Talk:Rongorongo/archive 2

Time to call it a day

Submit it for Featured Article now. And see. It's a great deal of a lot better than the article on the Voynich Manuscript. So be done and over with it.

Oh yea, and today I just got a letter from the Domain Registry of America urging me to renew roro.org. "Domain Name Expiration Notice" they call it.

Eh eh eh eh! They want AUD41 for one year. But the US price is $30 and the Aussie dollar is worth over 90 cents US. And compare that with godaddy.com's fee or $8.99 per year! And you should see the size of the fine print on the back of the letter. Must be one pica. I'm gonna treasure it until I can afford and electronic microscope.

Yes, I keep it off line. And also because of a complete trou-du-cul, du nom de Fabien Héry, qui a l'invraisemblable culot de corriger mon français sur la wiki franchouille, là:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rongo-Rongo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.182.254 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a little pricey. I'll take the link out from the page. Let me know if you set up again elsewhere.

Yes, since Bush won't be out of office till next year, I expect we'll soon reach $ parity. Too bad he won't get another term: You could take vacations to the States on the cheap. kwami (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed section on modern manuscripts

Preserving section here:

The 1955 Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island directed by Thor Heyerdahl, recovered several rongorongo manuscripts known as A, B, C, and D, some on exercise books, some on ledger books. Photographic reproductions were published in Heyerdahl (1965: 2.420-458). These are sometimes used in attempts at decipherment, but they contain rather faithful copies or adaptations of Jaussen's material, not additional texts. There is also calendrical information in the Latin alphabet: One page of manuscript A (AKA the Esteban Atan manuscript) is a failed attempt at matching the months of the old luni-solar calendar with those of the English-derived solar calendar (Heyerdahl 1965, Fig. 110); another page (Fig. 128) is a similarly fruitless attempt to match nights of the old lunar month to the 30 nights of June 1936.

Ref: The months named in figure 110 are mis-spelt Tahitian, which were borrowed from English. As English j, s, g, k do not occur in Tahitian, they are regularly replaced by Tahitian t; likewise, Rapanui does not have an f, and so replaces Tahitian f with p. Thus te nu ari is Tahitian tenuare, from English 'January'; apapu ari is the local pronunciation of fepuare, from 'February'; aaperirá is eperera, from 'April'; and so on with mé (me, May), tiúnu (tiunu, June), tiu rai (tiurai, July), a tete (‘atete, August), tete pa (tetepa, September), oto pa (‘atopa, October), noe ma (novema, November), tete ma (titema, December). Likewise, the names of the nights seen in figure 128 are grossly wrong, with some missing and some invented, showing that knowledge of the old calendar had been lost by the time this manuscript was written, presumably around June 1936. (Guy 1992)

During his fieldwork on Easter Island in 1957-58 Barthel discovered two further manuscripts, known as E and F (Heyerdahl 1965:2.387-389).

Ref: Heyerdahl, Thor (1965). "The Concept of Rongorongo Among the Historic Population of Easter Island". In Thor Heyerdahl & Edwin N. Ferdon, Jr (ed.). Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific. Stockholm: Forum. {{cite book}}: templatestyles stripmarker in |author= at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

— kwami (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also removing the comment

If shark teeth are ever found that display wear from being used as writing instruments, they could give a more direct carbon date of the inscriptions.

per peer review until I find the ref that suggested that. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Lorena Bettocchi

Lorena Bettocchi, specialiste des manuscrits, à Kwami : Les manuscrits font partie de la banque de données rongorongo et je sens que tu te penches sur le sujet. Bravo. Il convient de faire un chapitre sur le theme, mais un chapitre absolument complet. N'oublie pas de signaler que Thomas Barthel a trouvé le manuscrit E en possession de Gabriel Veri-veri, isolé au dispensaire des lépreux, et il l'a photographié. Thomas Barthel a également analysé ces manuscrits dans son ouvrage The Eighth Land...[[1]]

