Talk:African-American English/Archive 4

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

Mediation

Ive taken this case and Im familiar with the dispute. Im curious about who is voting to include or exclude the Cosby reference and why - If each of you offers a sentence or two to explain your reasoning. -Ste|vertigo 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I understand why you wouldn't be filled with enthusiasm for reading the tens of kilobytes above ... but since you're familiar with the dispute, I'd have thought that you'd have already skimread the tens of kilobytes above. ¶ Oh well ... I shan't presume to speak for anybody other than myself. Cosby's outburst strikes me as transparently silly, and confused even on its own terms. I've explained this above, although not to the satisfaction of at least one disputant. ¶ Cosby's outburst tells us nothing about AAVE, and merely something (something rather sad) about Crosby. Because it tells us nothing about AAVE and doesn't even start to be a coherent expression of a PoV about AAVE, it's not worthwhile here. If Cosby had said something that was coherent and interesting, however uninformed, it might be worth a mention. However, he didn't. ¶ "Ah," somebody may object, "but this is Bill Cosby we're talking about." All right, but why should we pay special attention to him? He's not a linguist or sociologist, nobody claims that he's either, he's not an expert, he doesn't even start to sound like an expert; I think the only things he's got going for him are that he's an African American (millions are), he's famous (thousands are), and that some aspects (perhaps this one too) of his speech were so "shocking" or just goofy (take your pick) that it got into the newspapers. ¶ If somebody objects that people should know that Cosby said something newsworthy about AAVE, no matter how silly that something might be, I'd counter that a catalogue of silly mentions is way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, and anyway people are free to click the "What links here" link. ¶ Personal PS: if you'd like to mail me, please say so on my talk page and I'll mail you. -- Hoary 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) ... link updated Hoary 10:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I support mentioning the Pound cake speech and other relevant criticism of aave in the article. Wikipedia policy says that all articles should have NPOV and should present all relevant or newsworthy points of view even if some people consider them to be incorrect. Wikipedia policy also states that all relevant points of view should be presented as equal. Exceptions might include presenting the super minority view that the earth is flat in the "earth" article, however Cosby's opinions and numerous others opinions don't fit that narrow criteria and should be included in this article. Cosby's views do not represent such a super minority. If this article is to mention the social aspects of AAVE then it should include the views of those people who are critical of AAVE. Hoary and a few others say that Cosby is wrong and that his views should not be put in this article because they think they are wrong. I believe Cosby is right. Who is right? Wikipedia should simply present the facts. The fact is, Cosby criticized AAVE. Many other people have as well. This is highly relevant to this article due to the controversy surrounding the use of AAVE. Hoary says Cosby is not "qualified" enough to present criticism (this being a fallacious ad hom attack aside) Cosby has numerous college degrees and honors as well as decades of experience with the African American community. Cosby's credentials and fame aside, He said something that garnered vast media attention and actually brought AAVE into the spotlight. Cosby's pound cake speech actually has received more media attention than AAVE itself! Excluding his and others views critical of AAVE clearly violates the undue weight policy.Wikidudeman (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hoary and a few others say that Cosby is wrong and that his views should not be put in this article because they think they are wrong. No, I said that what he said is a mixture of wrong, nonsensical, and incoherent. I have written this above. I have linked to it above. I hope the mediator clicks the link. ¶ Wikipedia should simply present the facts. The fact is, Cosby criticized AAVE. Many other people have as well. This is highly relevant to this article due to the controversy surrounding the use of AAVE. If this is so, then let's have coherent, sensible criticism. ¶ Hoary says Cosby is not "qualified" enough to present criticism (this being a fallacious ad hom attack aside) Cosby has numerous college degrees and honors as well as decades of experience with the African American community. No, I did not say he is not qualified to present criticism; I said that his criticism is wrong, nonsensical and incoherent and that he lacks special qualifications that might make what he said likely to be of particular significance. As far as I know, Cosby has no relevant college degree. By contrast, I believe that John Baugh has merely a single PhD, but it's a PhD in linguistics; he too has decades of experience in the African American community and more importantly has written books on this subject that have been put out by mainstream publishers. ¶ Cosby's credentials and fame aside, He said something that garnered vast media attention and actually brought AAVE into the spotlight. Vast? I'd never heard of it till this other disputant put it into the article. A fairly large number of substantial, intelligent books about AAVE predated this speech. I think that the first place to go for discussion of a lect is books, not the mass media; but as for the mass media, AAVE didn't need Cosby: it was already in the spotlight thanks to the 1996/7 Oakland rumpus and the ripples from that. ¶ Cosby's pound cake speech actually has received more media attention than AAVE itself! This is most surprising; I wonder if we'll be given evidence for this. -- Hoary 15:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hoary, I'm not going to go into circles with you again. We've been doing that for the past two weeks. We got nowhere. Stevertigo said "If each of you offers a sentence or two to explain your reasoning." That doesn't mean get into a point to point debate that lasts 5 pages and goes in circles like we have been doing. I'm going to wait until Stevertigo reads your first comment and then reads my first comment and then tries to mediate the debate.Wikidudeman (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Did I not ask above for "a sentence or two?" -Ste|vertigo 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cosby's outburst strikes me as transparently silly, and confused even on its own terms." Hoary, the issue is notability. Bill Cosby is probably one of the most famous living black men on the planet. He gave a speech which criticised some aspects of Black American culture, which you appear to disagree with. Your reasonings for removing his criticism of AAVE appears to be pov-motivated (rather than NPOV