll withdraw form this debate, because it's not going anywhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Calm down, calm down, the both of you. A matter of grammar this is not. Choice of words perhaps, but not grammar. First of all, may I kindly request you two to calm down a bit. Fighting is going to get us nowhere. Huaiwei, please do not get too excited about this. I know you've had some problems with Mel in the past, but put them aside for the moment, please? And Mel, please try to act less aggressive, since Huaiwei is a bit annoyed with you.

First, choice of words. "Inter" does mean "bury," but here, it wouldn't make any sense. Although I have no good suggestion, I'd suggest "laid to rest" (though "scattered to rest" would be more appropriate), "his remains were interred" (this makes no mention of body or ashes, and inter could function one way or another), or simply "his ashes were placed," though this sounds quite awkward. Second point: Mandai columbarium. If this is a place name, and thus a proper noun, why is "c" in "columbarium" lowercase? Putting quotation marks "" might also help: the "Mandai Columbarium". I guess the cause of this argument is (partly) this little "c" - could explain a lot, you know. Huaiwei, thanks for the explanation. Please try to tone down your messages a bit so that everything will look peaceful, even though it may not be (that goes for all of us).

I hope I managed to help somehow. (Huaiwei, please don't take this thing personally. We're only trying to help out.) Thanks. Bye. JMBell° 22:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It's the Asian spirit, Mel. They try to defend their pride and reputation. (No offence meant.) JMBell° 22:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I inputted that text before reading your post. I am sorry for the outburst, but I suppose I have had enough for today. Sorry for any offence caused, and good day to all!--Huaiwei 22:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an etymologist, but with the Internet, we can do some research on the current usage of "interred". Another wikipedia article with the word is Pope, which has this paragraph:

"The body then lies in state for a number of days before being interred in the crypt of a leading church or cathedral; the popes of the 20th century were all interred in St. Peter's Basilica. A nine-day period of mourning (novem dialis) follows after the interment of the late pope."

The above seems very appropriate to me and the usage is similar to the earlier edit by 165.21.154.108 in this article. A Google search also finds many instances of "interred" used in Britain. Also the word "columbarium" can be found in many ".uk" websites (both as proper noun and simple noun), used in the same meaning as discussed.

Perhaps, the usage of "interred" has evolved, as English words always do, and now includes the use in this context. What is the standard? In practice, how does a publishing editor decide that the English is wrong? Perhaps, a writer can enlighten us. (I haven't read all the above message yet, but let me post this first) -- Vsion 22:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"Inter" comes from Latin "interrare" which boils down to in (I guess y'all know what this means) + terra (earth). In earth: bury. Anyhow, I don't know how one can bury ashes, scatter them would be more appropriate. "His remains were interred" easily gets rid of unwanted things like "body" or "ashes" so I guess this would fit, no? I'm a writer myself, but unfortunately, I don't write obits. JMBell° 23:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the Pope was not cremated and so has no problems with being "interred." Irrelevant support above, please provide something that could help us more. JMBell° 23:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) To User:JMBell The problem here is that Huaiwei isn't actually involved in this; text was added by Vsion, which I edited, and which (after a brief misunderstanding) we discussed amicably and pleasantly. Huaiwei sudenly appeared, throwing accusations and sarcasm at me, and apparently not reading what the article now says (which suggests to me that he's not interested in improving it, only in picking a fight with me).

Some five hours before Huaiwei left his first message on the subject I had changed the article to read: "he had asked to be cremated and his ashes placed in the Mandai columbarium with ordinary citizens" — no mention of burying or interring, and the word "columbarium" back with a Wikilink. In other words, everything that Huaiwei is stubbornly attacking me over was corrected before he began his attacks. That would seem to be an odd way to defend one's pride and reputation.

Thanks for trying to calm things down, though.

Vsion The word "interred" has been extended a little, to include "burying" the body in a tomb rather than in the earth; however, unless the ashes are buried, I've never seen the word "interred" used (for example, it would be very strange to say "her ashes were interred in an urn"). For examples of definitions from modern dictionaries:

inter [...] to place (a body) in the earth; bury, esp, with funeral rites. (Collins English Dictionary)

inter [...] place (a corpse) in a grave or tomb. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

inter [...] deposit (a corpse, etc.) in the earth, a tomb, etc.; bury. (The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English)

Do you have a particular objection to the phrase "his ashes placed"?

With regard to "columbarium", I'm afraid that funeral companies and similar organisations have a tendency to use euphemisms and genteelisms not in common or current use, and not suited to an encyclopædia (See Evelyn Waugh's novel The Loved One to see how this isn't a new phenomenon). I can only repeat my findings among a wide variety of respondents. Still, that one's back in the article, so there's no need to argue about it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

However, I feel that the word also carries with it a sense of ceremonial/memorial service, for someone to honour, etc. Therefore its aptness in articles like "Arlington" and "Pope" and more appropriate than the simple "buried" (which can be used for nonliving things, e.g. "buried a treasure", etc). I'm not a writer and definitely don't write dictionary entries. Vsion 23:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I now read the dictionary entries you provide, the first meaning with "funeral rites" is what I'm trying to convey. Thanks, my online oxford "www.oed.com" is not that good. Vsion 23:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

May I summarise the two points of objection for using "interred"

1. the usage is wrong according to the word's definition
2. the word is genteelism and not in common use.