Pourquoi est-ce important de parler des manuscrits ? Ils représentent la banque de données polynésienne du début du 20e siècle (1936). Lorena Bettocchi a trouvé et analysé deux autres manuscrits le G, identifié comme écrit par Gabriel Veri.veri et un manuscrit qui a son importance en ethnolinguistique appelé le RONGO METUA (MESSAGE DES ANCIENS) : car le répertoire Jaussen comportant un grand nombre d'erreurs, il fut corrigé par un atelier secret des lépreux. Publications : Tahtiti Pacifique Magazine n° 185, septembre 2006, Datos historicos sobre la antigua escritura rongorongo Actas del Museo Maritimo oct.2006 - Ces publications ne sont pas de Rapanui Journal, bien sur, mais elles sont validées par les linguistes polynésiens pour peu qu'ils aient étudié en profondeur le répertoire Jaussen. Les manuscrits sur le rongorongo comportent : a) des elements du répertoire Jaussen, b) des éléments créés, c) des elements du répertoire Jaussen revu et corrigé, et... dans le manuscrit E (The Eighth Land, 1978 Thomas Barthel) : des éléments de la petite tablette de Londres et de la Aruku Kurenga. C'est tout ce qu'il reste de leur ancienne écriture sur tablettes, à ce peuple de linguistes entre -1886 et 1936-, jusqu'à la venue du livre de Steven-Chauvet qui a redonné au Pascuans un grand nombre de signes avec les photographies. Puis il y eut des moulages des tablettes de Santiago et les Pascuans retrouverent leur écriture avec les copies. Donc ces manuscrits sont précieux.

Récapitulons : en 2008, nous avons 11 (onze) banques de données casi completes sur les écriture pascuanes : a) les petroglyphes, b)les 25 tablettes anciennes rongorongo sacrées (tapu)- Items A à Y, c) les tablettes modernes >1886 avec poissons coquillages, oiseau etc. non tapu dont la Z, d)les manuscrits des lépreux - LE RONGO METUA- est issu d'un atelier avec rituel donc tapu (e) les recitations de Metoro 1868-1872 (sans la traduction de Jaussen f) les récitations de Ure Vae Iko et Kaitae 1886 Thomson sans la traduction de Salmon g)les récitations et notes manuscrites de Fata He et Tomenika 1914 Katherine Routledge - la plus honnête sur le sujet, car elle ne traduit que quelques lignes h)les manuscrits des lépreux i) les écritures boustrophédon Items A à Y et les écritures cursives dont l'item Z j)les écritures ancienennes et les tau, à partir de la fin du 19e k) les pierres avec écriture rongorongo acienne ou tau -objets modernes, mais encore fallait-il le prouver... Ces dossiers sont énormes et ne peuvent se résumer en une bibliographie choisie et ancienne...

Ceci constitue une somme d'informations, une banque de données globale exacte au niveau de l'image et avec des erreurs à rectifier au niveau des interprétations et témoignages des scientifiques et chercheurs occidentaux de 1893 à 2005. La banque de donnée la plus fausse est celle de Tati Salmon devant Thomson. Tati Salmon est un cas juridiquement parlant - Nous sommes trois chercheurs specialistes de son langage tahitien-rapanui-collé- mais phonétiquement reconnaissable : un linguiste auprès des archives des tribunaux de Tahiti pour tout ce qu'il a écrit au sujet de l'héritage Dutrou-Bornier Brander, un linguiste chilien, juriste de la constitution chilienne qui reprend les écrits de Salmon devant Policarpo Toro 1888, et moi sur les chants de Ure Vae Iko 1886. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.61.34 (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Manuscript page on-line

Lorena Bettocchi a Kwami : au sujet des manuscripts des lépreux, je commence à mettre en ligne quelquechose d'intéressant et cela va prendre du temps.[2]

