Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistics (poststructural)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics (poststructural)[edit]

This is a personal essay by an editor, Supriyya (talk · contribs), who has been trying to push original research on the Linguistics article. As others have pointed out repeatedly on Talk:Linguistics and its archives, the theories outlined in this article confuse linguistics with philosophy and show serious misunderstandings of what linguistics is. Furthermore, the theories outlined in this article deny grammaticality, one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in linguistics (unless, of course, my university lied to me). We shouldn't accept this on Wikipedia any more than we should accept a biology article that denies evolution. Yes, there is a philosophical movement known as post-structuralism, and post-structuralist philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida have written extensively about language. However, this does not mean they engaged in linguistics. Linguistics uses the scientific method to analyze language, and not every academic who talks or thinks about language is a "linguist". This article cites two sources, but one is a literary review published by a vanity web publisher, and the other doesn't appear to say what the author thinks it says. (I didn't read the entire article because it's on jstor, which requires payment to view the entire article.) I highly suspect there's some WP:SYNTH going on. szyslak (t) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Le vin blanc (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I could think of was already in the nom, (per nom).--S_RX 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do want to take issue with the nomination. There is indeed such a thing as post-structural linguistics (GB, GS). The key scholar at the intersection of post-structuralism and linguistics is probably Jacques Lacan. I detect a defensive air in statements on T:L that e.g. "Foucault etc. are not linguists, not even remotely linguists. Linguistics is a science. Post-structuralism and semiotics are not." This is a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between the two disciplines. That said, this article is an essay and does not properly describe this intersection. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the comment you refer to, but I'm more than aware of the intersection between linguistics and philosophy. In my nomination, I didn't mean to imply that linguistics and philosophy have nothing to do with one another. No academic field exists in isolation. Just think of how early 20th century linguistics was influenced by the "hard" empiricism popular in that era, and how the Chomskyan movement influenced and was influenced by the revival of Cartesian (and crypto-Cartesian) rationalism. Still, this does not mean Foucault and Derrida were linguists, any more than Chomsky is a philosopher. You can inquire about language without practicing in the field of linguistics. szyslak (t) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did make the comment being referred to here. It does not reflect a deep misunderstanding of the relationship of the two disciplines. The point is that there are two disciplines: philosophy of language (not "post-structural linguistics") and linguistics. They use two distinct methodologies and are at least in Europe and the US, housed in different academic departments. Both are valid and well reasoned ways of looking of language, and they do interact. I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues who do philosophy of language, and those who pursue literary theory. But it is a mistake to confuse these disciplines and say that they are the same thing. The fact that linguistics uses (exclusively) the scientific method is reflected in early work on the topic. Such as Sapir's article in Language in 1929 (The status of Linguistics as a Science), the near-universal characterization of the discipline as a science in introductory textbooks, the empirical methodologies used by nearly every professional linguist, and the definition of the Linguistic Society of America. Supriya likes to point to my mentioning of the latter as evidence of my colonial bias, but it's worth pointing out that the Linguistics Society of India has the following mission: The objective of the Linguistic Society of India (LSI) is “The Advancement of Indian Linguistics and Scientific Study of Indian Languages” (taken from their web pages). Turning to the issue of deletion, it appears to me that the material discussed here, when not original research of the page creator, properly belongs on the pages on Post-structuralism, Philosophy of Language, or Literary Theory with appropriate links and discussion discussing the interaction of these fields with linguistics (similarly some sections discussion the interaction of these disciplines is appropriate on the Linguistics page.AndrewCarnie (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (Assoc. Prof. Linguistics, University of Arizona)[reply]