Let me know if there is more. But, my counter-arguments are as follows:

1. From the Internet (currently my only resource), the usage of "interred" has certainly extended and also applicable to "placing of ashes to columbarium" (e.g. do a google search with "interred in columbarium") . So it is not restricted to "body", "burial", "tomb", etc only.

2. I have already listed some examples where "interred" is used, in newspaper and wikipedia articles. Google search returned too many entries to list here. What is the standard? If news-reporting journalism and obits are not sufficient, then, may I ask, what is sufficient? Used by (a) the academic community, (b) the British government, (c) in United Nation press releases, or (d) George W. Bush, etc? (Please don't tell me it must be listed in Britannica encycleopedia, because I don't have one with me to check).

So, what is the gold standard for "common used", if 400,000 google returns (with 300+ returns in news.google.com), are not valid evident. Surely dictionary publisher are also using Internet as resource now to keep track on how English words evolve. Once we can define a reasonable standard, then we can check objectively and verify the validity of the second argument.

Regarding the phrase "ashes placed", it doesn't convey the "funeral rite"/"memorial service" context.

By the way, we are all from different timezones, and brains may not work optimally at certain time. Hope we (myself included) can be more tolerent and not take offences. Vsion 00:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right about my reasons except for the bit about it's not being in common use. It is — the point is rather that there are stylistic problems. Journalists, etc., frequently use language in ways that would be inappropriate in an encyclopædia; See, for another example, [2]. It's not that terms like "hit the shelves" and "debuted" aren't in common use, and I'm sure that Googling would provide huge numbers of hits — but they're not suitable for an encyclopædia.

In addition, though, because "inter" bears the strong association with bodies and burial, it is likely to cause problems for many readers; that's why I tried to find a way of expressing it that would satisfy everyone. As the Wikipedia:Manual of Style puts it, with regard to spelling in regional varieties of English:

• If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.
• Words with multiple spellings: In choosing words or expressions, there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple spellings, if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable.

I think that that advice is good for differences in vocabulary; it may be that most Singaporeans wouldn't associate "inter" with burial, while most British people (and, I think, Americans) would — so it's a good idea to find a term that's equally suitable for both.

With regard to the "funeral rites aspect, I'd have thought that the context provided all that was needed, but something could be added to emphasise that, if you feel that it's necessary. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I’m afraid my main question is not addressed: what is the gold standard? How to decide what is suitable for an encyclopedia? Your premise is that the word "interred" is not common use (based on style or otherwise) without suggesting any way to verify or falsify. For example, a test can be "have the British government used it in this context?" or "have the UN used it this way in an official statement?" Are these acceptable as evidence of common use? These are not "journalistic" English if that’s your objection. To my knowledge, that’s how dictionaries are updated, don’t you agree? Most slang or dialect phases will not qualify. I don't think I have misunderstood your reason at all. But, without setting a standard, you are presenting me a shifting goalpost, while rejecting the examples provided: you may suggest "no diplomatic English" later, etc.

In addition, with the same arguments you gave, are you suggesting you will replace all instances of the non-encyclopedic "interred" found in the wikipedia? I have already pointed out two articles earlier. I really want to know if you are going to replace these “genteelism” words, please tell us. This will help us understand each other better, because I’m really confused by your arguments, if you oppose the use here, but okayed for other articles.

Btw, I personally do not believe there is a significant difference between how Singaporean/Asian and British/American feel about or interpret the various issues we have discussed above. Although the manner we express ourselves are quite different; but this is a point I will elaborate later. (I’m not involved with the other ongoing “debate”), Have a good day, but I need to sleep now.  : ) Vsion 10:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, let me do the research as you does not seem to care. If you are so opposed with the word "interred" in wikipedia, here is a list of articles you can work on, most of them contain the genteelism, non-encyclopedic "interred": see User:Vsion/temp. Many are Britain-related, none is Singapore-related (thanks to your edit, we have to use "placed the ashes") and I apologize for small number of broken links ..Vsion 13:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you seem to be getting rather aggressive, which is a pity given that our discussion had been amicable so far. You seem to be assuming that I'm omnisicent, and that any use of a word in Wikipedia must have been seen and approved by me; that is not the case. liek any other editor, I do what I can, but don't take responsibility for the whole. I've discovered articles in Wikipedia that are very bad, and which have stayed that way for a long time because no-one has noticed.