Dans une précédente discussion avec Anne Koessler, tu écrivais que pour toi ce n'était pas évident de comprendre de quelle manière ils avaient corrigé le répertoire Jaussen. Il y aura des pages plus pédagogiques pour les internautes sous [[3]] et tout le dossier consacré à Tepano Jaussen. Qui donc avait dit en discutant avec toi sur wikipedia au sujet des manuscrits, que les anciens qui les avaient rédigés n'étaient, tout juste, que de bons dessinateurs ? Jacques Guy ? Quel cynisme ! Il serait bon qu'il présente ses excuses à ce sujet et qu'il se documente au sujet de leur histoire. Car les lépreux ont travaillé au répertoire Jaussen de facon initiatique dès l'arrivée du livre du Père Ildefonse Alezard : Henri Lavachery leur avait laissé. 1893-1935 est le laps de temps pour corriger le répertoire. Une quarantaine d'années. Ils l'ont corrigé immédiatement, dès qu'ils en ont eu connaissance : car c'etait leur écriture et leur domaine. Qui donc avait écrit qu'ils n'avaient aucune idée de ce qu'était le rongorongo ? Encore ce Monsieur Guy ? Et nous qui prétendons être clairvoyants ? Je suis la seule à avoir étudié profondément les erreurs de la parution Jaussen et le laps de temps est : 1893-2003. 110 ans d'obscurantisme ou d'auto-satisfaction ? Aucun chercheur ne l'avait fait auparavant bien que des articles aient été publiés à ce sujet... Car nous avons la prétention de juger avant d'étudier en profondeur...

Les lépreux ont bien corrigé les erreurs du répertoire Jaussen et j'ai eu l'honneur de le découvrir. Auparavant ni Barthel, ni Fischer, ni Guy ne l'avaient constaté. Mais Barthel avait démontré l'approche la plus humaniste de la chose. Ceci est ma découverte qui fut completement gommée des premières pages de wikipedia en anglais... Kwami es-tu encore desireux de mettre des loquets pour censurer toute information à mon sujet ou me promets-tu d'y réfléchir ? Bien évidemment ces informations furent transmises aux académiciens de Tahiti et le publication de ma découverte fut faite, immédiatement sur Tahiti Pacifique Magazine en 2006 numéro 185. —12:21, 2008 April 20 77.218.250.164

Hey Lorena,

From what you've posted, it looks like the author copied Jaussen's list, made some lexical and grammatical corrections to the Latin script (which we all know is badly mangled, some of it Jaussen's error, but then compounded by poor typesetting), swapped te taina with he poki, and added a caption — this demonstrates his knowledge of Rapanui, but gives no indication that he understood anything about rongorongo other than what he could glean from Jaussen or maybe carving copies of tablet K. In fact, he even copied some apparent mistakes in Jaussen's list, which is evidence that he was completely ignorant of the structure of rongorongo. Sorry, but this is not the least bit convincing. I can see why Barthel, Fischer, and Guy (and several other people I've spoken to besides) all dismiss it.