motivated). As long as his views are kept in brief summary, there appears to me no question that they are relevant to the article. Whether he is "right" or not is completely and utterly besides the point. Now, the real issue becomes whether or not his views are characterised succinctly and accurately and in proper context - a criticism section perhaps. Anything else? Ste|vertigo 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm "allowed" to comment here (I'm not a named participant in the RfM), but since this is on the article talk page, I will. Famous people have said all manner of things about all kinds of subjects. Such utterances may be notable in themselves, but unless the famous speaker is an expert on the subject, or her/his words in some other way have a genuine impact on the subject, their utterances are relevant only in the article on the speaker, not on the subject. Thus, we have Mel Gibson's "criticism" of Jews in the biographical article on him and not in the articles on Jews or Judaism. Cosby's thoughts on AAVE are no different for Wikipedia's purposes. In a deeply related vein, it makes no sense to have a "criticism" section in the article on AAVE, any more than it does to have a "criticism" section in the article on Hawaii, or Basque language, or Newfoundland English. Note that there are historical reasons to expect controversy/hostility invoking the subjects of the latter two articles I've mentioned, but "criticism" rightly does not appear in these articles since they focus on linguistic issues, not the political or historical issues prompting such controversy. As I pointed out elsewhere on this page, such "criticism" of Newfoundland English, for instance, is dealt with in the article on the pejorative term, Newfie, and is also mentioned in the articles dealing with the history of Newfoundland. Think about the meaning of the word, "criticism"... it refers to the analysis of texts, works of art, political proposals, people's conduct... things created by humans that propose a point of view (i.e. something that can be argued with/against/for). This concept makes no sense when applied to a language, which is not a human creation in the same way. So-called "criticisms" of languages are simply prejudices, so creating a section for them in a linguistics articles seems patently absurd. As I've indicated (with examples), such prejudices can readily be the subject of another article, like Newfie or antisemitism, etc. Pinkville 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions are interesting, but nevertheless there is criticism of AAVE - as a concept, sociolect, etc. Whatever that criticism is needs to be dealt with in the article. I dont think Cosby would agree with the comparison between his comments and those of Mel Gibson's. Certainly an article which made that comparison would have to source that view to someone notable.
I agree that the apparently nonsensical or incoherent nature of the pound cake speech presents a problem to admitting his views as scientific, but this article is about a cultural phenomenon of AAVE -- Cosby himself is certainly qualified to comment on matters of culture. The incoherent nature of his comments (no doubt due to their vernacular form) merits some mention, if only by way of a simple and terse reference to his Pound cake speech.
There is certainly a movement that actively asserts AAVE as a kind of dialect. We will avoid any judgement of sociology as a science here, but its fair to say that sociological views may vary, and any particular assertion is still a single point of view. There is an equally valid point of view which opposes linguistic divergence - not on elitist grounds - but according to a basic view that a common language empowers people within society.
"Note that there are historical reasons to expect controversy/hostility invoking the subjects of the latter two articles I've mentioned, but "criticism" rightly does not appear in these articles since they focus on linguistic issues, not the political or historical issues prompting such controversy"
This is well said, but AAVE is a more recent development. Its origins are political in nature - the enslavement of blacks, the desire by blacks to rebel against "white" culture, the emergence of a new and distinct culture from that spirited rebellion. These are inherently tied to the cultural politics of the US in history and the present. The issue presented is whether Cosby is notable enough to comment on matters of cultural politics.
I agree that there is plenty reason to disagree, but I think that the notability issue is covered by the fact that we have the pound cake speech article. A tangential link to some aspect of the cultural debate is appropriate. -Ste|vertigo 04:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
My mistake; I thought it was clear that I wasn't comparing the content of Cosby's remarks with those of Gibson, but rather pointing out that the notability of their remarks - coming from famous people - had a bearing only on their own biographies/celebrity and not on the subjects they were criticising. If we like, we can find examples of famous people speaking about every possible issue - that doesn't meant there's any (good) reason to include such comments in the articles on the subjects they've talked about. To think we should do so is, frankly, a crude notion of notability. AAVE isn't much more recent than Newfoundland English, and in fact there are some issues they share in their respective developments - one of the reasons I used NE as a comparative example. The origins of NE are similarly political in nature (I'll avoid going into details). I could easily provide numerous examples of (prominent Newfoundland politician) John Crosbie's comments in defense of NE - the reverse orientation of Cosby's on AAVE, but equally not worth adding to an article on the dialect (and Crosbie was far more articulate in his defense than Cosby was in his criticism). The incoherent nature of his comments (no doubt due to their vernacular form)... is akin to Cosby's own assertion - it's a faulty understanding of "vernacular"; speaking in the vernacular doesn't in any way limit the coherence of one's thoughts or speech. It's the thinker himself (or herself) that provides that incoherence, not the language spoken. A tangential link to some aspect of the cultural debate is appropriate. Maybe, but no one has put forth much of a coherent argument or plan for such a thing. So far we've spent all this time on the pound cake speech, which as you note, already has its own article. Pinkville 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Pinkville's comments. I think that most "criticism" of the term AAVE is just people saying that there shouldn't be a name for informal Black English that doesn't make a value judgement about it. Is there significant criticism of the term by linguists? Joeldl 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