Secondly, yo've replaced the word "interred" despite everything that I've said, and without offering any reponse except the irrelevant claim that other articles use it. First, do other articles use it with regard to placing an urn of ashes in a niche in a wall? Secondly, do other articles use it correctly?

Thirdly, you're still insisting that the issue is over whether the term is used; I've repeated that it isn't. You can find thousands of Google hits for the use of the word "wicked" to mean very good, for "guy" to mean man, for "portal" to mean doorway, etc. In certain contexts these uses might be acceptable, but they're not suitable for an encyclopædia article. The technical term is "register": different kinds of language are used in different contexts (slang, texhnical language, more and less formal langauge, etc., and a mistake in register can be as misleading as (often much more misleading than) a mistake in grammar or spelling. "Inter" and "bury" are different in register. Not only that, though, my points about the etymology and meaning of both "bury" and "inter" still stand; they're not appropriate for the placing of ashes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to address the issues you raised point-by-point:

1. We are still amicable in the discussion, right? I hope there is nothing aggressive in my comments, except in aggressively finding and showing evidence to support my position. I sincerely apologize for any offences caused, some of my comments were written late at night. And I appreciate you returning to this debate. I think "refuse to resolve dispute" is a no-no in wikipedia, right?
2. I’m not asking you to correct all the articles listed in User:Vsion/temp, but request that you, especially as an admin, to be fair. It is hard not to perceive that you are biased, you can refute this by amending the other articles listed in User:Vsion/temp, in the same way as you did to this. I am still confused whether do you think the other articles are wrong and should be corrected, or somehow "interred" can be used in other articles except in this one.
3. ALL the 500+ articles I listed in User:Vsion/temp are good articles, they are not stubs. Please do not raise hypothetical question “do other articles use it correctly?” because anyone can all easily read them and judge ourselves. Are you suggesting that the articles are bad? Can you show me which one is bad? I don't think you have bothered to look through them at all, which is very frustrating to me. With no disrespect, they include articles on members of the British Royal family, including the last King, I don't believe that these articles can remain badly written for any long period. (I did not intentionally search for these articles, but it is hard to ignore once you find them.)
4. In the list User:Vsion/temp, there are articles in the context of cremation-services. These are in fewer numbers than burial services, understandably because famous people are seldom cremated. But these articles do exist, and I will show them to you after you have “fixed the goalpost” (see below). In any case, as I have suggested earlier, you (or anyone reading this discussion) can google with the query "interred in columbarium", you will find this usage in many official context easily. Have you done so and have you examine the returned articles? There are 5,000+ hits for this particular query.
5. Your main argument has been that the word “interred” is genteelism and not common use (i.e. Point-2). In your comments, you keep using this argument despite the evidence I have shown you. I also have other evidences that the word is used in (a) official documents from British government, (b) BBC articles , (c) United Nations Press Release. You will not find “wicked” or “off-the-shelf” in these documents, so don’t worry (You don’t have to raise these analogies again, I understand what you mean. It seems like you are trying to throw off some distraction “flares”). I have found these documents before I mentioned them hypothetically in my previous messages, after I have done the research which clearly show that the word is in common used in various official/formal contexts. But I have not list all of them in this discussion, because it seems no use, you will just shift the goalpost. If you care, you (or anyone) can find these documents easily yourself using google and judge objectively yourself.
6. I do not rely just on google hit-counts, but I have examined what types of articles were returned. Have you looked at these articles yourself?
7. If official context is not a good enough criteria, then (as I keep asking you, the admin) tell us what is a good criteria? You never tell us (despite me asking many times) what evidence/criteria will be acceptable to you that would convince you that the word is in common use (in the appropriate style). It is still the same in your last comment, which is like some cult-science: “…..despite everything that I’ve said” You started from the premise that “interred” is not common use, without supporting it. Don’t you realized that yourself? Are you claiming “higher authority” whom we, the faithfuls, must obey.
8. You stated that: “"Inter" and "bury" are different in register.”, what is your supporting premises, other than your own opinion? Did the dictionary entries said that it is “archival/old” , “slang”, “technical language” or “informal”? Please let us know. The evidences that I have, came from different domains, including recent official statements from governments and UN.
9. Thank you for bringing out the term “register”, it is new to me, but seem similar to “domain” or “genre”. May I ask these related questions : (a) is there a separate distinct “register” specifically designed for encyclopedia? (b) are “language of government official statement” , “BBC English”, and “encyclopedia” in different registers, (c) is there a standing list of words that are acceptable (by consensus, standard, etc.) for the encyclopedia “register” . (d) is there a standing “black-list” of words for encyclopedia register, and is “interred” in this black-list? I will read your answer to these objectively, if “interred” is indeed in a recognized black-list, it will prove your argument most convincingly.
10. I still do not know whether you have now withdraw your Point-2 argument (genteelism)? Or you are now just opposing because the Point-1 argument (definition)? Please do not resort to “left-right” wavering tactics. If you have withdrawn Point-2, but contest only based on Point-1, then it is much easier for subsequent discussion.
11. You stated that: “my points about the etymology and meaning of both "bury" and "inter" still stand ;”. ---- Are you suggesting that the use of the word in the article Pope, and the article of the last British King (with no disrespect) is wrong? These are not underground burial. Are you going to edit these articles to replace the words?
12. Your last point: “they're not appropriate for the placing of ashes.”. Personally, I find it very disgusting that you would accept “body” but reject “ashes” for the use of the word, and arguing that the use is wrong based on this nuance/technicality (and ignoring the important funeral-rite sense). I hope you can be more sensitive to the context of the article. If I have misunderstoond your intention, please correct me. But if this has become your main point of contention, then we can focus on this point in our later discussion.
13. Let me try again to negotiate for a test: If I can show you an article (well written one) that “interred” is used in the context of cremation-type service, will you then accept the use of the word in this context? You can specify a reasonable condition on the type of article (or other evidence) acceptable to you. Of course, after I found it, you can still claim that it is used wrongly; I will accept that claim if you undertake to amend these other articles yourself. We can still argue about the various nuances of the evidence later, but give me at least the minimum bar of what could be acceptable to you.
14. I may be wrong, but it is hard not to perceive that you are biased against us, with the manner you act on this specific issue. But hope we (myself included) can put down our prejudices, and discuss things objectively. If we need to seek a third opinion, it is ok with me. In fact, I would prefer that. I look forward to your next message and hope that you can address most (if not all) of my questions. I apologize that this message is long, and this is only about a single word and we are all busy. But because you are an admin, your opposition carries great weight than you may have realized yourself. Another reason is that I personally wish to give the greater sign of respect to the subject of this article, (within what is rightfully acceptable in wikipedia), I hope you can understand. -- Vsion 18:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't possibly respond to all the above, but I'll pick out the main points. First, I am an editor of Wikipedia in my spare time (though admittedly it's in danger of taking over the rest of my life too), and I don't have time to trawl through Wikipedia correcting every aricle that containes a certain mistake. When I come across a mistake, I correct it. When I come across an editor whomakes a lot of serious mistakes, then I might follow up on their contributions list, but that's all. Correcting a mistake in one article does not commit one to correcting it everywhere.

