This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I confess that I had seen this disagreement earlier but had hoped to stay out of it because my involvement has some possibility of damaging my relationship with either of you. But I hope things will work out in a way satisfactory to all of us. I can't review everything yet, but I hope what I can do now will be a good start. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"International English" is somewhat analogous to "ghost" or "array".
Regardless of whether ghosts exist, there is a commonly understood concept of "ghost". Regardless of whether "International English" exists, there is a concept (or two or three) of "International English" that is understood by a number of people, and that understanding has been documented (although the documents may be lacking).
An "array" is essentially an "assemblage". But many people use the word to mean "variety". I say that usage is incorrect, and I fix it when I can.
Jallan is not saying that "International English" actually means "British English". At least roughly speaking, Jallan is saying that some people use it to mean the same thing. As far as I can tell, that statement is both true and verifiable. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whether Jallan's work is original research I will not address now. I can see how that question is debatable. But, as far as I can tell, user:Jallan/International English does not meet the criteria as outlined at Wikipedia: No original research#What is research and what is not, which says: "A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas."
Between the references Jallan has provided and use of the expression "International English" elsewhere in Wikipedia, my view is that Jallan is not proposing anything new.
It could be argued that Jallan is "defining new terms". But I see that as a weak argument, in that Jallan is reporting definition by others. One of the better examples is this:
I think all of us involved in this discussion would prefer more authoritative references. But at least in the abstract, I disagree with excluding less-than-ideal sources when those are the best that can be found. In my view, that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
On the other hand, I think it would be worthwhile to point out in some appropriate way that there is a lack of better sources. The easiest way to do this might be: "'International English' is not listed or defined in the following dictionaries: blah, blah, and blah." Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, Zundark, article Talk pages are not supposed to have comments deleted from them, except in cases of vandalism. Slim 05:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Just in case anything goes badly … if either of you ever thinks what I'm doing here is not helping, please let me know. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment here: "It's important to point out, if it's true, that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."
But I often disagree with using absolutes. We can't know with any certainty that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."
From Web searching, it appears that there are some "International English" reference books. From cursory knowledge, it also appears (and only appears, I don't state this definitively at all) that those do not codify any particular variety. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also agree with this sentiment expressed earlier by Jeff Q:
And this: "If there are conflicting meanings (which is obviously the case), they should all be listed." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe the article could say something along the lines of this: "The expression 'International English' is sometimes used in contrast to 'American English'." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maurreen, as you know, Wikipedia articles can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources, and especially can't use other editors' comments as sources. Can you find an external, authoritative source that says or implies "International English is sometimes used in contrast to American English"? Slim 05:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I confess that I had seen this disagreement earlier but had hoped to stay out of it because my involvement has some possibility of damaging my relationship with either of you. But I hope things will work out in a way satisfactory to all of us. I can't review everything yet, but I hope what I can do now will be a good start. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"International English" is somewhat analogous to "ghost" or "array".
Regardless of whether ghosts exist, there is a commonly understood concept of "ghost". Regardless of whether "International English" exists, there is a concept (or two or three) of "International English" that is understood by a number of people, and that understanding has been documented (although the documents may be lacking).
An "array" is essentially an "assemblage". But many people use the word to mean "variety". I say that usage is incorrect, and I fix it when I can.
Jallan is not saying that "International English" actually means "British English". At least roughly speaking, Jallan is saying that some people use it to mean the same thing. As far as I can tell, that statement is both true and verifiable. Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whether Jallan's work is original research I will not address now. I can see how that question is debatable. But, as far as I can tell, user:Jallan/International English does not meet the criteria as outlined at Wikipedia: No original research#What is research and what is not, which says: "A wikipedia entry (including a part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas."
Between the references Jallan has provided and use of the expression "International English" elsewhere in Wikipedia, my view is that Jallan is not proposing anything new.
It could be argued that Jallan is "defining new terms". But I see that as a weak argument, in that Jallan is reporting definition by others. One of the better examples is this:
I think all of us involved in this discussion would prefer more authoritative references. But at least in the abstract, I disagree with excluding less-than-ideal sources when those are the best that can be found. In my view, that makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
On the other hand, I think it would be worthwhile to point out in some appropriate way that there is a lack of better sources. The easiest way to do this might be: "'International English' is not listed or defined in the following dictionaries: blah, blah, and blah." Maurreen 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, Zundark, article Talk pages are not supposed to have comments deleted from them, except in cases of vandalism. Slim 05:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Just in case anything goes badly … if either of you ever thinks what I'm doing here is not helping, please let me know. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment here: "It's important to point out, if it's true, that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."
But I often disagree with using absolutes. We can't know with any certainty that there is no such thing as an "international English" style manual, or an "international English" dictionary."
From Web searching, it appears that there are some "International English" reference books. From cursory knowledge, it also appears (and only appears, I don't state this definitively at all) that those do not codify any particular variety. Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also agree with this sentiment expressed earlier by Jeff Q:
And this: "If there are conflicting meanings (which is obviously the case), they should all be listed." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe the article could say something along the lines of this: "The expression 'International English' is sometimes used in contrast to 'American English'." Maurreen 08:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maurreen, as you know, Wikipedia articles can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources, and especially can't use other editors' comments as sources. Can you find an external, authoritative source that says or implies "International English is sometimes used in contrast to American English"? Slim 05:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)