Talk:Speculative Grammarian

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Resource Exchange

If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles

I saw the request for an article on Speculative Grammarian (Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_Sciences_and_Philosophy#Linguistics), and decided to give it a try. I've taken ideas for the basic layout and content from the articles on the Annals of Improbable Research and the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

I plan to scan the cover of an issue I have (similar to that in the AIR article) and add that to the Journal Infobox.

I considered adding two or three links to various examples of the different kinds of articles in the "Content and Style" section, but decided it was too linky.

The linguists I mentioned by name in the Lingua Pranca section are all included in List of linguists, which seemed like a reasonable criterion for a first pass.

Of course anyone can edit this, it is just a start. But if you have suggestions on some additional kind of material that should be included, please make them here, and I'll try to do the research to get the information needed. Trey314159 14:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this article Trey. I just cited an article from SpecGram on a Wiki page. Of course, it's totally irresponsible of me. However, I am defending against irresponsible trolls who are making up their own references as they go. Quoting SpecGram seemed the perfect way to refute them. The article cited is actually 100% reliable as regards the relevant point. But I find it totally delightful to refute people who make up their own unreliable references, by quoting an unreliable reference that I didn't make up! Not only that, though, it is actually reliable on the point in dispute!

What would be really perfect is if this entry had been written by the chief editor of SpecGram. This causes a wonderful dilemma. Of course, there is no better possible source; however, were it known, it would cause all sorts of doubts regarding conflict of interest and what-not. But the neat thing about Wiki is the experiment regarding the reliability of a host of anonymous editors. As long as the editor of SpecGram does not reveal her identity, her contribution is as reliable as everyone else's. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Miner is Metalleus, right?[edit]

Not sure why the two names are listed separately... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm sure. امیررضا ممانی (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good[edit]

It was great, he really didn't talk امیررضا ممانی (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]