As for de mettre des loquets pour censurer toute information à mon sujet, it's not a matter of convincing me: We simply don't permit original research on wikipedia. If you get your stuff published in a credible source, so that it is considered notable enough for a response, then fine, but otherwise it is not appropriate. You've spoken elsewhere of a conspiracy to silence the truth, always a sign of a fringe idea. Myself, I have all kinds of ideas I'd love to add to wikipedia (I think quarks are illusory, for example), things which I have even had published and which are available at any major bookstore, but which have not received wider recognition and which therefore are not notable. You believe you're right about rongorongo, but no-one else in the field epigraphy agrees with you; I believe I'm right about quarks, but no-one else (well, hardly anyone else) in the field of physics agrees with me. Neither of our ideas belongs here. kwami (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami : Tu as répondu trop vite ! 4 pages du Rongo Metua et de corrections des lépreux seront en ligne prochainement. En ce qui concerne la calligraphie, elle est propre à chaque personne. Il existe dans leur atelier une toute petite flamme Kwami et nous n'avons pas le droit de l'occulter car elle témoigne de leur intelligence et de leur connaissance. C'est l'honnêteté même. Les Pascuans connaissent la structure de leur écriture. Ils savent qu'un signe ou expression peut être composé de plusieurs mots, il se décrit avec des paroles choisies (Ure Vae Iko à Thomson): un signe n'est pas un symbole ou une preuve d'écriture syllabique. Lorsque nous auront entendu leur avis, leur opinion, lorsque nous aurons admis que les Pascuanos sont doués de raison, nous auront fait un grand pas dans la compréhension de ce qu'il reste du rongorongo. De plus la banque de données polynésienne existe´et celle-ci est celle de >1936<1965. La dernière. Pour comprendre le travail des lépreux il faut avoir étudié toute la banque de données Jaussen de 1869 aux ateliers des lépreux. Si on n'a pas étudié Metoro devant Jaussen, tout ce qu'il a dit (et ce qui est sur www.rongorongo.org est malheureusement imcompris car divisé de cinq expressions = cinq signes) si on n'a pas étudié le répertoire et les possibles expressions, on ne peut évaluer le travail des lépreux. Je ne pense pas que tu communiques avec beaucoup de scholars à ce sujet. Tu fais cavalier seul, uniquement en lectures et cela se voit sur toute ta page principale. Mais c'est déjà un début. L'aventure du rongorongo est très complexe. Et tu n'as pas l'agrément pour écrire seul sur le rongorongo. La page sur wikipedia en francais est une catastrophe et Jacques Guy a jugé celle-ci trés séverement. Ou vas-tu Kwami ?

Well, let's see what the other three pages are like. But since all reports indicate that no-one was literate after the depopulations of 1860-1880, your assertion that les Pascuans connaissent la structure de leur écriture [present tense??] requires justification. We can't take that for a given, we need to demonstrate it, just as with any novel claim, because it clearly goes against generally accepted opinion. As for who has the "right" to write here, that's easy: Everyone, but no original research, and you must justify your claims with reputable references. Barry Fell, who has claimed to have deciphered a dozen scripts, has claimed to have deciphered rongorongo too, and he's published on it, but we don't include him because the consensus is that it's nonsense. kwami (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008

(UTC)

About Santiago staff (Item I)

Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami Voici un travail complementaire mis à jour [[4]]. Les images parlent d'elles-même. Merci de le lire. Je confirme que l'écriture rongorongo ne peut être déchifrée. Il manque des signes dans chacune des familles pour comprendre les progressions.

Interesting discussion. However, the photos are so limited that's it's difficult to see your point. For example, I always assumed that if you started with B's line #12, and then continued with line #13, you might wrap around the end of #12 to fill in the gap with #13. Depending on how many lines you had, the last line (in this case #11) would be non-boustrophedon with either #12 or #13; by chance it happens to be #13. For me to be convinced that the glyphs filling the gap are really a 15th line, I'd need to see either photos or pencil rubbings that show the progression of the adjacent lines. kwami (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi to Kwami : je ne crois pas que tu aies compris et c'est normal, si tu n'as que Barthel sous les yeux, et les tracés ce qui tu as fait figurer de lui, sur ta page Item I... Bref, un groupe chilien est sur le nouveau tracé du bâton de Santiago, conjointement à un specialiste en épigraphie canadien. Il n'y a pas 15 lignes il convient de dire 15 sections. L'observation de la 15e section non-boustrophédon est notre découverte et elle doit figurer sur les tracés. Les photos ne sont pas limitées. J'ai tellement observe le copier/coller dans wikipedia... que je deviens prudente... tu sais de quoi je parle, n'est-ce-paa ? A présent je vais te laisser continuer un certain temps. Un couple averti du CEIPP imprime tes pages et les commente et selon nous, tu as encore à progresser. Bonne route Kwami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.250.164 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami : sur le baton de Santiago j'ai ajouté mon dossier recherche et envoyé un courrier à Steven Fischer.