After re-reading Cosby's comments it seems that his criticism was directed at the use of AAVE rather than the concept. There is an undeniable objective reality that the term AAVE describes. Maybe this should be treated by putting it in an article or section called "sociolinguistic status of AAVE" with a subsection on "popular criticism of the use of AAVE". In any case it's important to clarify what is criticism of its use and what is criticism of the concept. I don't think a section called "criticism" makes sense. It's not like anybody is disputing the existence of AAVE, to my knowledge. Joeldl 05:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with a lot of what's above, starting with the claim Bill Cosby is probably one of the most famous living black men on the planet (not that this is a claim that I regard as important; his fame could surpass Michael Jordan's for all I care), continuing with the implication (as I possibly misread it) that statements about language agreed to by every introductory linguistics book are mere "PoV", and going on to the mediator's characterization of "the issue presented". Should I express this here, express it somewhere else, or remain silent? -- Hoary 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You should make a listed point by point refutation of whatever statements you disagree with, and a reiteration of whatever you agree with. I would prefer you focus on statements like these: "Now, the real issue becomes whether or not his views are characterised succinctly and accurately and in proper context - a criticism section perhaps." Pinkville made an interesting point about the lack of need for a "criticism" section per se. Criticism may not be the right word - "controversy" certainly works fine. I do recall AAVE having some controversy about its acceptance, no? Certainly this should be explained in the article? In that context, the reference to Cosby might work. Often times I find that in these debates there are partisans who are uncompromising in their views - these I prefer not to deal with much as their focus seems to be less rational than others are. -Ste|vertigo 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation. I'll do that. However, I shan't do it immediately. ¶ Meanwhile, I some "meta" (?) questions. This talk page is becoming vast, intolerably so for people who (like me sometimes) use a modem. Normally I'd archive the "old" material, but actually most of the material here is less than three weeks old. So first: Would it be a good idea to archive some of the material above, even though it isn't old? Secondly: If we're going to have point-by-point refutations and reiterations, this mediation-related discussion is going to balloon. Would it be a good idea to create a subpage for it? Thirdly (and most trivially), Template:RFMF at the top seems to be obsolete: Should it be replaced (but with what?) or simply deleted? -- Hoary 08:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ... PS Thank you for attending to all of that. I'll do the refutations/reiterations thing a bit later. -- Hoary 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
My views are that what Cosby said warrants a mention in this article in a NPOV type of way simply to point out that they exist. That's only fair and coincides with NPOV. I'll address Hoary's 3rd post here. Hoary's responses are in bold. ¶If this is so, then let's have coherent, sensible criticism. That's fine too. But that doesn't negate the fact Cosby's speech deserves a mention. ¶ No, I did not say he is not qualified to present criticism; I said that his criticism is wrong, nonsensical and incoherent and that he lacks special qualifications that might make what he said likely to be of particular significance. As far as I know, Cosby has no relevant college degree. Whether what he said is right or wrong isn't going to be debate here because it's beside the point. The point is he said it. It garnered notability in the media. Therefore it should be mentioned. ¶ Vast? I'd never heard of it till this other disputant put it into the article. A fairly large number of substantial, intelligent books about AAVE predated this speech. I think that the first place to go for discussion of a lect is books, not the mass media; but as for the mass media, AAVE didn't need Cosby: it was already in the spotlight thanks to the 1996/7 Oakland rumpus and the ripples from that. Do a simple google news search and "Pound cake speech" is mentioned more times than AAVE is. "AAVE" isn't mentioned once. The credibility of what Cosby said aside, he said it. It got media attention(more so than aave). It is relevant to this article. It needs a mention.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that I believe there's much merit to arguing the issue in this way, but by doing a Google news search you've artificially limited the possible scope of mention of the two subjects. A simple Google search yields 91,200 hits for "african american vernacular english" and only 2,810 hits for "pound cake speech". Incidentally, I tried to duplicate your Google news search and got no hits for either subject. Pinkville 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a mention of Cosby's views could easily be put in a sub section of the "social" part and simply titled "controversy" not "criticism" and should be presented in a NPOV way.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoary, If you stuck to the relevant points in the debate and responded to them briefly then there is no reason it should "balloon". Keeping it short and responding to only what is relevant should keep this discussion shorter. That does not include arguing points that have no bearing on this discussion. I.E. Cosby's credibility or the factual accuracy of his assertions. Those are beyond the point and his speech deserves a mention whether it's totally true or totally false for the media attention it received and it's relation to use of aave.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not accustomed to using Google News, but tried a simple search for 'Pound cake speech' and, to my considerable surprise, got zero hits. (Same for 'Poundcake speech'.) What mistake am I making there? ¶ I get my news from the Guardian; searching in that paper for '"Bill Cosby" cake' gets zero hits. It's not that the Guardian ignores nutty outbursts by celebs: '"Mel Gibson" arrested' gets lots of hits. I infer that, quite aside from its value, this "Pound cake speech" was not that big a deal for the mass media. Pinkville has already said (more or less) that Cosby's outburst is no more important to this article than Gibson's would have been to an article on Jews. Cosby was not as crass or offensive (or drugged/drunk) as Gibson, but if anything his outburst is of still less significance to AAVE than Gibson's was to Jews as the latter was indeed a big media circus whereas the former was not. ¶ If the "Pound cake speech" gets lots more hits than "AAVE" (however phrased) in this or that news abstracting/indexing service, I'm not so surprised: as has been repeatedly pointed out above, AAVE is a lect (dialect, sociolect, ethnolect, or if you insist even a language), and lects aren't news. (All sorts of things are of encyclopedic concern and yet aren't the slightest bit newsworthy, the t test for example.) Or again, here is a dramatic story, but not one that tells us much about offal. -- Hoary 