Andrew, I did not attribute any colonial bias to the fact that you view Philosophy of language and linguistics as two different disciplines. Whether or not they are or they aren't, the issue of colonial bias was related to the question of animal language. The statement that "animals and non-humans do not use language", which is made by many people, even outside linguistics, is what I attribute as the cause and root of all bias that ever has been, and will remain. Supriya —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pfold (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ——An gr 07:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to post-structural linguistics. Dhartung has established above that there is such a thing, and to me it seems a suitable topic for an entry in an encyclopedia. This article needs a lot of work yet but it's only 3 days old, give it a chance. Seems to me a separate article here reflects a genuine debate in the academic world, not just a POV fork within wikipedia. Qwfp (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "post structural linguistics" gets 200 ghits. If it were such an important topic in linguistics or philosophy, I'm sure it would get much more coverage in academia and elsewhere. Most of the hits, aside from Wikipedia mirrors, either come from personal webpages or refer to developments in linguistics after the "structuralism" of de Saussure and Bloomfield. The latter has nothing to do with what this article is describing. If we can find reliable sources that point to any influence of Foucault and Derrida's post-structuralist philosophical program on the field of linguistics, or on philosophical inquiries on language, it would be appropriate as part of the philosophy of language article. But I don't think this is such an important academic movement that it merits its own page. szyslak (t) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that "postmodern physics" gets rather more hits, not only on an ordinary google search, but also on google books and google scholar (see my comment below). Are we to conclude that postmodernism plays an important role in modern physics? garik (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly writers who refer to "post-structural linguistics", as Dhartung has shown, and on that basis there certainly is an argument for keeping the article here in some form, though not necessarily with the same title (and I agree that, as it stands, it is an essay). However, it is not clear to me that there really is much of a debate about this in the academic world; any more of a debate, in fact, than there is between biologists and proponents of "postmodern biology" (GB, GS), or between physicists and proponents of "postmodern physics" (GB GS). The "debate", in other words, seems to me to be only on one side; I might even go so far as to suggest that it is rather like the kind of "debate" claimed to exist between evolutionary genetics and intelligent design — except that most evolutionary geneticists have at least heard of intelligent design. That all said, I think there is certainly an argument to be made for including an article in Wikipedia on post-structural approaches to the study of language, provided it contributes something not already covered by Philosophy of language. But it is misleading to imply that there is a serious debate in the field of linguistics on this issue any more than there is a serious debate about postmodernism in physics or biology. garik (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC) modified by garik (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominate this article. I will not go into explaining why, because I think I have already said enough - on T:L and many other places. My response to Angr, garik, szyslak and the other proponents for the deletion of this article remains the same: they wish to indulge in censorship of what is going against their personal interests, hence practicing a double standard on the name of "NPOV". I agree with Dhartung and Qwfp. Glad that there is still some sensible folk surviving on wikipedia. Cheers. PS: I will add the book references immediately. I'm also going to call for a fresh nomination on Talk:Linguistics, because changes, obviously need to happen there as well. Supriya 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cut it out with the "censorship" accusations? The current content of the Linguistics article reflects the current state of knowledge on the subject, not my "personal interests". I'm sorry, but that's how things work around here. If you think the academy is going in the wrong direction, that's fine. We can just agree to disagree. However, Wikipedia is not the place for your highly personal opinions about linguistics or any other subject. szyslak (t) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question posted at WP:LING - [1]; I don't know if it's notable, I do know that the sourcing is problematic. Knowledgeable contributors would probably be helpful. Also, I don't know if this move was the best option - poststructural linguistics seems a better title than Linguistics (poststructural); the latter gives the impression that it's a whole separate branch of linguistics when, judging by the sources, it looks more like a fringe topic of minority interest. WLU (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move it back if you must - to "poststructural linguistics"; I don't mind that. Please stop removing constructive references / reading lists - there is no rule anywhere about how many lines a book should have in order for it to be "further reading". The linguistics article itself lists titles of various books, and naturally, doesn't display the entire book. And there are loads of legitimate articles on wikipedia, sourced, that are not fully viewable. You are welcome to go offline and verify the sources, if you have to, there is no rule that it should be verified online alone. I don't think the reading section is meant to be a "let's upload e-books" section, is it? The books listed have to be relevant to the subject, and if you are unable to understand the subject and its relevance to judge whether a book is relevant or not, please leave it to someone else. About knowledgeable contributions, sure, are always welcomed with open arms. Get in more people. More the merrier. Supriya 15:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't demand that sources be fully viewable. Remember that I said the source didn't seem to verify your overall theories about "post-structural linguistics". The only reason I mentioned that I couldn't read the entire article was to allow the possibility that the article does verify your theories. But we don't evaluate sources based on what they might possibly say. szyslak (t) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by nominator: I think there are a few points that would benefit from clarification:

The term "post-structural linguistics" is ambiguous. Do we mean the many schools of thought that emerged after the structuralist movement of the early 20th century, whose proponents include de Saussure, Bloomfield, and others? One of those contemporaries rejected earlier theories of syntax in favor of deep structure and transformation, i.e. generative grammar. That man was Noam Chomsky, whose theory of innate language altered by binary sets of rules laid the foundation for linguistics in the next few decades, leading to today's split between Chomskyan and non-Chomskyan linguistics. A second usage of "post-structuralist linguistics" refers to any school of thought that might apply post-structuralist philosophical concepts in theoretical linguistics. I'm well aware that within linguistics, "post-structural linguistics" is at best a fringe theory, embraced by a minority of graduate students and many amateurs. That said, it's possible that the latter type of post-structural linguistics could emerge as the next great school of thought in linguistics or in one or more sub-disciplnes, such as syntax or semantics. But that doesn't make it appropriate for extensive coverage in Wikipedia. We already give wide coverage to the first type of "post-structural linguistics" in articles such as deep structure and generative grammar, among articles and sections about today's non-Chomskyan schools of thought, such as the (disputed) Criticism of Noam Chomsky#Criticisms of linguistic writings. The second type can get more space on Wikipedia once it becomes an accepted school in linguistics, with published works in reputable journals. Excuse the length, but linguistics gets complicated and contentious sometimes. :)
I'd like to state what I think is the single most salient point of this AFD: This page is not an encyclopedia article. That's the salient point when I say this article is a personal essay. And while there are many Internet sites for original points of view, Wikipedia is not one of them.

szyslak (t) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

szyslak, let's get a few things clear.