Secondly, I am not making a personal decision about the use of "interred", so your disgust is misplaced; the word is used primarily to refer things being buried; it can be extended to the burial of things other than bodies, and to actions to bodies other than (but similar to) burial, but it isn't used to refer to the non-burial of non-bodies.

Thirdly, yes, the register appropriate to a reference work is very different from that suitable to journalism, government statements, etc.

Fourthly, my attempt to use examples to illustrate my meaning can not fairly be seen as an attempt to distract attention, or whatever. Wikiquette demands that editors assume good faith; you and Huaiwei seem determined not to do so.

Finally, your accusation of racism is groundless and unpleasant, and not worth responding to. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that my name has been mentioned. Despite my attempts to be as fair and objective as possible in assessing this situation, it does appear to me that Mel Etitis's behavior is getting close to breaching proper conduct of an admin (if it has not already been breached), and may I add, also breaching overall rules for all wikipedians. I found the evidence presented by Vision above reasonably persuasive and extensive. In contrast, I dont see much evidence provided by Mel Etitis despite repeated requests to do likewise.

And I do find it particularly ridiculous now that even English usage in "government statements" are not appiopriate for wikipedia. Is there any wikipedia policy which supports this? And does Mel Etitis find a need to now correct all instances of English usage drawn from "governmental statements" and related sources, now that he deems it unappriopriate?

Mel Etitis claims that both Vision and me are not "assuming good faith". I must say that my first encounter with Mel Etitis was far from pleasant, and has continued to be unpleasant in almost all subsequent encounters. It seems that he expects others to show him "utmost courtesy and manners" before he would agree to edits. In other words, he argues vehemently against a certain usage of a word (even if it was not a grammatical or factual issue), or a small tiny aspect of formating, just because he thinks the opposite party is "rude" to him, or he has a history of disagreeing with another person before for any other reason. Once you kowtow to him, hey presto. He agress to these edits. I would love to assume good faith, but when someone appears to hold grudges against others, and starts to become highly and unreasonably agreessive in his edits just to get things his way, I find it difficult to think positively of him, especially when these habits are so persistent and omnipresent.