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When I searched for "Pound cake speech" I did it a few weeks ago and Google news frequently updates and gets rid of old articles. So it looks like it isn't there anymore. Comparing Gibson's antisemitic outburst to Cosby's speech really doesn't work for many reasons. Firstly the article on "Jews" is much more notable compared to Gibson's outburst than AAVE is compared to Cosby's speech. Secondly, The article on "Jews" does mention antisemitism! It just mentions more notable cases of it than a drunken outburst by a movie star, I.E. the holocaust. There are even 4 sub articles that detail persecution of Jews and Antisemitism! (One of which BTW does mention Gibson) Wikidudeman (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So no more mention of relative newsworthiness of pound cake vs. AAVE, right? It just mentions more notable cases of it than a drunken outburst by a movie star... or a confused comedian. Spot on. The article on "Jews" is much more notable (vs. Gibson's remarks) than that on the lect of millions of North Americans (vs. Cosby's remarks)? What could that possibly mean? The article on "Jews" does mention antisemitism! and rightly so - part of the Jewish experience (unfortunately) - the article on Blacks includes some discussion on racism as well. The latter article doesn't mention Cosby... Maybe what you really want is an article on anti-black racism that includes a section on the attitudes of certain confused elitist black celebrities. Pinkville 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the Cosby quote is twofold: the lack of qualification/relevance, and Wikidudeman's motivations in posting it. Linguistics holds a strange place in the world of science in that few people recognize that it is beyond their knowledge. Most people would hardly try to comment on or criticize physics, chemistry, biology, etc. without the necessary qualifications, yet most people also feel that language is something within their grasp. Even educated people (like English teachers) often think they know much more about language than they actually do. This is why this controversy has developed. If Bill Cosby had said something like "Quantum mechanics is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo" or "The tectonic plate theory is false", no one would dream of adding it to either of those articles. Yet for a language topic, people think that anyone is qualified to comment. Linguistics is just as much a science as physics or geology and only someone trained in the field is qualified to comment. As has been pointed out numerous times, the view that any language variety (lect) is valid is a fundamental part of modern linguistics. Introductory textbooks show this view and do not "hedge" it by saying that other linguists disagree, or the subject is controversial, etc. AAVE is a lect (I don't think anyone can deny that). It follows logically that AAVE is therefore considered by linguists to be valid. Since linguists are the only ones qualified to comment on lects, and linguists don't criticize lects, it having a 'criticism' section on a lect makes no sense. As to the second issue, I am suspicious of Wikidudeman's motives for posting. He has explained numerous times that he regards AAVE as 'rudimentary' and it seems to me that he is latching on to a quote by a Black man critical of AAVE in order to avoid charges of racism. I don't mean to say that he is racist, but when he first posted those comments, myself, Aeusoes1, and Hoary all tried to explain to him why he was wrong without effect. I believe his ignorance of the subject and refusal to seek opinions differing from his own in scholarly sources indicates a closed-mindedness that allows racist attitudes prevalent in society to be expressed without any conscious racism. Adding the Cosby quote seems to me only to further Wikidudeman's POV, which is distinctly (and irrationally) anti-AAVE. Makerowner 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Cosby seems to criticize exclusive AAVE usage (as the article on the pound cake speech says) rather than AAVE usage altogether. This is a very important distinction and renders Wikidudeman's desire to include it into a criticism/controversy section moot since it doesn't represent the viewpoint that he thinks it does. I wouldn't mind mentioning and even linking to the speech (especially if other sources criticizing AAVE usage were mentioned as well) but I would mind quoting it.
However, I don't think I can participate in this mediation; I was under the impression that it would be confidential and I honestly don't trust the disputants involved to refrain from some of the behavior that has allowed this discussion to go in the direction that it has, even with a mediator in the room. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, while not being a named "disputant" in this mediation, I was also under the impression that the mediation was to be confidential. Pinkville 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In response to Pinkville, No. I will still bring up the newsworthiness of Cosby's pound cake speech even if Google news doesn't have an article on it right now. Google news had an article on it a few weeks ago but Google news removes articles that are older than 2-3 weeks old. This does not negate the fact that Cosby's speech got tons of media attention when he made it. As far as "antisemitism" goes, Yes the Jewish article has a section on it. As it should. However the argument was that this article should not have a mention of Cosby because the Jew article does not mention Gibson when in reality the Jewish article has a sub article of antisemitism which does indeed mention Gibson. Thus the argument is invalid.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Cosby's jumble sounds like a flash in the pan.... You're a little too loose in your terminology: "Jewish article"? I don't know what you mean. the antisemitism article mentions (in passing) Gibson. I'm sure it's vital to an understanding of the subject... Meanwhile, Cosby, the confused comedian... Pinkville 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In response to Makerowner, Firstly Cosby did not criticize AAVE's linguistic aspects or it's validity as a dialect. I'm not arguing that. I made that clear. Cosby criticized it's USE in society.[[1]] Cosby is not a linguist and did not make a linguistic argument. Cosby has vast experience with the African American community and he criticized the use of aave in society and not it's inherent linguistics or it's validity as a separate dialect. Moreover, It's irrelevant whether what Cosby said is 'right' or 'wrong'. The only that that is relevant from a wikipedia policy perspective is the fact he said it and it got massive media attention. Period. Read "undue weight" and "NPOV" policies on wikipedia. Secondly, I take offense to people who imply I am a racist because I want a wikipedia article to have NPOV and not have undue weight to a specific POV.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Ƶ§œš¹. This is what Cosby said in relation to AAVE and it's usage in African American society...

