User talk:Supriyya

Linguistics article

Before you make changes as major as you have recently made to linguistics, they should be discussed on the talk page for the article. My edit was merely to take it back to something like what it was before your major changes. garik (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hi,

You're relatively new, 3-400 edits. You're running into some problems as well. I'm a huge fan of unsolicited advice, there's little I enjoy more than reading my own prose. The only thing that keeps me from being an unmitigated jerk is that I also refer to a lot of policies which aren't just my opinion but are the means by which wikipedia arrives at its consensus. Accordingly, here's some policies you should probably look at. You may also be interested in this essay I wrote for new editors - User:WLU/Generic sandbox.

WP:NPA - no personal attacks. Neither in edit summaries, nor in talk page postings should you comment on the contributor. Focus on content changes.
WP:V - verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not based on the individual opinions of editors, it is based on what reliable sources say about the topics of articles. Opinions are irrelevant and should not be used; instead, resolve disagreements through finding sources that explicitly support the position you believe is missing. I suggest using citation templates 'cause they're really handy, as well as the following tools to generate them:
- Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities) but the citation template isn't as neat and it does not fill in ISBN or pubmed numbers
- ISBN searchable database, used in conjunction with Diberry to find, and generate citation templates
- pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubmed or ISBN
WP:OR - original research; basically don't do it. If you think something is true, and others disagree, find a source. If you can't, it probably shouldn't be on the page. If you can find things that talk around it, but don't actually mention it (i.e. you find yourself saying 'oh yeah, this article totally talks about slood', when slood is not mentioned in the page at all), that's probably OR.

Linguistics is hardly a minority field or fringe position, so it should be relatively easy to expand the page using textbooks and other broad overview type books. WLU (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

Sure, that's great. I'm not disagreeing with your position on linguistics, I'm disagreeing with how you're going about addressing it. You're simply adding what appears to be your opinion, which is original research. You need to add someone else's opinion; that is, you need to add information that can be verified through reliable sources. For linguistics, that's going to be peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic printing houses and maybe (but I don't recomend it because they're more gravy than meat) the opinions of noted academics. The problem is not the opinions you're adding, it's the lack of sources. WLU (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi Supriyya,

Please review the reliable sources guidelines and the policy on verfiability; your comments on talk:poststructural linguistics suggests you may be surprised about how wikipedia defines reliability. These are key pages for editing areas of academic interest. You might also want to review the guidelines for medical sources, more for conceptual interest. Finally, I'd suggest WP:UNDUE would be a good, if tricky, policy section to look into. Wikipedia should be firmly in the mainstream and right now there doesn't seem to be evidence that poststructural linguistics is a mainstream topic. Since I'm not familiar wtih linguistics, this may be a problem of verification and the page simply needs more good quality sources to demonstrate it's position. WLU (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

