User talk:Emykp

Ongoing Southeastern super-region dispute

If you don't mind, we've been asked to stop discussing on the noticeboard for now and the Talk:North American English regional phonology section is getting saturated, so I've copied and pasted your words here for us to continue talking. Feel free to invite others or what have you. I'd like to parse what has been said and respond. I intend to do so respectfully; please tell me if you feel I am being disrespectful. Here are your words:

Wolfdog, yes, it is a problem when we have a dispute page and people automatically start editing the said wikipedia article page without finishing the conversation on the dispute page. It shows complete disrespect. As klaxon stated, all disapproving parties have waited until the dispute was settled before editing. NOTHING was changed onm the main page in terms of how I, along with Klaxon and Simon would like the page to redone into. I still stand by my beliefs that Labov in those videos that he wanted North, Midland and South is separate categorizes as Simon stated above. He did state that specifically in multiple videos. I also don't like your tone in regards to how you'bve spoken to me on this, in regards to us both having different opinions. I get attacked by you for having different viewpoints in regards to this, which I do not appreciate. You told me on the talk page that you were both "surprised and dissapointed" that I backed Klaxonfan. And you accused us on this page of being "personal" about this topic. You come off as someone that isn't willing to let other viewpoints be allowed from your own without resorting to such comments. Which is why I brough up the Mid-altantic talk discussion. And yes, on the mid-atlantic page, there was a conversation just a few months before the new one was brought up - a big conversation, that disagreed on moving the page. All three "moves" were on the same front talk page. The second one just a little above that last one, that was a few months earlier. It's disrespectful to have 3 conversations about that very same topic in a year period. It's like you aren't willing to accept the outcome until the viewpoint aligns with your own. And that to keep on trying multiple times a year is the disired outcome until your opinion sticks. I do find this highly disrespectful to all the others that ended up disagreeing with the moving, only to have mutliple talks of moving a year until your viewpoint comes to pass. An wikipedia dminstrator even stepped in and said that this topic was being brought up too much in the span of a year. I've noticed that about this dispute as well. Before you started charging me with getting "personal" or disappointed and surprised" in my views, I looked upon your opinion highly.

I'm happy to agree with you that people should stop editing the page until the dispute is resolved. I've certainly stopped editing and I hope LakeKayak does as well.

I'm agreeing with what you believe Labov said about there being different dialects... again and again I'm agreeing with that. But what Labov did not say, which you are inferring, is that he finds the Southeastern super-region concept to be no longer valid. He never says this. You are inferring it. It would be very easy to discredit me if you could find even one instance where he just says it openly. But he doesn't.

Now: about my tone.... "Attacked" is a strong word. Saying I feel surprised and disappointed with someone is hardly the same as attacking them. However, if you want me to never discuss my personal feelings (which I believe have their place and which I was only expressing in a gesture at humanity), I will not mention them. I apologize. From my point of view, I laid out a clear and obvious argument, which I backed up with evidence in writing (and told you to read a particular source), all of which you simply responded to with the one sentence "I'm backing Klaxnfan, as I feel Labov was saying Midland was a different category as well." I felt I had not been heard at all, that I had just been brushed aside even though I provided positive evidence, and my honest feeling was one of disappointment. When I was talking about you or other editors being "personal", I meant that you appear to argue what Labov is saying on the basis of personal feelings rather than on the basis of what he is clearly and actually saying. I'm sorry if you found this hurtful, but you must admit that in the videos he never mentions the Southeastern super-region (either in favor of it or against it).

This is what is so frustrating to myself and others. We're talking about articles or books where Labov explicitly says something, and you and others are talking about videos in which Labov says some things from which you are inferring further conclusions at best, particularly things that his writings don't support. Do you see the difference? Do you see why I don't think the two types of argumentation should be weighed equally? (And, yes, some of his writings about the super-region are even as recent as 2013; see One Hundred Years of Sound Change in Philadelphia or I can send it to you. I'd be happy to find others as well. The argument that the super-region is "obsolete" is also not valid.) Again, the honest feeling here from my end is frustration. I suppose this is what you have been interpreting as my not being open to others' opinions. I'm not sure how else to voice my opinion that I am not being listened to. To me, a research writing is not really a matter of opinion until you start interpreting beyond the words. Labov either claims something or he doesn't. A video is just a snapshot: just discussion on one or more narrow topics. Anyway, assuming now that you do not want to hear my honest feelings, I can try to avoid them.

As for the Mid-Atlantic accent conversations, I jumped into that discussion happily because I saw another new nominator for the side I believed to be true. What's wrong about that? In any case, that really has nothing to do with our current dispute and aren't you bringing it up as reason to believe that I never back down when I'm wrong? I "lost" that, and it's over. However, in the future, if someone nominated the page for a move again, would I be wrong to jump back into the conversation and say my piece? Wolfdog (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a question for you that I think is very important: Have you read any ANAE sections yet? I've looked at your sources. Have you looked at mine? If you, like Klaxonfan, still would just say that the ANAE is out of date or obsolete, I'd be happy to discuss that with you. I need to know exactly why you're still unconvinced, so we can have a meaningful dialogue. Wolfdog (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog:I simply don't understand to be honest why things have to be categorized by super regions, and we can't list it like this on the North American English regional phonology article page: http://www.atlas.mouton-content.com/secure/generalmodules/anae/unit0031/genunstart.html "This map presents the regional dialects of NAE within the boundaries that define them and provides the option to access each speaker of the TELSUR Survey via mouse click." Basically we would have a West section, North-Central, South, Inland North, Eastern New England, Western PA, Midland, Midlatnatic and so on... And we can have someone draw a map like the one shown on that website. Klaxon made a comment that this is how it was for eight years on the page (or kinda close like it). It would obviously have to be readjusted, but I see no reason as to why we have to include "super regions." Why can't we just have it like it is on the ANAE website? Emykp (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I admit it is a matter of preference, but WP is conducive to arranging information into sections and sub-sections. Also, the preeminent study and scholar in the topic provides us such an arrangement. I think it would be better to have fewer broader headings, so that a reader can choose stay as broad or go narrow as they want into the reading; this appeals to both lumpers and splitters. If we start out with many headings, the reader will only have the option of being forced to read about differences rather than similarities, an approach that only appeals to splitters. And what's the problem with the newest map I made? It already categorizes everything equally, just as you desire: see Template:Map of American English. Wolfdog (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: Sorry for taking so long to respond. I'll respond sometime in the next few days. Very busy currently. Emykp (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your taking the time to tell me. Wolfdog (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wolfdog: So I take it you don't want to go in the direction in how it categorized on the ANAE website? I kinda think it was listed this way for years on that article page. I'll admit I don't really read the wikipedia rules stuff that much. There so many pages/rules and many of the articles are so long that it would probably take me months to get my head around it even if I dedicated a lot of time to it. I'm also currently busy with a work related project that is causing me to have mind focused on that and not really putting much into anything else. And even if you did agree with me to re-categorize the page, I wouldn't be the one doing any of editing and reorganizing because I don't have the time. I could maybe help come up with a basic idea of how it would look but I wouldn't have time to edit it and what not. It would most likely be up to you to reorganize this for that article. But if you would be open to the idea of possibly going in this direction sometime later on, please ping me back here. I usually do log on to wikiepdia at least once a week. Thank you. Emykp (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)