[[2]] This is a distinct criticism of the use of AAVE by so many African American youths. This speech got massive media attention when it was made and it's still referenced today. If this isn't relevant to AAVE then I don't know what is. Moreover, Ƶ§œš¹. A mediation is when a neutral mediator mediates the debate. How can someone mediate a debate if the debaters can't even see what the other debaters are saying? How can I respond to your arguments and you respond to mine if we can't even see them and only rely on the mediators interpretation of them?Wikidudeman (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pinkville,The "Jewish article" is the article titled Jew or Jews. The argument was that this article should not mention controversy of AAVE or people who oppose AAVE because the Jew article does not mention Gibson when in reality the Jew article does mention anti-semetism(Gibson is supposedly antisemitic) and the article titled Antisemitism actually does mention Gibson. Thus rendering the argument Hoary made invalid.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

break

I believe you are referring to my argument, not Hoary's... at least, it was I who first mentioned Gibson. You're not arguing from reason, only scattershot. Please read more carefully what people have said - and do read at least some of what has been suggested for an understanding of the topic. Pinkville 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from continuing this debate until the mediator can catchup and read it all and then make any relevant comments from there. I don't want to overwhelm him since he is doing other mediations after all.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to requote a portion of the Cosby quote that you cited: "You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English." That's a pretty clear description of what's called "bidialectism" or code-switching. This is not just my interpretation, it is the interpretation of the editor(s) of the Pound Cake speech article, which states that Cosby "criticized them for exclusive use of the [sic] African American Vernacular English." (emphasis mine). This text has been in the article for over a year and I think that if it were way out of line that someone would have removed it.
As to the confiedentiality, rather than quote excessively, I'd like to simply direct all to WP:M. Scroll down to the section titled "why should mediation be confidential?" When mediation is confidential, it is the part of the mediator's job to "refactor" comments in a manner that "prevents escalation of the dispute." Also, the mediator can exclude non-parties from participation. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try granting for a moment what I don't believe: that Cosby's outburst merits being taken seriously. WDM claims: Firstly Cosby did not criticize AAVE's linguistic aspects or it's [sic] validity as a dialect. I'm not arguing that. I made that clear. [...] Cosby [...] did not make a linguistic argument. But Cosby said (we are told): You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth (my emphasis). What gives? ¶ WDM concedes: When I searched for "Pound cake speech" I did it a few weeks ago and Google news frequently updates and gets rid of old articles. So it looks like it isn't there anymore. Meanwhile, the Guardian does not get rid of old articles. There does not appear to be any mention of this minor news story in the Guardian because there never was any mention of it: it just wasn't worth the paper's time. (And don't imagine that the Guardian is so hifalutin' as to ignore the mishaps of US celebs. Those of the late Anna Nicole Smith were avidly reported.) ¶ WDM: Comparing Gibson's antisemitic outburst to Cosby's speech really doesn't work for many reasons. Firstly the article on "Jews" is much more notable compared to Gibson's outburst than AAVE is compared to Cosby's speech. Uh, here we have a category mistake. I fear that sleepiness is to blame, and suppose that what was intended was "If SGO, SJ, SCS, SAAVE are the significance of Gibson's outburst, of Jews, of Cosby's speech and of AAVE respectively, then SGO/SJ > SCS/SAAVE." I'd answer that while one might start to measure SGO and SGS, SJ and SAAVE are extraordinarily hard to measure in any comparable way. Certainly you can't measure them by looking in Google News or Google as a whole, or by watching "Fox News": whether or not Jews are news, AAVE is not news, or anyway it isn't till some nitwit makes it news. ¶ WDM: The argument was that this article should not mention controversy of AAVE or people who oppose AAVE because the Jew article does not mention Gibson when in reality the Jew article does mention anti-semetism [sic] (Gibson is supposedly antisemitic) and the article titled Antisemitism actually does mention Gibson. Thus rendering the argument Hoary made invalid. I don't think I've ever said that no article should mention so-called controversy over AAVE. I have opposed any edit elevating criticism of AAVE to anything more than a minor part of an article on AAVE -- and not because I don't like such criticism but because it's willfully ignorant (a point to which I intend to return). Antisemitism is a lot more significant to Jews than anti-AAVE attitudes are to speakers of AAVE, but I've nothing against mention of antisemitism in Jew, mention of Gibson in Antisemitism, mention of anti-AAVE attitudes in African American Vernacular English, or mention of Cosby in some as-yet nonexistent article (let's call it "X") about popular misconceptions of AAVE. I very much hope that the X article, if it is ever written, is written by people who have taken the trouble to read and digest such books as John Baugh's Beyond Ebonics: when you plan to write an encyclopedia article, websurfing, watching junk TV, etc. are no substitutes for reading long and thinking hard. ¶ WDM on Cosby's outburst again: If this isn't relevant to AAVE then I don't know what is. Well of course it's "relevant" to AAVE. Gazillions of things are "relevant" to AAVE. But I tentatively guess that "relevant" is used here as a fancy word for "important". Important it isn't. Hugely more important than Cosby to AAVE are AAVE's syntax, morphology, phonology, discourse features, variation, etc. etc.: quite a pile of elements, all of which are the stuff of books put out by respectable publishers. None of these books is a bestseller but the great majority are a lot better written than are the works of, say, Dan Brown. -- Hoary 00:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've answered my points lets wait for Stevertigo to catch up and comment before I refute them.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I havent read most of the above as of yet, because I think people are just talking past each other at this point. Now that I understand how polarising the issue is, Id just like to ask Wikidudeman how he wants the Cosby reference to be included in the article. We arent going to have a whole section on the Cosby quote, nor do I think it would be objectionable to have a sentence within a controversy section. This brings up another issue: why is there no controversy section? Perhaps its best to explain the history of cultural debate about taking AAVE seriously (it wasnt long ago when it wasnt IIRC). Within that context, it seems any number of notable opinions can be linked to without much ... controversy. So thats a question for the rest of you - why no controversy section? -Ste|vertigo 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Id like to feature Joe's comment just because hes showing some insight that Id like to see more of here:

Joeldl 05:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC): "After re-reading Cosby's comments it seems that his criticism was directed at the use of AAVE rather than the concept. There is an undeniable objective reality that the term AAVE describes. Maybe this should be treated by putting it in an article or section called "sociolinguistic status of AAVE" with a subsection on "popular criticism of the use of AAVE". In any case it's important to clarify what is criticism of its use and what is criticism of the concept. I don't think a section called "criticism" makes sense. It's not like anybody is disputing the existence of AAVE, to my knowledge."

