Talk:Global Language Monitor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article tags[edit]

I think the article asserts notability but is still reads like a promotional, article could also benefit by explaining the origins, staff and recent developments (the book). Benjiboi 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated tag for tone instead. Benjiboi 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article repeats the unsubstantiated claims of the organization, which have been widely disputed and dismissed by serious linguists and lexicographers. Passages detailing these criticisms are promptly deleted by the creators. It is garbage, an insult to the Wikipedia project, and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellencwaine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Global Language Monitor's Research [1] page. It appears that the organization's research is taken quite seriously by many in the academic community, since citations include: International Journal of Web Information Systems, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Pattern Recognition Letters, Computer and Information Technology, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the Societa Dante Alighieri, and many others.

No, it appears that several authors with no linguistic credentials have been gulled into uncritically accepting the GLM's claims, on the assumption they were being offered by an honest research organization.

Re: the 'garbage' statement above, it appears that matters of dispute need not descend to the name-calling level.

I withdraw "garbage." Try "lies."

I found this in a recent article about the controversy: "Prescriptivists” believe in rules and dictionaries. Then there are those who, like Payack, are “descriptivists,” embrace this constant evolution of English. Theirs is a struggle of geeks, described by author David Foster Wallace as “the seamy underbelly of US lexicography [of] ideological strife and controversy and intrigue and nastiness and fervor.” [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.246.31 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Post quote is irrelevant to this article. Virtually all academic linguists and lexicographers are descriptivists of some flavour, so prescriptivism vs descriptivism is not an issue here. The controversy is about what other descriptivists think of GLM's assumptions and research methodologies. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now up to date, as far as I can tell.

The tag from 2007 on advertising/promotion should be removed, since no company's advertisement would ever carry so many well documented criticisms, IMHO. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.20.66 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other aspects to consider than presence of criticism. For instance, is it promotional by excessive detail? By use of material that comes from the company's own sources rather than secondary ones? By use of promotional language? For instance, "coming of age of English as the first, true global language" is not a neutral description of the media coverage; it's the MLM soundbite they quoted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I removed the coming of age language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.22.174 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Re this edit, I reverted it because it introduced into a list some words that were not on the list at the source cited, thus misrepresenting the source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating listing as requested[edit]

Updated WOTY (which was not updated since 2008), and Other Lists, adding the first three terms high tech buzzwords. top colleges, and fashion capitals.

Also arranged sections chronologically, since some info still needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyPoppa (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

However, in December 2010 a joint Harvard-Google study found the language to contain 1,022,000 words and was expanding at the rate of 8,500 words per year.[3] The difference between the Harvard-Google estimate and that of the Global Language Monitor is about thirteen thousandth of one percent.

Sorry, this looks like deliberate inclusion of material, and following synthesis, aimed at dissing the evidence, not as balance. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary[edit]

This article contains long lists of words and phrases followed by "comments", such as "The word Apocalypse has been in ascendance in the English for more than 500 years. However,recent decades have witnessed an unprecedented resurgence of the word." None of the "comments" is attributed to any particular source. One could get the impression that these are Wikipedia editors' commentary, which would certainly violate our WP:RS rules. More likely, though, I imagine that these are in fact verbatim, but uncited, quotations from the statements made by Global Language Monitor in its yearly news releases. In that case, are they not copyright infringement? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.languagemonitor.com/research
  2. ^ http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_english_conquest_169585.htm
  3. ^ [1], Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent, The Telegraph, December 16, 2010

Interwiki links[edit]

Hi, there's many topics covered at Wikipedia and mentioned here, that aren't properly linked. Someone please look into the correct article names and create redirects here. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global Language Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Global Language Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the company is fine. The rankings are not because they constitute original research[edit]

I refer to Wikipedia's rule of no original research. None of these tables and rankings are backed by a single reliable source. The only thing they have is references to PR releases. They all rely on the obscure methodology of one company, and only their press releases.

I believe the company can post their rankings on their own website, but it is not encyclopedic or relevant for Wikipedia. MexFin (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_Language_Monitor&oldid=1207441903"