Vision, if you think you are talking to a wall when repeatedly telling him of certain points despite strong evidence to back it up, you are not alone in feeling the frustration. In the whole Nanyang debate, I have had to pull up the Disamg policy countless times, but no luck. It seems like nothing here is correct so long that Mel Etitis disagrees with it or he didnt like you, even if it contradicts a mountain of evidence, or wikipedia policy. Again, I felt obliged to question his admin status, despite all attempts to assume good faith.--Huaiwei 19:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

1. By not trying to address most of the questions (some repeated many times), it is like a guerilla tactics (selectively attacking some points), and it becomes argumentative and difficult to resolve the issue.
2. Please don’t rephrase my second point. (I never asked and) you don’t have to correct all the articles in User:Vsion/temp, just need to look at some of them (selected few) and state whether you think the usages are right or wrong, and amended those selected few if you think they are wrong. This is a display of fairness, all office-holders have to do that to legitimize their authority: including politician, law-enforcement, and newspaper editors; and you are an admin. It won’t occupy you much time, I have already found the articles for you, you just need to look at the relevant sentences.
3. You states: “it isn't used to refer to the non-burial of non-bodies.”, this is not true. You have not tried google “interred in columbarium" as I suggested. In case you are so buzy, let me give you the link, so that you can do it with one click. | google ]. Please look at them and comment whether your statement is still correct.
4. Your stated that “register appropriate to a reference work is very different from that suitable to journalism, government statements”. Can you give me the references or the guideline on “reference work” writing? I’m open to further information on this. And by this argument, you are suggesting that the “other articles” have also erred, right? Please respond, this is a MAIN point.
5. I had “assumed good faith”, but the assumption was seriously challenged by the way you respond. With your latest comment, I now hereby fully reinstate my assumption of “good faith”.
6. (Assuming good faith) With your last point, I think you have misunderstood and have mistated my case. I stated earlier that “I may be wrong, but it is hard not to perceive that you are biased against us” and it is totally different from “accusation of racism”. I apologize if you have misunderstood. I honestly believed that “racism” is not involved here. Let’s stop this line of argument. With “biased” I am refering to the degree of fairness you have with “this article” and “other articles containing ‘interred’”, whether intentionally or unintentionally (it is nothing personal, it could be called “administrative bias” if there is such a phase). And…. you are still avoiding commenting on the “other articles”. (Let me post this first, I have not read Huaiwei's latest comment to avoid cross-influence, We may also have different opinions, so let's see what they are  :) ) -- Vsion 19:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a number of points, and given evidence, concerning the meaning and usage of "inter" (and "columbarium", incidentally); that the word is used differently in another article, or even in many articles, is simply irrelevant to the question of its correct use here. That politicans and journalists use language in non-standard ways in order to evade issues, obfuscate, imply, etc., is surely not in question. There have been successful comedy series that work partly by mocking such misuses (see, for example Yes, Minister). We surely don't want to follow politicians' use of language rather than the uses accepted in academic and semi-academic work.

I've published academic papers in philosophy journals, more popular articles in serious but non-academic journals, a popuar book in philosophy (a more academic book is on its way), many book reviews, and articles in a number of paper encyclopædias, as well as in Encarta; I also taught English as a foreign language for some fifteen years, and have been teaching philosophy at various Universities for nearly twenty years. I believe that I have a good grasp of English, including the question of register (which was, of course, one of the things that I taught in EFL), and publishers, editors, and readers seem to agree with me. None of this proves that I'm right on any particular point, and I don't expect to be deferred to just because of my background, but it would be nice if it could be accepted that I'm neither making things up, nor expressing a view that is bizarre and groundless, nor presenting a personal preference of prejudice in the guise of a claim about the use of language.

(I might add that I'm perfectly aware of the existence of different forms of English, that I've had many friends, colleagues, and students from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Korea, Japan, etc., and that I'm generally capable of distinguishing between different dialects and genuinely incorrect English. This needs saying because it has been brought up a number of times over the past couple of weeks.)

I don't base my understanding and defence of English on Googled references; the Internet is notorious for being the home of every mistake in English that's possible (and I believe that the same is true for other languages). However, I note that "interred in columbarium" gets exactly three hits: [3] refers to bodies not ashes, [4] is unclear (but manages to combine three of the worst sources for correct English: the U.S. government, the U.S. military, and the U.S. funeral business), and [5] is the only clear reference to cremations in this context (but the same ap[plies to it as the the second).

In any case, I still don't see what you think is wrong with the alternative wording that I supplied. Even if "interred in a columbarium" was clearly understandable by most people (and I've asked a couple more of my colleagues (an Italian Fellow, and an Australian Research Fellow in Chinese studies), and neither had heard of columbaria; that makes something like thirty of forty people that I've asked, from many countries, and none had heard of the word in this usage), the alternative is understanable by anybody, and is at least no worse. Is it so unacceptable to you that it's worth all this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does the google link | google returns 5,000+ pages to me, and only returned 3 to your computer? This is a hugh difference. Maybe we are dealing with a technical problem all the while. May I asked anyone else reading this discussion (especially neutral party) to verify? Just click on this | google link and write in the list below how many returns you get. Our purpose here is to examine whether the word "interred" has been used in the context of "cremation/columbarium", and in which domain the usage has extend to. Thanks alot, hopefully, it may help us to resolve the issue.  : ) Vsion 21:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Experimental result:
    • Mel Etitis's machine gets only 3 returns,
    • Vsion: 5,750 returns

Why do we all have to get so argumentative? That's a good question.