What Joe is talking about I think is the debate over AAVE, which seems to have been whitewashed over. I have read Cosby's statements and (since this debate is largely about our opinons about Cosby's opinions) I have two thoughts: One, they are not as incoherent as I was led to believe. They are difficult to understand due to his comedic style, and the expected familiarity of the audience with his cultural references. They are not incoherent. Nor, unfortunately for Wikidudeman's interpretation, are they particularly about AAVE. Sure there is some repeated reference to the slang, but more than anything his comments are directed at materialism within younger Aframerican culture, and the breakdown of families, rather than the problems with speaking AAVE. He pokes fun at people who "cant talk," but there is plenty of ambiguity as to what he's referring to, such that anything other than a tangential reference would seem to be interpretational rather than referential. -Ste|vertigo 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually i'm not talking over anyone. I'm addressing each of their points. In what context should the Cosby quote be featured? Obviously a section called "Controversy". A section mentioning some controversy surrounding AAVE and what some people have said about it including Cosby. I could draw up a draft of what I think it should be like if you want. As far as the Pound Cake speech not being about AAVE in particular I agree. However the speech does mention AAVE(though not by name, it mentions the dialects used by many african american youths which is of course aave). There's really no alternative to what Cosby was referring to.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I too am a bit puzzled. Should we "make a listed point by point refutation of whatever statements [we] disagree with, and a reiteration of whatever [we] agree with", according to the earlier invitation? I'm sure WDM is honest in his claim immediately above that this is what he has attempted to do, and it's what I've started to do as well. I deliberately didn't phrase mine in the second person because I thought avoiding the second person could seem less inflammatory; perhaps WDM had the same idea. However, the mediator says: "I think people are just talking past each other at this point". If so, it's not intended. ¶ All right, let's look at Joeldl's comment 05:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC): After re-reading Cosby's comments it seems that his criticism was directed at the use of AAVE rather than the concept. There is an undeniable objective reality that the term AAVE describes. [...] In any case it's important to clarify what is criticism of its use and what is criticism of the concept. I don't think a section called "criticism" makes sense. It's not like anybody is disputing the existence of AAVE, to my knowledge. As Stevertigo says, this is a start. No, I too don't think that anybody deserving a moment's consideration disputes that AAVE exists. However, this does not mean that all other "criticism" of AAVE is of how and where AAVE is used. Far from it. ¶ Perhaps he was just carried away in the excitement of the moment and we shouldn't take him too seriously [close to my original point, actually], but aside from what he says about appropriate and inappropriate contexts, Cosby referred to AAVE as "crap". This is a rather extreme expression of a way of thinking that's still commonplace. In the preface to Beyond Ebonics, John Baugh quotes in full a longish op-ed piece by one Brent Staples that was published in the NYT on 24 Jan '97, titled "The Last Train to Oakland". This repeatedly refers to AAVE as "broken, inner-city English". I'm under the impression that "inner-city" is a US euphemism for "poor Black and minority"; that aside, "broken" rather clearly means "defective". ¶ So yes, in a limited sense I concede that AAVE is "controversial", and not only in the way Joeldl describes but also in the way that I think is or anyway was meant by WDM (who earlier called it "rudimentary" and "unsophisticated"). However, Staples presents no reasoning for describing AAVE as "broken". On rare occasions other writers do rather rashly attempt to reason, and thereby shoot themselves in the feet. For AAVE is not "broken" but instead as systematic and rule-governed as standard English is. This is something carefully demonstrated in such books as Green's, and quickly demonstrated in such popular books as Pinker's Language Instinct. ¶ Now, it might be claimed that the latter are merely [roll your eyes!] linguistics books, and that linguists constitute a dubious (and probably leftist) pointy-headed cabal. But linguists disagree among themselves, and do so rather vigorously. Take The Language Instinct, for example. There's a (would-be) rebuttal to it, a most interesting book whose first edition is titled Educating Eve. (The second edition, which I don't have at hand, is more direct: The "Language Instinct" Debate.) The author, Geoffrey Sampson, rejects nativism and incidentally is politically right wing (and, I've read, staunchly continues to refer to Black people as "negroes"). But (if my memory of his book serves me well, and if its index is good) he doesn't bother to dispute Pinker's description of AAVE as a worthy language. That's because Sampson is no fool. ¶ Thus to say that AAVE is just as good a communicative tool as standard English is not a mere "point of view" that may freely be countered by other points of view. It's an issue that's settled -- rather like the fact that this Earth of ours is very much more than ten thousand years old. "Creationism" deserves its little space in WP, and I suppose popular prejudice about AAVE does too, but there's no reason to take either so seriously. -- Hoary 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, lets stick to the subject. Were not here to discuss the merits of arguments, we are here to make the article better by adding to it material which is relevant. Please address the central issue. Wikidudeman is answering this directly:

"a section called "Controversy". A section mentioning some controversy surrounding AAVE and what some people have said about it including Cosby. I could draw up a draft of what I think it should be like if you want."

Yes, Wikidudeman please write up a draft of a controversy section. In it no doubt there will be some reference to the Cosby speech. Hoary, Pinkville, is this agreeable that we will work on a "controversy" section here? -Ste|vertigo 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, you posted the comment above within a section of the talk page that was about the pronunciation of "done" used as an aspectual marker. (You'll recall that this is a talk page for the article as a whole, not one dedicated to the mediation.) In doing so, you were not obviously sticking to the subject of the pronunciation of "done". But I suppose you merely misplaced your comment by mistake. Anyway, I moved your comment here.
That aside, I've tried hard to stick to the subject as I see it, which clearly is not the subject as WDM and you see it. I start to wonder, though: did you actually read and consider my admittedly longish comment?
Yes, sure, work on a "controversy" section here. Several people hereabouts have the attention-span, etc., needed to create it: aeusoes1, Makerowner, Pinkville, um . . . well, anyway, aeusoes1, Makerowner, and Pinkville. -- Hoary 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mediation"?

I see that in this edit the "mediator" has, in his own words, "mv linguistics down - overview first". But it's not just the "Overview", it's also history, "AAVE in schools" and suchlike stuff.

Is this "mediation", and if so, in what sense? Any reason why what I'd thought was the description of a lect is now ordered so that epiphenomena of the lect come before the description of the lect itself? Any reason why none of the other nine edits by the "mediator" has an edit summary? Or more succinctly, what the expletive is going on here?

-- Hoary 12:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, I understand you have a point of view and you are dissappointed that I am not simply echoing it. I dislike this niggling tendency you have - making an issue about my edit summaries for example. Please bear with me - stick to the issues. It would help if you and Pinkville would stop referencing Jews and comparing Cosby to Mel Gibson, but I understand that you both have a position which is to promote AAVE. My position is to make the article better. Period. In doing so I do myself the favor of not getting myself stuck trying to decide who's views are right or wrong, and by doing so, set an example for the partisans here to suspend argumentation in favor of cooperation. In journalism there is a basic rule - "just report the facts" - state what things went on and dont try to interpret them. You and Pinkville both are making the canonical mistake of presuming to evaluate the Cosby opinion, rather than simply make the connection between this topic and that topic. Wiki editing is, more than anything about making linkages. Wikipedia editing is about NPOV. From my view, the opinion about Cosby's opinion is entirely irrelevant. What matters is the link.

