Talk:List of Michigan county name etymologies

Maps needed[edit]

We could use maps which show the evolution of the county names and lines over time. I think the piece would be improved by that.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

NOT. I put in internal links in article that brought together all of the information that one could reasonably need. There already are maps, and now there is a link to them. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Extraneous information on the lawyer Kent of Kent County[edit]

Dear BKonrad:

Interestingly, even as you were deleting my informaiton about the Kent in Kent County, Michigan as "extraneous", I was having another gentleman delete an internal link to List of Michigan county name etymologies as 'irrelevant' to the entry on the Toledo War.

With respect, one can fairly deduce the hows and whys of the Michigan county name changes. This ties in perfectly with the cabinet counties, and shows the undying gratitude of a grateful state.

You are just as wrong on this one as is the gentleman on the Toledo War.

I understand relevancy. It is my job. But this relates to the major thesis of the article.

One has to think about the total picture, and presenting it in accord with accuracy and recorded history. I did that here.

Think about it. I know you can do right on this disagreement.

Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

A question of grammar and syntax[edit]

I put in the following in the article:

The differences in meaning would appear to be (at least in part) due to the difference between a literal translation and a more contextual interpretation. Place names that are devoid of (remembered) history, context, persons or place are subject to infinite debate, since by definition all of the participants are dead, and actual documents showing their intent are rare or no longer existent.

My question is whether "persons" or "place" should each be singular or plural? Which would better convey the thought?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Your major copy edit[edit]

Wow, you sure we're busy. I might suggest, however, that simply saying that Alcona County or Alpena County was a made up word, without giving the supposed meaning and origin, might be throwing out the substance of the article. I in fact sources that information, so that can't be a criticism, I don't think.

You also got rid of the text on Otsego County in the examples, and it was not repeated in the list.

Just a gentle suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

In the entries for either one, that information would be appropriate (or in the articles). But using them as examples to put forward an argument is not appropriate. By the way, I'm not too happy with how the the list is currently formatted -- it is not very conducive to including more that a very short statement about the derivation. But I've no time at the moment to re-work the presentation. older ≠ wiser 18:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when I started working with it, it was only a list. Then I added the other sections, and tried to give some context. As you have. In addition to the internal links, there are maybe four or five good sources, and they disagree. the list of Michigan counties does not address a lot of meanings for quite a few of the names -- it just has a blank, or says something like 'Henry Schoolcraft made this up.' The other sources (Clarke Historical Library bibliography for each county, the various soil conservation documents for each county -- somebody really had some resources when they did that -- the Michigan manual, the governmental list of Michigan counties, and others, frequently disagree. I think the article should show the tension between the sources and the experts who have opinions on the subject. A blank, or a faked result which suggests their is unanimity or glosses over the differences, does not do the reader a service.

As I said in the article, there is difference between translation and interpretation. As John F. Kennedy once told a cold war audience, "Ich bin ein Berliner" -- 'I am a jelly donut.' That's why the people standing behind him are laughing. Even if you were operating in one language, the meaning of words must depend on the context. See Corbin on Contracts and Restatement of Contracts 2nd.

The deeper I got into this, the more I realized that there were no simple answers (other than Jackson County was named for Andrew Jackson.

Indeed, I am starting to come to the conclusion that I really should do some independent research and write a non-Wiki article on the subject. Maybe I could even get it published and get paid for it. [:}

I thought you had really spent a lot of time and effort on the rewrite, and I appreciate the help.

Happy New Year to you.

7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan[reply]

Yes, sources may disagree, but in the majority of cases I think the differences are mostly due to obscurity. For instance, no one really knows for certain the origin of cheboygan. Similarly, most of the names that Schoolcraft invented are purely his invention. In some cases he may have documented something about how he derived a term and what it meant to him. In cases where he did not, other people may have various speculative interpretations and it is hardly surprising that such speculations may be at odds.

Yes there is a difference between translation and interpretation, but a wikipedia article is not the place to put forth an original analysis of differences between sources, and especially not to draw conclusions based on that analysis.

That list of Michigan counties does not have entries for many counties only means that article is incomplete. I didn't notice any details there that contradicted information in this list -- some entries were less detailed, but each article does not need to reproduce every detail from other articles. older ≠ wiser 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you were merging/deleting this article, proper etiquette would have been to notify contributing editors.[edit]

You merged this. You didn't bother to notify contributing editors of the proposal. I was a major contributor. Viewed most charitably, this was an oversight. Viewed more crudely, this was rude and a breach of etiquette. Either way, I dissent. It is now a matter of record, as is your protocol. I trust this won't happen in the future. WP:AGF. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan[reply]