About Stephen-Chauvet fragment (Item F)

Lorena Bettocchi à Kwami : il n'est plus dans la collection Arman mais chez Merton Simpson Gallery. Il figure sur leur site web.

Merci bien! kwami (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New Pozdniakov article

A new article:

• Поздняков И.К., Поздняков К.И. (2005). Рапануйская письменность и рапануйский язык: предварительные результаты статистического анализа. / Антропологический форум. 3:167–204.

— kwami (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an English translation of this at [5]. Ngio (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is turning into shit again

viz: "Authentic rongorongo texts are written in alternating directions, a system called boustrophedon."

REVERSE boustrophedon. There was a precise explanation, it has disappeared.

and: "Individual texts may be distinguished by a single uppercase letter"

Neither "may" nor "distinguish." They ARE REFERENCED by a single uppercase letter or... JacquesGuy (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase reverse boustrophedon still occurs in the body of the article, where writing direction is discussed. I didn't feel it was necessary to be that precise in the lede, where we want to give a flavor of the article without burdening the reader with too much specialized vocabulary.

No, they may be referred to that way. They may also be referred to with a nickname or by Fischer's RR numbers. —kwami (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The second half of the article was split off to Decipherment of rongorongo. kwami (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Major copyright image problems

Nearly all of the images in this article are copyright violations. Because they are not strictly 2D, the photographers own the copyrights over their own images. (Even coins do not qualify for the 2D exception.) I can't tell whether any of the photos were taken by this article's authors, but if not they should almost universally be deleted. Mangostar (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangostar, the issue is not whether or not an item is 2D or 3D. (After all, there are no 2D objects.) Rather, it is an issue of whether there is any originality in the photos. This is stated explicitly at Commons: a coin photographed with original framing and lighting is not PD, but the same coin copied on a scanner is PD. Nearly all of these photos are PD by this argument, since they were taken to be as accurate as possible, explicitly attempting to avoid any originality. Also, a photo of a 2D surface of a 3D object counts as 2D. This point is also made at Commons. They should probably be Template:PD-ineligible. Just to be safe, I have removed all of the thumbs and added Fair Use tags to a couple of the remaining images, but I don't think they're necessary. kwami (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi a Kwami : en effet je t'avais prévenu sur le copyright des photos mais Mangostar se trompe sur les droits afférents aux objets religieux, de tradition orale et d'écriture : le papier appartient peut-être aux Musées, mais l'image de l'écriture appartient au peuple indigène c'est une résolution de l'ONU. C'est la raison pour laquelle la page principale doit être conforme aux données actuelles.

J'ai mis en ligne un exemple du travail admirable de la commission rongorongo du CEIPP sur http://www.rongo-rongo.com/linguistes4.html

Jettes un coup d'oeil au tableau, Kwami tu vas être surpris. Sur le tableu figurent les fréquence des signes sur les 25 Items. Tu vas comprendre a) pourquoi la Z ne fait pas partie des pièces d'écriture ancienne. b) tu vas constater également qu' il manque en raison des pièces détruites une partie des progressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.95.132 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lorena, do you know the relevant UN resolution, so I can look it up? kwami (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the CEIPP image. I wonder how Pozdniakov would summarize it. kwami (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Lorena Bettocchi a Kwami: la résolution a eu lieu après l'intervention des Inuits devant la commission de l'ONU dont le travail est la protection des peuples indigènes. Je n'ai pas le numéro de la résolution par contre voici la nouvelle déclaration l'article 11 est celui qui englobe le droit au retour non des tablettes des musées mais des images de leur écriture photos et relevés. A ce sujet Jacques Guy vient de faire preuve d'Humanité : il a réactivé son site www.rongorongo.org et cela est bien car j'avais deux groupes de travail sur son site au Chili et je suis en relation avec un groupe de travail qui l'ulisait au Canada. Les pages sur les ITEMS nous sont toutes nécessaires. Ceci est pour la postérité. voici la déclaration adoptée par l'ONU en septembre 2007