With that out of the way, I can (for example) finally deal with your questions about my edits. The reason is because the linguistics is there for linguists to find it - most people dont have much use for it, and as Pinkville made the point - most people arent linguists anyway. -Ste|vertigo 01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I understand that you both have a position which is to promote AAVE. Then you utterly misunderstand. I'm as neutral about AAVE as I am about any language or lect. I don't claim to speak for Pinkville, but I'm under the impression that he shares this neutrality.
  • My position is to make the article better. Period. Nothing wrong with that, but I thought you were a "mediator". No incompatibility between (a) mediating and (b) jumping in and making major changes?
  • In journalism there is a basic rule - "just report the facts". Are you equating the construction of an encyclopedia with journalism?
  • My making an issue out of your edit summaries is "niggling"? OK then: The bigger issue is that of your making unexplained (even unannounced) edits after having volunteered to be, and while still (I think) calling yourself, a "mediator". Your one misleading edit summary and your complate lack of other edit summaries for those edits are the icing on the cake, as it were. But then I may have completely misunderstood "mediation": certainly the impression I got from the WP page explaining it was quite unlike what has transpired here.
  • Wiki editing is, more than anything about making linkages. Yes? My own interest is in Wikipedia editing; I believe that encyclopedia articles should lucidly and helpfully explain verified and important facts and mainstream theory/theories, relegating fringe and discredited ideas and mere silliness to the periphery. Linkages are secondary.
  • I'm hardly presuming to evaluate the intrinsic worth of the Cosby opinion: I've already said that I can't easily derive much sense out of it. As for its significance in the public consciousness, I've presumed to tentatively evaluate that as rather minor (after having tried Google News and the Guardian for it); you are perhaps presuming to evaluate it as major.
  • The reason is because the linguistics is there for linguists to find it - most people dont have much use for it. Description of a language is linguistics; perhaps without intending to, you seem to be saying that the description of a subject is not important within an article on that subject. That little matter aside, most people don't have much use for most things; I'd thought that most people who wanted to read up on AAVE would want to know about AAVE and only secondarily about what might be termed "AAVE in popular culture". Incidentally, this does not mean that I'm happy with the description of AAVE, which could be improved, phrased in a way that's easier to understand for people who've never opened a linguistics book. -- Hoary 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I need to add anything to Hoary's comments, except to note that this "Mediation" process has been quite discouraging. From the start it seemed apparent that neither Wikidudeman nor - amazingly - the Mediator had read or understood the arguments of the other participants. Add the dismissive suggestion to "stop referencing Jews", etc., the bizarre equating of editing and providing edit summaries with "niggling", and, well, Mr. Vertigo, it looks like you never took any of this seriously. As a footnote, I don't believe I made any comment along the lines of: most people arent linguists anyway, you may have been skimming Makerowner's thoughtful comment at 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Pinkville 03:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Linkages are secondary." Linkages are primary in this dispute about the connection between this topic and the other. When in doubt... we link.
  • We dont use Google searches to make evaluations about the validity of a noted opinion. We agree that Cosby is notable? Then we agree that his opinion is too. We agree that he said what he said? Then what he said about this topic has some relevance to it.
  • AAVE is not "a language." Its a mode of informal English speech that contains a lot of slang that originates from Aframerican culture. Its origins are rooted in social isolation rather than the typical geographic isolation language develop from. I agree there is a legitimate question as to how much of AAVE originates from surviving African culture and how much of it is the product of American life. This question goes to the heart of the slavery question: "what African culture survived the destructive effects of slavery?"
  • "No incompatibility between (a) mediating and (b) jumping in and making major changes?" - My changes are subject to debate of course. We have spent enough time talking about irrelevant topics and I felt compelled to focus on the article itself. When I mediate I tend to limit my edits to what can generally be classified as "structural edits" rather than making changes to particular controversial sections. Restructuring is of course often a very helpful way toward making progress in getting people away from arguing and back to work. The only reason Im going over these points, and appear to having taken a positional stand is simply that to exclude particular statements of opinion would be to express an opinion. If theres any relevance whatsoever, we include, period. We of course have to explain how its relevant and thats what the "Controversy" section will be about. I sincerely apologise if I have been curt with you, but I have been frustrated by you and Pinkville making far too much of your interpretations of Cosby's comments, rather than simply conceding that they relate (if only tangentially) to AAVE.
  • "[should be] phrased in a way that's easier to understand for people who've never opened a linguistics book." To make a pointed question out of this, would it be easier to understand if it was rephrased in AAVE?
  • "Are you equating the construction of an encyclopedia with journalism?" Are you presuming that there is a difference and that you know what that difference is, and how that difference somehow changes how we apply such a basic principle as "report the facts."-Ste|vertigo 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: Ive restructured with a bit more care this time and placed controversy below the linguistics, and deprecated the phonology behind the grammar and lexicology. I think it reads much better now.-Ste|vertigo 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Linkages are secondary." Linkages are primary in this dispute about the connection between this topic and the other. When in doubt... we link. No, when in doubt, you link. If theres any relevance whatsoever, we include, period. If there's any relevance whatsoever, you may include. I don't. My position may be a minority one, but it's far from unusual. [To] exclude particular statements of opinion would be to express an opinion. To include them is to express the opinion that they're worth consideration.
  • We agree that Cosby is notable? Then we agree that his opinion is too. We agree that he said what he said? Then what he said about this topic has some relevance to it. Cosby is a notable comedian and TV performer. He is utterly unnotable as a linguist or sociologist. Of course what he said is relevant to AAVE. By itself, mere relevance is trivial.
  • AAVE is not "a language." Its a mode of informal English speech that contains a lot of slang that originates from Aframerican culture. Let's ignore for a moment the distinctions among "lect", "dialect", "ethnolect" and "sociolect", and agree to call them all "lects" (the broadest term). If you treat a "language" as something that is more or less autonomous, then AAVE is, by most measures, a lect rather than a language. And AAVE is typically used in informal contexts and/or for informal purposes. I hope we agree so far. But I don't understand what your point is. If it's that AAVE is standard English that's stripped of formality and simplified in certain ways, with the addition of a distinctive vocabulary, then you are plain wrong, as is shown in the article itself (the last time I looked at it), as is shown in several of the external links, as is shown in any of a large number of introductory linguistics books, as is shown in any of a substantial number of specialist linguistics books, as is not, to the best of my knowledge, disputed by any sober person in a book that's published and taken seriously -- as is elementary knowledge among anyone who has taken the trouble to read even a small amount of sensible material about language. Here is one short, easily digestible item for you. It is by this guy, admittedly not a household name or TV star but merely the coeditor of an 1800-page descriptive grammar of standard English.
  • I have been frustrated by you and Pinkville making far too much of your interpretations of Cosby's comments, rather than simply conceding that they relate (if only tangentially) to AAVE. Yes, Cosby's comments relate to AAVE. And not tangentially but directly: he plainly referred to AAVE as "crap". But so what? The comments are partly incoherent and partly coherent but blatantly ignorant, and their utterance wasn't that much of a news story.
  • "[should be] phrased in a way that's easier to understand for people who've never opened a linguistics book." To make a pointed question out of this, would it be easier to understand if it was rephrased in AAVE? What do you mean by "rephrased in AAVE"? To undergo transformation into AAVE grammar (syntax, morphology, phonology) but otherwise remain unchanged, or something else? If the latter, what? If the former, then we'll have to decide how to spell the result. Any solution will be orthographically awkward, if only because AAVE is not typically written. (The same would be true for other dialects, like Scots.) I don't speak AAVE and I guess you don't either. I don't know what the point of your question is, and it seems bizarre; a sensible question could be "Can an explanation in AAVE of a complex phenomenon by one native speaker of AAVE to another native speaker of AAVE be as efficient as an explanation in standard English of the same phenomenon by one native speaker of SE to another native speaker of SE?". Answer to that one: Yes of course it can.
  • "Are you equating the construction of an encyclopedia with journalism?" Are you presuming that there is a difference and that you know what that difference is, and how that difference somehow changes how we apply such a basic principle as "report the facts." Of course I am. The idea that you might not know what the difference is amazes me. Here's a little exercise. Go to a library. Look in an old edition of what you consider a good newspaper. Read up a couple of news stories on issues that are still of interest today. Now look up the subjects of those stories in what you consider a good encyclopedia (one whose editing clearly postdates the newspaper stories). Do you really not notice obvious differences?
Hoary 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Would any old newspaper do? -Ste|vertigo 07:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC) PS: "In Hebonics, the response to any question is usually another question -- plus a complaint that is implied or stated."-SV