I have nominated Linguistics (poststructural), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistics (poststructural). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? szyslak (t) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX - that there are other articles with problems never excuses that this one has problems. You may also want to consider that the sources may be present, but they may not be clearly demonstrating to other editors that poststructural linguistics is a separate, notable topic. The best way to ensure the page is not deleted is to vigorously pursue reliable sources that discuss poststructural linguistics explicitly and at length. You may be in for an uphill battle; it's never a good sign when wikipedia is at the top of the google results page [1]. WLU (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reading of the deletion discussion, the page still stands a substantial risk of deletion, though I've been surprised before. Accordingly, I suggest that you wait for the outcome, and if it is "delete", you e-mail the deleting admin and ask for a copy of the page as it was when it was deleted? Following that, set up a sub-page and use the sub-page to expand what was left with reliable sources that unambiguously indicate what post-structural linguistics is, and how it is notable. Once you've got a version that you think is suitably improved, ask the deleting admin, and possibly some of the old contributors for their opinion, then paste it back into mainspace. It's a way of ensuring you don't lose your work but stay in keeping with policy. Just a suggestion. WLU (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep it on your hard drive if you want, this use of a sub-page is also perfectly acceptable and has the advantage of allowing you to play with the formatting, referencing and other aspects of the wikimedia software, as well as sharing with other editors. Just make sure you don't re-paste it to mainspace until it's something that won't be deleted again. WLU (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I'm going to initiate a deletion review of Linguistics (post-structural), as the deletion wasn't closed properly at all. No reasoning was given for deletion, despite a vigorous debate. I'm file it this evening when I have some time, but just thought I should let you know so you can participate. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'll wait til the weekend - I want the time to do it properly. In the meantime, you might consider rewriting the article as Poststructuralism and linguistics (or similar). It seems that the POV warriors were offended by the assertion that poststructuralist approaches to linguistics are linguistics, but they certainly cannot deny that poststructuralism has approaches to the subject, and that these are real and well recorded. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO I would suggest making this as a minor section of poststructuralism. Based on what I saw of the sources, the idea has been around since the 70s but hasn't produced much in more than 35 years. Poststructuralism does seem to have had some minor influence on some areas of linguistics, but no attention is paid by even a tiny minority of actual linguists. There's enough sources for a short, but well-referenced section of poststructuralism, but it would be undue weight to discuss it on the main linguistics page. It looks more like linguistics attracted the attention of poststructuralists, rather than poststructuralism attracting the attention of linguists. That's based on what I've seen of the sources, it's always possible the page made a poor representation of what sources actually exist. In any case, the page stands a much better chance of avoiding deletion if you draft it on a sub-page and request a review rather than moving it to, and linking it in mainspace. WLU (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will be working on the sub-page. There is something called "poststructural linguistics" - that's a term that does exist, like it or not. Supriya 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty indifferent actually, I just don't think there were enough reliable sources demonstrating contemporary interest. You're mixing up verifiability and truth; for wikipedia it doesn't matter if poststructural linguistics exists or not. For wikipedia what matters is if there are sources that show it exists. I'd be happy to provide a review if you'd like, once you've got the sub-page up to snuff. WLU (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are there - as long as they are not branded as being "outside linguistics", they are very much there. Supriya 19:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue of undue weight is how much credibility it is given within linguistics. Remember, wikipedia is about the majority viewpoint, not the fringe or minority. Pages, text and discussion should represent the acceptance within the majority community, so if it's heartily and thoroughly ignored or rejected within the linguistics mainstream, the wikipedia pages must reflect this. If the discussion of poststructural linguistics is occuring mostly within philosophy journals, with very few mainstream linguistic journals, it's a hard case to make that it should be reflected on the main linguistics page. You may think the conventional scholars in linguistics are wrong or stupid to ignore poststructural linguistics, but if they do, that is how we report it. That's pretty much the essence of undue weight, wikipedia is not a soapbox for minority positions. WLU (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:WEIGHT again yourself WLU. I'm somebody with friends who are poststructuralists, and friends who are linguists, but consider myself aligned to neither. And it looks very much to me like you are trying to shut the topic (of the intersection between the study of language (linguistics) and poststructuralism) down completely. You've also explicitly said above that work published in philosophy of language journals should be ignored in linguistics and associated topics. If they're ignored in the "linguistics mainstream", you have a responsibility to add that to the article, not censor it. WP:Weight says that significant minority positions must be given space and considered in articles, and treated fairly. Minority positions belong on wikipedia (unless they're held by a very small section of unheard of cranks - and I would hardly call Saussure and Foucault etc. unheard of cranks). Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand de Saussure is a proponent of structuralism, not post-structuralism. What’s more, both he and his school of thought are given due credit; his photograph is even on the head linguistics article. The reason for this is that quantifiable evidence can be given for the importance of structuralism: it can be shown that Saussure shaped the foundations of modern linguistics, and then Bloomfield, Sapir and the Prague School went on to do some very important work that has affected the whole linguistics community.