"Inter" refers to burying something, dead of course, in the ground, and is therefore not applicable to this case. If the sentence were to be "... and his ashes interred at This Cemetery, ..." then it would be all right. The ashes are interred in a plot of land, or, in short, buried. In this instance, it could be more correct to simply say "... his ashes stored or placed...." However, closer examination of the sentence in question reveals that he should have been buried: "... asked to be "cremated" and interred in the Mandai "Columbarium" with ordinary citizens, instead of the Kranji War "Cemetery", ..." Note the cemetery - he was supposed to be buried but changed his mind and what? Were his ashes buried under a tree at the columbarium? Were they supposed to be placed in a storage room at the cemetery? "Interred" applies here to both the places "columbarium" and "cemetery," and logically, one is interred in a cemetery. But "placing ashes in" cannot refer to a cemetery, so this needs clarification before we can proceed with the inter/place ashes in/bury dispute.

I cannot help you with all your personal disputes. Please settle them outside of this talk page. We are not supposed to argue in a talk page, discussion room, meeting hall, or any place similar over PERSONAL MATTERS, DO YOU HEAR? NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE!!!!! As a sign of courtesy, please leave the talk page free for article-related matters. I remember when I was new, I clicked on the little tab marked "discussion," hoping to find additional information on the article's topic, and what did I find? A bunch of merry people like you. Technical jargon. Edit disputes. I didn't understand a single thing and I started wondering if all Wikipedians were like those guys back there. I never thought I'd see that stuff again, but here it is, right in front of my eyes. Have you no respect for the poor readers? Do you have any idea what you look like to the outside world? Do you even think we can FUNCTION PROPERLY if we're always ARGUING AMONG OURSELVES?

Huaiwei, if you are biased, or have a personal problem with Mel Etitis, I ask you not to bring your hard feelings and prejudices into this article-related dispute. Try to set those aside so that we can work in peace. Vsion, try not to overreact and find problems with other users. If you have a question, ask it. Don't give a whole list of +500 articles to prove that "inter" has many different uses. We need simple, controlled responses here, not whole lists and arguments like the ones I see here. Mel, try to act less aggressively as these other users feel threatened and put themselves in the defensive instantly. Try not to say things in negative form (the Internet is notorious for ...) because it puts things in a bad light. Anyway, shame on you. All of you. For acting so uncooperatively and hostile towards each other.

My apologies to all those offended, but as you can see, it is necessary to let off some steam once in a while. And I have never before heard the word "columbarium." See you around. JMBell° 21:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Vsion, I followed your link, and di indeed get thosands of hits; at first I wondered why, but then I noticed that you didn't use inverted commas (that is, instead of "interred in columbarium" you searched for interred + in + columbarium); you thus get any article that includes either "interred" or "columbarium" ("in" is ignored). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I was wrong; Vsion's version gives all those articles containing both "interred" and "columbarium" (still ignoring "in"). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I think the last few comments in the discussion (including Mel Etitis's) have been amicable and controlled. (There were some misunderstandings, but we were able to clear them up promptly) I thought that my numerical listing will make it more manageable and easier to refer to. We are dealing with a technical issue here (whether "interred" is "common use"); I have many questions and I have asked them many times, but I got no reply. In addition, why is my data (examples of word usage) less appropriate compared to anecdotal evidence? Many linguistic books / papers are using the same method for analyzing trends. Please enlighten. : ) Vsion 22:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The answer depends upon what's meant by "common use". If you mean, is it used by ordinary people? then I'd say no — I don't think I've ever heard it used in everyday conversation. As so often in English, Latin-derived words are used in specific contexts, German-derived words are more everyday. In this case, "interred" is used commonly by journalists, funeral directors, etc.; thus, "inter" is rather like "slay". Newspaper headlines frequently say things like "Thirty nuns slain by mad axeman", but you'll not hear people use the term in conversation; they'll say "did you see that a mad axeman killed thirty nuns?" Generally speaking, factual, formal writing prefers the everyday vocabulary, leaving the fancy stuff for journalism and the pulpier end of the non-fiction market. It's not simply how many times a term is used, therefore, but in which contexts it's used. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to JMBell's first paragraph: Wee Kim Wee chose to be cremated, instead of being buried at the war cemetary without being cremated. So "intered at the columbarium" is not suggesting he is "buried" in the columbarium at all. We dont bury cremated ashes in a columbarium here. We store them in elevated "units" (or niches) almost like book shelves in a library. In The Straits Times, dated May 10 2005, page H5, it was indicated in a report that his ashes are stored at Block E1-01, 0322, Mandai Crematorum and Columbarium.

