User talk:Tijd

AAVE[edit]

Hello. This edit of yours was probably well intentioned, but it does give extraordinary prominence to one work by one author, and more importantly it's misplaced. If you look again at the Ebonics article, you'll see that it's not about what linguists and others call African American Vernacular English. It's the latter article that you want, but please add material to it judiciously.

Incidentally, I accidentally "rolled back" your edit when I meant to "undo" it. The former treatment is meant for vandalism and the like; I did not and do not think that your edit was vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe that the new material is properly placed in the Ebonics article. It is the first time that I have come across a published pronouncement which directly links the racial achievement gap to Ebonics or Black English. This in my judgment is of the same importance as the coining of the phrase. It is a radical and new knowledge jump.

I shall reduce the size of the submission, but I ask that it not be removed. The notes should of course be in list form. If this requires adjustment, please do so.

Please, before you add anything, take the time to read through the articles on Ebonics and African American Vernacular English. Briefly, the Ebonics article is about a minor sidetrack in intellectual history and the AAVE article is about a distinctive form of English. You will then agree, I think, that your material may belong in the latter but does not belong in the former -- even if the author happens to be in the minority who use "Ebonics" to mean what others call "AAVE". -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, she obviously means AAVE. She's not the first person to make this suggestion, although I don't see a problem in mentioning her. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis's book[edit]

I investigated the book, and what I found led me to delete any mention of it. Please see the explanation here. Please do not continue to cite this book, whether in the AAVE article, the Ebonics article, or anywhere else. If you'd like to write about the educational/social aspects of fluency in or use of AAVE, please use books from reputable publishers. Plenty of these books exist, and many of these are discussed in works such as John Baugh's Beyond Ebonics, which I warmly recommend to you. -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Distribution[edit]

The Library of Congress does not classify any books that are subsidized in any manner whatsoever, as you certainly are aware. Please check this link. [1]

You'll note that the Library of Congress classified the book's subject areas as Cognition, Behavior Evolution and Genetic Psychology. Copies are housed and made available by the Library of Congress. The woman is listed in Marquis Who's Who America/ World. This is a serious work. You may wish to check the index of the book. It can be viewed on the universal web site. According to the internet, the book is being sold in most countries throughout the world.

PS Blackwell and other major academic publishers and sellers are advertising the book on their web sites. You may wish to do a google or yahoo search [Alice Travis "Cognitive Evolution".] The list of global book sellers is quite long. [French, Italian, Arabic, Dutch, German, Japanese, etc.) Also, Universal is a general imprint which includes Brown Walker Press and Dissertation.

I am not aware that the LoC doesn't classify any books that are subsidized. Where did you hear this?

I am familiar with Marquis.

I'm not at all surprised to learn that the book is available from many online bookstores. Very, very many books are. (Blackwell is an academic publisher but a general retailer.) This does not guarantee quality.

I am sure that the book is serious. The question is, rather, of why we should attach any particular weight to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

________________

The last chapter "clues to the origin of g", IMO is brilliant.[edit]

[2] "Only U. S. publishers who publish titles that are most likely to be widely acquired by U.S. libraries are eligible to participate in the CIP program. Book vendors, distributors, printers, production houses and other intermediaries are ineligible. Publishers who have published the works of fewer than three different authors are ineligible. Self-publishers (i.e. authors and editors who pay for or subsidize publication of their own works; who often do not publish the works of more than three different authors; and whose works are rarely widely acquired by the nation's libraries) are ineligible.

Cataloging Home Page | Information for Publishers Home Page Library of Congress Home Page

I've read the book and it is cutting edge. The last chapter "clues to the origin of g", IMO is brilliant.Tijd (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you were impressed and clearly got your money's worth. But if the book really is cutting-edge and brilliant, word of it will surely reach reviewers and other researchers in the field. There is of course some snobbery about publishers and about the academic credentials and affiliations of authors as well. However, it's not insurmountable: Edward Tufte's books are self-published, and Judith Rich Harris's books get warm reviews although she has no doctorate or academic affiliation. (I don't know about Travis, but her bio here suggests that she too has no doctorate or academic affiliation.) Right now, however, Googlebooks doesn't show any mention of her book (aside from a publication notice for it) and Googlescholar doesn't show any citation of her book either.

You may wish to wait for evidence of notability, or you may wish to read up on this subject in other works. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altering comments on talk pages[edit]

On this edit of yours: Please do not tamper with other people's comments on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this one: If you wish, you may remove other people's comments from this, your own user talk page. But you should not remove parts of them, or tamper with them. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary has said nothing false about the woman, only that her work doesn't seem to fit our notability criterion. Wikipedia is not censored, especially in the talk pages. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Contribution[edit]

Comments concerning the quality of the research, the book style, the breadth of citations, contributions to new knowledge, etc. are meaningful to Wikipedia users. In those areas, the book would appear to excel. Further, publishers and authors do not influence Congressional Library classifications. The book category, Differential & Developmental Psychology and the subject areas of Cognition, Behavior Evolution & Genetic Psychology are not assigned lightly by the Library. Those Library determinations were made on the basis of the perceived quality of the work as a notable contribution in the designated areas. These are universally recognized objective standards, relative to the work under consideration. It was with this understanding that inclusion of the work was recommended.Tijd (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]