Now remember what Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia who calls the shots, said:

1. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

2. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

3. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

With all my knowledge of linguistics, I can’t name one prominent adherent of post-structural linguistics. I can think of poststructuralists prominent in other fields of research who have been influenced by linguistics -- for instance, Lacan in psychoanalysis; Foucault in sociology and the history of ideas; Roland Barthes in literary theory; and Derrida in whatever it is that Derrida does, it’s not quite philosophy and it’s not quite literary theory -- but I can’t do the inverse: list prominent linguists who have been influenced by post-structuralism. If you add to this the fact that all the books you referenced in the deleted article on post-structural linguistics appeared out of date and only had about one line each on “post-structural linguistics”, then I would say that you would be very lucky to even get an article that treats it as a fringe theory.

Now, to be quite honest, I question whether you guys even have a clear conception of what it is you are trying to defend. You mistakenly call Saussure a post-structuralist and then name Foucault as an example of post-structural linguistics (as I have said elsewhere, this would be like calling Deleuze a botanist because of his theoretical/analogical use of botanical data), and you haven’t provided an example of just one prominent or semi-prominent theory in linguistics that was influenced by post-structuralism. --Le vin blanc (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le vin, 'mostlyharmless' was not calling Saussure a poststructuralist. I think he was trying to make a point that both - Saussure (structuralist) and Foucault (poststructuralist) are equally important to a linguistics article, for their respective views: structuralist or poststructuralist. Furthermore and more importantly, what you are stating in your above message is your opinion of who belongs to what field, and is clearly a POV statement. Do you have sources stating that Barthes is a "literary critic" and not a "linguist"? Do you have sources stating that Derrida was being vague and didn't fit in anywhere? No. You are saying these things yourself, and why would we care about what you think? If you are confused, that's your problem: read up. I also fail to understand why Jumbo Whales, "who calls the shots", has his views clashing with what is written on the wikipedia policy pages. Please stop making lame excuses for what is clearly an instance of censorship. Supriya 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle, black.

Barthes: "Social and Literary Critic",

Foucault: "Philosopher, Structuralist Cultural Historian, Literary Theorist, Literary Critic, Cultural Theorist, Political Writer",

Derrida: "Deconstructionist Philosopher, Cultural Theorist, Cultural Critic, Literary Theorist, Literary Critic, Public Intellectual",

Lacan: "Psychoanalyst".

I've studied linguistics and post-structuralism, and I have only ever seen linguistics influence post-structuralism, never the converse. If you could show me evidence that post-structuralism has influenced linguistics, I would quite honestly be thrilled, because I like post-structuralism. But until there is evidence, an article called "post-structural linguistics" just isn't a good idea in my opinion. --Le vin blanc (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya, based on the administrator's response: consensus (rather than weighing the evidence, which would be a more difficult task), it's pretty unlikely that a deletion review would get anywhere, unfortunately. I'd say there is plenty of room for an article titled poststructuralism and linguistics, which I can't see being deleted. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostlyharmless, well, the new article - with whatever title that we can think of, can happen. But the problem doesn't end there, really. These people are systematically attempting to get stuff censored on wikipedia - they won't allow any changes or additions that go against their position, on linguistics, language as well as on any new page that we might create. I won't be surprised if they come along and attempt to delete poststructuralism and linguistics either, mark my words. Something else needs to be done about this, and I am trying to figure out what that should be.