In response to Mel Etitis: I suspect the simple reason why a casual survey amongst his friends around him turns up little familiarity with the word Columbarium, is simply because cremation and the storage of ashes in elevated niches is not common place in most parts of the World relative to burial, whether of whole bodies, or the cremated remains. In Singapore, however, it is part and parcel of the last phase in our lives fo rthe vast majority of us, and I would expect some appreciation of this fact instead of forming conclusive remarks based on a casual survey of "international" respondants. I would love to know their backgrounds before we accept this survey result. Also, I do not appreciate this repeated questioning on the usage of the word Columbarium, when we have already seen above that it is part of a place name. And of coz, I dont appreciate being labelled as a "nationalist" just because I said columbariums are common in Singapore, but I will let it pass from now on. Meanwhile, just try google search, and see how many places uses that term....unless the usage of google is considered unacceptable?--Huaiwei 06:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

JMBell, calm down, calm down (if I may borrow your words), I really appreciate your good intention. This discussion is not as bad as you sounded, but you have now made it looked worse with the bold font and capitalisation. About another point you had raised earlier. You suggested that “It's the Asian spirit, …. They try to defend their pride and reputation. … …” I personally don’t think other nationalities will react differently under this specific situation. What if articles like “Arlington”, “Pope”, and “George VI” are edited in the same way, and after some to-and-fro reverts, given the same comments that Mel Etitis gave us: “I changed the language, because interred is a genteelism for buried …". What do you think will happen, honestly? …… I bet it will create enormous outrage, far worse than ours because only two of us are defending here. This is beside the main discussion, but since JMBell made that “Asian spirit” statement, I hope to clarify his misunderstanding. Final note,... although I feel embarrassed by the long discussion, I’m not at all ashamed to defend the use of “interred” in this article :D Vsion 09:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

For JMBell's sake, I think he started talking about the "Asian spirit" since User:Mailer_diablo wrote this in this userpage:

"You may be interested to know that Asians (me included) see pride and shame as an important part of culture, which they will strongly defend it at all costs so "fighting fire with fire" is a bad idea." Source: User_talk:JMBell#Singapore_Wikipedians

Although that is probably true to some degree, I would think it also cannot be taken too literally, nor to the extent that it becomes an excuse for Asians to be obnoxiously defensive, or for non-Asians to start banding all Asians together and assume they are all so! :D--Huaiwei 11:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, well, we seem to have reached a stalemate here! I guess we've decided not to use "interred?" JMBell° 16:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"stalemate" Yes, "we've decided... ..." No. No, I do not agree that "interred" (the original version) be removed just because of personal style. I have contributed material to this article, if another person is just copy-editing, he should not insist on changing a word just because of personal style. Why I called this personal style? Because I am more convinced now that "interred" is acceptable in encyclopedia, because I have found it's use in Britannica encycleopedia (in the same context). But I don't think this evidence will have any effect, because Mel have already made up his mind. Mel refused to accept that the usage of "interred" has evolved and is now in "common use in this context and in this genre" despite all the evidence I've shown. And wikipedia does not have good mechanism to resolve this kind of dispute if one side is wrong but adament. Anyway, thanks JMBell. -- Vsion 17:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've explained what I take to be wrong with "interred" in terms of its meaning and its register; Vsion has pointed to a number of places where "interred" is used, but mostly not with regard to ashes, and mostly in contexts where the register is very different. The vague reference to the Britannica doesn't help. I'm still not clear, on the other hand, what's wrong with "ashes placed". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned many time, once you fixed the "goalpost", then I will show you the specific Britannica reference (in the cremation context). This is a very small goalpost already; So, are you willing to accept this test to resolve our dispute objectively ..... Yes or No ? Vsion 18:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that you've missed my main point: I think that there's a problem with using "interred" here, and I've offered another term. If you have reasons for thinking there's a problem with using my version, then we have a genuine impasse, and we need to find a solution. Do you think that there's a problem with using my version, and if so, what? My goalposts have remained the same from the beginning; I'm waiting for someone to set up goalposts at the other end of the pitch. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

We're trying to look for "ashes being interred," not just "ashes" and "interred." There's a difference. Show us the Brittanica reference so that we can be able to decide whether or not we should use interred! I see no problem in using "his ashes were placed" in so-and-so, and saying "his remains were interred" is being too vague. If you think we should use "inter," give me ample evidence so that at least I can be convinced and support you! How can I support you when I have no reason to? Give me a reason. Show us the evidence, for goodness' sake, what are you waiting for? There is absolutely no reason to stand around here waiting for an answer that you know will and can not come for reasons I already stated! This, this, is the stalemate I was referring to! You, Vsion, you hold the keys to the solution, for heavens' sake. Only you can solve this problem, that is, if you want to. So once and for all, show us the evidence so that WE can see if YOU are right and if WE are wrong and not the other way 'round. You have to see this - this is not going to get fixed until you show us at least one reliable reference which shows that "inter" can be used with "ashes" and/or "cremation." This is not going to stop until you do something, so I suggest you do it now, for your sake and for my sake and for the whole (censored) encyclopedia's sake, DO IT¹!!! JMBell° 21:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