I am not interested in knowing, whether you think poststructuralism is a theory practiced by amateurs or professionals and what you think about them. Frankly, I just don't care. I don't think your opinion is relevant here, for reasons known to all of us. So don't waste my time with that.
My earlier comment was in response to some of the changes that WLU made, I wasn't referring to your statements on the talk pages at all.
Just putting up a notice like that isn't enough: if you have a valid reason, then give it for why this article is not encyclopedia material. If it makes sense (which most of what you says doesn't so far), I'll hear you out.
You've probably not read much about post-structuralism and therefore confuse the entire theoretical tradition to structuralist positions itself. None of the writers / thinkers / philosophers you refer to, were poststructuralists. They are all structuralists. Please read some of the reference links provided - in the article - and even on this page, before making ill-informed statements and wasting people's time.
You've been harping on fringe theory. There are many, many topics on wikipedia that deal with fringe theories, fringe ideas, minority issues and other things that are not "mainstream" positions. Is BDSM a "mainstream" sexual practice? Is homosexuality "mainstream"? Is postcolonialism and postcolonial literature mainstream? As long as there is published work on any topic, whether you consider that idea small, or large, it can be on wikipedia. Poststructuralism has published work on it, by published writers.
Repeating your arguments again and again, through different words, will not work - sooner or later I will just have to ignore it. If you have anything constructive to add to these points, go ahead.

Supriya 08:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have a problem with this article sounding like an essay, you are welcome to suggest ways in which that can change. If you have any sources or links that are relevant to the article, then please provide them. If you feel the style can be or should be tweaked, then point out where and how it could be done. If you feel it is missing some things, then tell us what that is. I don't think that the solution for an article sounding like an essay, is deletion. Far from it, in fact. Supriya 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.AndrewCarnie (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on google scholar there might be enough for a fringe topic. Right now the page is a bit better after I removed several chunks of content forks, but there's still very little evidence of interest beyond the 70s. This AFD is being approached like a battle when it's a matter of the sources not indicating notability. There's space on wikipedia for even minority positions, but they must be sourced. This is not. If there are sources to demonstrate interest in the page, it should be obvious to demonstrate contemporary interest. Discussion should also focus on the deletion of the page; discussion of the page's contents should be on that talk page. WLU (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources are there. There are a lot of pages on wikipedia that have as many sources as this page does. I think they've been linked to adequately. Supriya 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can say for any subject in the humanities or social sciences, "poststructural whatever". The cited references appear non-specific. The occasional use of t he term does not make it a distinct subject. Agreed, we have quite a number of even worse articles. DGG (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the arguments used here by proponents and nominators talk about things that are actually defined by wikipedia itself as not suitable arguments. Google hits for example. You are not supposed to count google hits to know whether an article is "mainstream" or "fringe". Supriya 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions you refer to doesn't say "you're not supposed to" count Google hits. (Of course, you're free to propose a policy change if you think that's how it should be.) The point of our guidelines on search engine tests is that the raw search number doesn't prove anything in and of itself, and should be interpreted in context. But the Google test on "post-structural linguistics" reveals much more than raw numbers. You'll notice, for example, that most sources refer to "post-structural linguistics" in a rather oblique way, and do not deal centrally with the topic as you understand it. In addition, you mischaracterize Dhartung and Qwfp as taking your side in this debate. Yet if you read what they've actually said, neither of them advocate keeping this article in its current form. More importantly, even if you ignore any "arguments to avoid" used in this debate, there are more than enough valid arguments. szyslak (t) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

szyslak, whether you think that their references to poststructuralism are 'oblique' or not, is again a matter of your personal opinion - hence irrelevant. They have spoken about it, and that's that. If you feel they are not speaking about it in the way you wish they should, sorry, too bad. That's really not of any concern to this article. About not keeping the article in its current form, I myself am open to it being changed. Not keeping it in its current form is not equal to deletion. There are sufficient number of people on this page / debate, who feel that the article should remain, so I don't really think its worth you wasting your time proving that they are not. Supriya 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Supriya. There is plenty of published work in reliable sources. As for the nominator, whether you think that post-structuralist approaches to linguistics are actually linguistics is completely irrelevant - what matters is that there are specific post-structuralist approaches to language and linguistics, and that the existence of these is verified in reliable sources. If 'proper' linguists have decried it as not linguistics, find some sources and add that to the article. As it stands, the deletion rationale is an essay.Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the last point is a good idea according to me. I feel that the debate between writers, academicians and thinkers needs to brought out - on any page, be it PSL, linguistics, BDSM, sexuality, or philosophy. I am not a propagandist, unlike what the nominators seem to be doing. I wouldn't like this article to be a propagandist one - and let's not even get into the existentialist problems of what the word "propaganda" means. Supriya 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.