Le Vin, neither of the articles say that they cannot be called linguists. And even if they do, like mostlyharmless points out, it needs to be mentioned that they say that, it can't be censored. I don't know if you get the difference, you're ignoring it, or you simply know and are pretending not to understand. Supriya 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like these, it is a lot easier to prove someone is something than that it isn't something. And since you are making the claim that they are linguists, for once, provide some evidence, because until it is substantiated, it's just a baseless claim, and there should be no space for baseless claims on wikipedia articles. This is why I am also against there being an article on post-structuralism's apparent influence on linguistics: there is no evidence. I'm not a propagandist. If there is evidence of post-structuralism having a prominent minority proponent or a prominent theory in linguistics, then I would be fine with an article on post-structural linguistics. Again, pot, kettle, black. --Le vin blanc (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to censor, I'm pretty indifferent. I'm stating that I didn't see much evidence in reliable sources that poststructural linguistics was in any way prominent. As I've said before, this could be because the appropriate references never turned up on the wikipedia page or my own searches through google scholar and books. I don't know. But based on what I've seen, it's my judgment that there aren't enough sources to justify a separate article. No conspiracy, just no sources. Again, per UNDUE, if it's minority but prominent, it should be easy to demonstrate this. WLU (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Hi Supriya,

You may want to read WP:POVPUSH, WP:BAN, WP:GAME, WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS. The best way to engage with other editors is to state your position along with reliable sources that verify your position. If you think changes are warranted on linguistics, clearly state what the changes are rather than citing policy without specifics. If you are repeating previous statements without adding new sources, you run the risk of exhausting the community's patience and incurring a topic ban. If you persist in believing that your changes are unjustly opposed, you may want to consider one of the noticeboards, such as the POV noticeboard. But be specific, rely on sources, and be prepared to concede if there is little support for your position. I'm guessing your post on talk:linguistics centers on the absence of poststructuralism on linguistics. Based on my analysis of the sources, it's a tiny minority position and should not appear on the main page. Being vague, asserting you are correct without acknowledging the points of others and refusing to listen, taking a non-civil, baiting or argumentative tone, these are great steps to take if you want to be blocked or banned.

My opinion, based on several years here. You can ignore it if you like. I've seen other people editing with this approach, and given them the same advice. Sooner or later, they all seem to end up blocked. Perhaps you'll be the exception. WLU (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you run into opposition to your edits, you need to take it to the talk page for discussion. If you can't find an acceptable resolution, there are other approaches than reverting each other ad infinitum. The people reverting you are reasonable and willing to listen, and will be happy to work with you if you're willing to work with them. kwami (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, enough nonsense. I've blocked you for edit warring. I had even supplied you with the evidence you requested that Wikipedia is about sources and not Truth, but you did not keep your word that you would accept the universal consensus on the article if I did. kwami (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

In the spirit of good faith and civility, I have some suggestions for you on ways to satisfy your complaints:

Go to Wikipedia talk:No original research or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and propose a policy change. If the Wikipedia community feels your arguments have merit, we will be happy to change our policies and practices. But as it stands now, No Original Research means No Original Research. We don't make exceptions, no matter how exciting or innovative your ideas are.
Submit a paper to a peer-reviewed linguistics journal outlining your complaints about linguistics as practiced in our universities, along with your view of how linguistics should be. Wikipedia helpfully provides a list of journals that may be interested in your work, at Category:Linguistics journals. Once your new ideas find a receptive audience among linguistics professors, we'll be happy to cover your theories in Wikipedia.
Please, PLEASE assume good faith. Those of us who disagree with your preferred versions of Linguistics, Language and other articles you've edited are reasonable people who seek only to improve the encyclopedia. We are not toadies for some colonialist academic establishment that seeks to suppress your views. And in case you're wondering, yes, accusing us of "colonialism" is a personal attack, just like calling someone a Nazi.