http://www.onu.org.pe/Publico/CentroPrensa/DetalleNoticia.aspx?id=889

Artículo 11 1. Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a practicar y revitalizar sus tradiciones y costumbres culturales. Ello incluye el derecho a mantener, proteger y desarrollar las manifestaciones pasadas, presentes y futuras de sus culturas, como lugares arqueológicos e históricos, utensilios, diseños, ceremonias, tecnologías, artes visuales e interpretativas y literaturas. 2. Los Estados proporcionarán reparación por medio de mecanismos eficaces, que podrán incluir la restitución, establecidos conjuntamente con los pueblos indígenas, respecto de los bienes culturales, intelectuales, religiosos y espirituales de que hayan sido privados sin su consentimiento libre, previo e informado o en violación de sus leyes, tradiciones y costumbres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.95.132 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

en page pdf http://www.onu.org.pe/Upload/Documentos/pueblosindigenas_N0749833.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.95.132 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the issue to the copyright people. Still waiting for an answer. The question is whether they are photos of texts or of objects. However, if you or Catharine deny any claim to owning a copyright to your own photos, then there will be no problem using them here. Are you willing to do that? kwami (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology and variant names

I find this section very confusing. You are saying that because the word "rongorongo" meant such-and-such in most Austronesian languages therefore this is what it may mean? But then you follow that with so many things that are "said to have been", presumably by the referenced author, that the overall meaning becomes lost in the paragraph (to me). Maybe I just have to read it several times more. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm looking at how to make it more accessible, but am not sure how to proceed. I thought this was of some importance, because I've come across all sorts of nonsense about this. Rongorongo means "recitation" in Rapanui. That's the name for the script today. It has cognates in other Austronesian languages. (Maybe this should be taken out altogether, or demoted to a footnote.) However, it is not the original name of the script. We can't be sure exactly what that was, but have listed some possibilities along with their refs. kwami (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how's that? kwami (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is better. I was suspecting that was the case (original name unknown), which is more interesting to me than trying to come up with pseudo names. Would not the script be decipherable if it were related to a known language? Totally indecipherable is much more mysterious. How likely is it that it represents a new invention of human writing? –Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's almost certain that the script represents Rapanui. That alone does not make it decipherable--the sample size may just be too small. If it is true writing—and we don't know that—then it would almost certainly be an independent invention. There simply is no source for it to have been borrowed from apart from Fischer's idea of Spanish contact, which was minimal. We might be able to answer that question if we can ever decipher it. kwami (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I was reading some of you online references. It certainly is interesting and puzzling over it seems to have caused several people to get very frustrated. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

said to have been's

All those "said to have been"s, is it Englert who was doing the thinking? Or was he reporting that it was said to have been? If he was doing the thinking, perhaps a way to explain it would be to introduce his name as a major researcher in the area and then explain what his thinking was and why. Just an idea. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They are definitions from his dictionary. Trying to guess at his reasoning would be OR. I think you'd be happy if I just removed the "said to have been"s and reported them as established fact. However, the sociolinguistics of rongorongo—what the islanders thought of their script, how it was used, what its contents were, how it was learned, who could read it, etc.—is quite contentious. At one point I planned to add a section on the sociolinguistics, which the Writing Systems project recommends for every script. However, trying to write anything factual was an almost impossible task. There are tomes of speculation out there, but almost nothing is actually known. There's an interesting legend of a king going into battle with a rongorongo tablet that slays his enemies before him, like the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders. However, most of the records are rather late, and the later they are the more fanciful they become. Early records are quite poor. kwami (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I certainly would not suggest guessing at his reasoning. I was hoping that he explained more fully what his reasoning was than just a dictionary definition. I appreciate the fact that you are not willing to go further than what the sources actually state. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Passive voice

Perhaps one of the problems in the prose is the passive voice is used so much. For example, in the introduction the wording is almost all in the passive voice. The FAC people do no like that, I suspect. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)