¹- As you know, this refers to the said Britannica reference which User:Vsion must show in order to fix this whole mess. Will he do it??? Come and see on the next post on Talk:Wee Kim Wee! (what a lame joke)

First, this is not a joke. I believe I have quite understood Mel's position, which I disagree. But, it is not personal, but technical and administrative disagreement. I hope you (JMBell) can read through the whole discussion (long as it is) to understand my logic and position. JMBell has also misinterpreted Mel's position (his main objection is genteelism and non-common-use). I have presented many evidence in User:Vsion/temp and google to show otherwise. The google links are all related to cremation and come from many formal/official domains. JMBell, can you click on it and take a look?

Let me give one specific example found in Humphrey Bogart which has this phase:

"...His cremated remains are interred in... ". 

This (and the google examples) clearly show that "interred" can be used with cremation-services. May I ask JMBell if these are reliable references? (If not, please tell me what kind of reference will be considered "reliable"?) Now... if similar sentences are found in Britannica, will it be acceptable to Mel? But, he already rejected my test proposal (offer is still valid). JMBell, you said I hold the key, I don't think so ... ... Vsion 00:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, JMBell was referring to his own comment as a joke. Secondly, and more importantly, my concern is primarily with the meaning of "inter", and then (almost as importantly) with its register. That the word is misused in umpteen other places is irrelevant; I can show you thousands of uses of "beg the question" to mean "raise the question", "infer" to mean "imply", "disinterested" to mean "uninterested", "flaunt" to mean "flout", and so on and so on. Many of those uses will be from supposedly respectable sources, such as the BBC. None of them, nor all of them together, means that we should use those terms wrongly too.

Thirdly, the use in Humphrey Bogart is clearly different from here, in that the ashes were buried (that word is actually used in a bit of elegant variation in the same sentence). My position has been clear: there is some leeway with the use of "inter", so that it can be used for the burial of non-bodies, or (less clearly) for the non-burial of bodies — but not for the non-burial of non-bodies.

Fourthly, Vsion is evading my question. I've given an exhaustive (indeed, disproportionate) account of my reasons for rejecting the use of "inter" here; are there similar reasons for rejecting my alternative? If not, then what's the problem? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever say this whole thing was a joke? That was a self-reference! Second, I have read through the whole discussion ever since the moment I took part in it so it is quite wrong to say that I am basing my opinions on short parts of the discussion! Thirdly, you two are turning this technical matter into a personal matter, to the point where neither of you will want to work with the other because, you say, "he is so stubborn." Fourth, I have not misinterpreted Mel's objections that "inter" cannot be used because it is not commonly used, and I support that. If you believe otherwise, show me ample reliable evidence that "inter" can be used with "ashes" and in a "columbarium!" You still hold the keys, Vsion. If you show a Britannica reference, I'm sure Mel will have to agree with you. But as of now, you have not done anything, just given a couple of references which are unreliable, to say the least. By reliable, I mean something written by professionals and not by people in the US Government, the US Army, the New York Times, or the funeral business/service! We need to see "ashes being interred" by serious, professional writers! I would ask a dozen English teachers about its use if only I knew a dozen English teachers. Fifth, in Humphrey Bogart, (yeah, Mel's correct) "inter" meant "buried," like "buried in a cemetery?" We need to see "buried in a columbarium" or "ashes being interred" written by respected writers to be able to (see above). Sixth, don't evade questions. I don't what kind of personal problem you have with Mel, but it's certainly not my job to fix that up. You help yourself now. JMBell° 10:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey,... I am doing all the work and showing evidence, can you guys be more appreciative? So now "one reliable evidence" has become "ample reliable evidence", (goalpost shifting). Nevermind.... another example: Thomas Hardy

"..... and his ashes were interred in the abbey."  

... enjoy moving the goalpost :D -- Vsion 21:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vsion, you need to make up your mind who you're discussing this issue with. If it's with me, then don't use someone else's comments as a way of avoiding mine, and do me the courtesy of answering my questions. If you've decided to ignore me (and your supposed example certainly ignores what I've said, as does your failure to address my points), then say so and have done with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For heavens' sake, Vsion! I am NOT moving the GOALPOST! Does it matter if I say "one piece of evidence" or "ample evidence?" Why do you magnify such a small thing? YOU are making me shift the goalpost. Now, once and for all, will you please show us the Britannica reference so that we can MAKE UP OUR MINDS and GET OVER WITH THIS??? Do I have to SHOUT every time just to make myself HEARD? We want reliable, encyclopedic proof that "ashes" can be "interred," not a storybook rendition or a journalist's jottings or an obituary, we need something more reliable! Now please get this over and done with. Oh God, these people... JMBell° 23:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And before I forget, don't give one answer for each day. It wastes time. JMBell° 23:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)