I had in mind something that purports to be an intelligent newspaper for people who think, but you're free to look at any newspaper.
How did you find Pullum's piece (as linked to above)? -- Hoary 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Pullum appears to have an opinion, a minority opinion incidentally, in which he intereprets the structures used in African American Vernacular according to a nominal linguistic analysis and then uses this analysis as the basis for his support of Oakland's "pompous" announcement. I think what is clear is that his view is one opinion among a large group which ranges from promotion of AAVE as a mode of speech to those who think its just plain ign'ant. Cosby's apparently siding with the latter is of course controversial (disliked) hence notable because he of course is black. Again I think its important to put the Cosby quote and the Pullum quotes into the context of the debate about the history and future of black culture. In that context they are both just about a'ite. -Ste|vertigo 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A minority opinion among which group of people -- people in general, or people who have studied this? In what sense is Pullum's linguistic analysis "nominal"? Pullum provides reasoning; have you found any argument against such reasoning, or any reasoning for a contrary point of view? Who has been seriously promoting AAVE as a mode of speech, and where? -- Hoary 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I take it you like his opinion. -Ste|vertigo 09:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You're evading all the questions.
It's not Pullum's "opinion" that's of concern. Here's what he says:
The topic [of Ebonics] was a joke because of what the majority of English speakers think about African-American Vernacular English, that apart from the special slang, it is just English with a lot of grammatical mistakes. They also think it's an impoverished version of English with a lot of grammatical mistakes. Alberto Manguel wrote [...] that black English is 'nothing but a vastly impoverished version of Standard English.' He gives no evidence for that at all.
Pullum thereupon simply explains how people such as Manguel are wrong. Not having much space -- or rather time, as this was a radio show -- he concentrates on the omission of be, sometimes described as "lazy", etc. He shows that the omission is rule-governed. If you're not a native speaker of AAVE and think that be omission is easy and something for lazy people, I challenge you to try skipping be tomorrow, but only in accordance with to the seven conditions that Pullum lists.
I'll assume for a moment that you either decline the invitation or try it and fail. (No need to feel bad about the latter: I'd fail it too, even if I were paid a pile of money to succeed.)
Well, what's going on here? Various possibilities are imaginable:
  • (A) AAVE is really difficult to get just right unless you're a native speaker of AAVE; but despite this, (B) AAVE is impoverished, deficient, defective, rudimentary, unsophisticated, or whatever happens to be your fave term of disapprobation. (An interesting notion, but how could this combination be explained?)
  • Pullum is lying. These seven conditions are fiction. (If you think this, I'll refer you to Green's book.)
  • Pullum's is just "a nominal linguistic analysis". (But WtF does that mean?)
Any other suggestion?
Pullum's claim that AAVE is just as much of a language as standard English isn't an "opinion". If you like, call it an opinion, or "a theory and not a fact". But if you so "mediate" this article, it will become a laughing stock. -- Hoary 10:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Hoary for making the connection to evolution. Criticizing AAVE (calling it crap for example, or "ign'ant", as our esteemed mediator has done)is equivalent to criticizing evolution. These are both scientific topics requiring a certain amount of study to understand and evaluate that the general population nonetheless feels qualified to discuss. And, like those who oppose the theory of evolution, those who oppose AAVE must become willfully blind to pretend that their opinions are reasonable. Saying that Pullum's evaluation of AAVE is an opinion is like saying that the theory of gravity is an opinion: no one has actually seen AAVE speakers using complex sets of rules to govern 'be' deletion, just as no one has actually seen gravitons or space-time curvature or whatever the prevailing theory of gravity is these days (I'm not a physicist). Yet in both these cases, scientific observers have formulated sets of rules (a theory) that explains the observed phenomena, then tested the theory by experimentation, and finally published it in scientific journals where it was refined by other scientists. In the case of AAVE, this was originally done over 40 years ago: all the major 'kinks' in the theory have been worked out, and AAVE is universally recognized by linguists as rule-governed and valid as a lect. As I've mentioned before, introductory textbooks in linguistics will explain this: it is NOT just on opinion, it is the consensus among linguists. Cosby's quote on the other hand is (somewhat) notable only because he is famous and Black. His opinion on this issue carries no more weight than that of any random person you meet in the street. I think it would be best, Stevertigo, if you would read some of the above discussion (and archives) more carefully, and preferably some books on the subject as well, and recognize that this is a scientific article. And I don't think Pullum was trying to support the Oakland decision, simply to explain the background and why the debators were basing their opinions on false information. Makerowner 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African-American_English/Archive_4&oldid=1136500435"