However, if you continue to pursue the path you're on now--edit warring and rude, argumentative talk page comments--I guarantee you'll find yourself blocked again, or possibly even banned. So please, I urge you to change the way you work with others and stop your crusade to push unacceptable material in the encyclopedia. szyslak (t) 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I suggest you read WP:CANVASS, your postings on Philosophy and elsewhere appear to be examples of behaviour covered in that policy. --Snowded (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocked again

And you're blocked again. Take it up on the talk page, and see if you can actually convince people of your POV through rational discussion. kwami (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya, the block doesn't prevent you from signing in and editing talk pages. Just the articles themselves. (I assume from the petty comment you just left that you'd like to be able to continue to participate. You can.) kwami (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What petty comment are you talking about? I'll edit the article now only after I find a way of curing the problems that the community suffers from. I don't think admins promoting a view on wikipedia is going to last very long, because I'm sure, sooner or later, all of you will be the ones blocked, and banned. Supriya 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you failed to convince anyone that you have a case, and therefore it is of course the community's fault. talk about self-delusion. If we would allow articles being written based on the sort of evidence you seem to consider appropriate, then we would have a problem. Or more specifically, Wikipedia in that case would look rather like the internet looks on average, Wikipedia would lose any special status as a website, and putting your article on Wikipedia therefore wouldn't buy you any credibility. Meaning, the reason you are trying so hard to control Wikipedia content is the very reason why the community won't allow you to. Try a blog please. --dab (𒁳) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would see that your own words actually apply to you and your ilk, and not to me. Your POV pushing is not going to last long, guaranteed. Sooner or later there will be a new order, and you and all the rest of your campaigners and POV pushers will be the ones to be blocked. Supriya 13:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's just a matter of time till the right folk on wiki are found for this purpose. Best of luck, till this nonsense lasts. Supriya 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're back to your bullshit. You're blocked again. Next time it will be permanent. kwami (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Supriyya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is unjustified for the following reasons. I have been trying to make constructive changes to the linguistics article, which a group of disruptive and biased administrators have been vandalising. :These users specifically include Angr, Andrew Carnie, Kwami, Taivo, Garik, dab, LingNut and rjanag. :Here is the story of what has been happening, in brief: :The dispute basically is about the inclusion of certain schools of thought in the study of linguistics, which these above people (as admins or users or community members), claim "is not linguistics". They claim that "there is nothing called post-structural linguistics" and that the given title is "made up" and "imagined", when in fact the Google books' results and various other sources display that it has a long history of almost three to four decades. They also claim that that thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes, are not "linguists" -- who were in fact a part of this "post-structural linguistics" movement. :These above users have also gone ahead and deleted and indefinitely locked a sourced article that was created on post-structural linguistics without the discussion being completed. There have been sources provided for this from day one, but they've been choosing to ignore it. :As far as consensus goes, even a blind person might be able to see that there are enough people on the community's talk page as well as on the AFD discussion of post-structural linguistics, who support the inclusion of the topic. These users, who are biased and are abusing their power as wiki admins, are ignoring and deleting perfectly well sourced material. :This, therefore, in my view, amounts to censorship, vandalism, and POV pushing. By not allowing any mention of post-structural linguistics in the main article, or even a seperate page for the sub-discipline, they are keeping an entire body of information out of this encyclopedia. This is not just offensive violation of the encyclopedia, it is dangerous. The fact that they have indiscriminately banned a couple of us for protesting (and threatening others), shows that they are also dishonest and are grossly misusing their positions as administrators. :Linguistics is an important topic, and I care about it, which is why I've been involved with this fruitless debate with the community for so many long months. I also care about other articles on wikipedia, where I may be unable to participate and comment, but which also I fear might be endangered by such proliferation and misuse by the same people. These articles under such administrators are also under threat, and since I feel Wikipedia is inherently a good initiative, and is a well intentioned project that has had a good impact on the cyberworld, I think my efforts are not being wasted. I have nothing to gain or lose from this either way (whether I'm blocked or can edit the encyclopedia is of not much personal significance to me), but I do feel that as an "Internet citizen", it is part of my responsibility to make sure that online debates and initiatives are not colonised like this by a bunch of clannish bullies. --Supriya 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Too long, Occam's razor tells me it's more likely you are in wrong rather than eight separate admins, and generally you've had more than enough chances here, it's clear you aren't interested in improving your conduct. Try again without attacking everyone else and let's see. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.