Talk:Ebonics (word)

message: www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/ebonics-translators-justice_n_692565.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7962667/Ebonics-translators-needed-by-DEA-to-interpret-drugs-wiretaps.html
news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/24/dea-wants-to-hire-ebonics-translators/
www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/08/ebonics_official_language 166.205.138.184 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the word Ebonics is used, what is being referred to here is actually African American Vernacular English; the issue of whether this should be mentioned is currently being discussed at the talk page there and you're welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  These belong? 

message: This is a place to discuss any aspect of Ebonics, African American English or the Oakland Board of Education controversy that concerns Ebonics, but may not necessarily be directly about the specific term or may be hard to fit into the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleanorPollo (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually no it isn't; instead it's the place to discuss this particular article, and improvements to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebonics Subcategories 

message: In his article "Using the Vernacular to Teach the Standard"Using the Vernacular to Teach the Standard, esteemed Stanford University linguist John R. Rickford cites three approaches to integrating children's vernacular into the educational environment, particularly in the arena of reading comprehension in standard American English. They are as follows:
* The Linguistically Informed Approach: This first approach is based on the guidelines set by William Labov resulting from decades of research on Ebonics or African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This approach requires that teachers be able to differentiate between errors in reading comprehension, and differences in pronunciation. It also suggests employing teaching techniques that take into account the grammatical structure of Ebonics, such as focusing on pronunciation of the ends of words, since Ebonics has a stronger modifying effect on the ends of words than it does the beginning of them. 
* Contrastive Analysis: The second approach involves drawing the student's attention to the structural differences between the standard and the vernacular. Rickford cites work done by Hanni Taylor of Aurora University who was confronted with a population of students who used features of Ebonics in their standard English writing. Dividing her students into two groups, a control group, and an experimental group, she taught the former using conventional methods, and the latter using Contrastive Analysis. To quote Rickford; "What she found after eleven weeks was that the kids who were using traditional techniques showed an 8.5 percent increase in their use of Ebonics speech in their writing while the kids who had benefited from Contrastive Analysis showed a 59 percent decrease in their use of Ebonics features in their writing." This is strong evidence that acknowledgement of the vernacular is beneficial to the academic advancement of students coming from linguistically diverse backgrounds. 
* Introducing reading in the vernacular, then switching to the standard: The third and final approach presented suggests using the vernacular to teach reading in the beginning stages, and then switching to the standard. Rickford cites research done in the Philippines in which half of a group of school-age children were taught to read for four years in English, while the other half started with their native language for the first two years, and then switched to English. Rickford says that "What the researchers found is what other researchers have found in many studies, namely that the kids who began in their own vernacular, when they switched to the second language, very rapidly caught up with the kids who started in English, and even surpassed them. The kids who started in the vernacular were outperforming in English the kids who started in English, in subjects ranging from reading to social studies, and even arithmetic." While this research was not done specifically on child speakers of Ebonics, it does show precedence for success in teaching with this method.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteakline (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something that might be brought up at some page about the learning or teaching of reading, and mentioned within the article on the "Oakland Ebonics controversy". -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Using the vernacular to teach the standard"

message: I don't know who wrote or is responsible for this article now, but I am counting down the minutes until my perfectly reasonable, valid and pertinent citation of John McWhorter's book "Losing the Race" and its thorough discussion on the danger of "Ebonics" is removed. I already see it has been flagged for "full citation needed." Wasn't citing the book and creating an entry in the refs enough, when there is an entire section in the book on Ebonics? Rather than deleting it, let's talk about it. Alexandermoir (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No call for a deletion.  We're just missing the page number.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaven forbid... 

message: [[WP:LINK Some of these links are to a single resource, document, or video (e.g. the non-functional http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5634427384230199073 ) and those should probably be incorporated into the article as references or removed entirely. Some are to much broader discussions and blogs about the topic, which are good for readers to do more extensive investigation. Basically, if I ever see an article with more than a half-dozen links (barring a few classes of article, such as biographies of prominent politicians, where there will be a wealth of high-quality links), I am inclined to slap on . —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: LSA Resolution on Oakland Ebonics Issue
Had the overall theme of the page not been so one-sided, perhaps the omission of any reference to the Linguistic Society of America's 2007 meeting on Ebonics and resulting resolution could be interpreted as a simple lack of due diligence. Perhaps the failure to include a fact one need only click the first result at the top of the page upon searching for "ebonics" on Google was just a wildly careless oversight. But then at the end of the article there actually is a reference to the LSA; so the omission is glaring before one even reads the article.
google search for "ebonics"
One needn't read past the second section before the pronouncement that ebonics was not adopted by linguists.
"Ebonics remained a little-known term until 1996. It does not appear in the 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, nor was it adopted by linguists.[13]
Perhaps the above line fails to convey the intent of its writer who means to say (again, bending over backwards for benefit of the doubt) linguists did not adopt ebonics as a separate language. Yet since the pronouncement ends a sentence beginning by declaring the 1989 dictionary did not hold any definition of the word, the reader naturally understands the message to be that linguists did not even acknowledge the word; and certainly did not validate it. 
I am new at editing here and while I did read this article through, and aforementioned section several times before committing my thoughts on this to the Talk section, I'm not yet confident I could adeptly format changes to the live page.
It does seem as though the entire page's tone is one of opinion, and ill informed at that. I read another article on the topic, and while it, too, conveys a particular thesis, any subjective tone is supported by facts I checked upon reading, and omits nothing so easily found as the wikipedia page's omission I referenced above.
contrasting example of a balanced article with a stance Mashugana75 (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused here as to what you are saying is true, how this differs from what the article states, and what you're basing this on. Your initial interpretation of the line you've quoted from the article is correct; linguists did not adopt the term ebonics. They also didn't recognize the speech of African Americans in the United States as a separate language, but the sentence in question isn't saying that explicitly. Have you found something that contradicts any of this? — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I also am at a loss, and don't understand what you are trying to argue here. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 LSA Resolution  

message: Why is every instance of the word Ebonics italicized? Cojoilustrado (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of general conventions for mentioning words as words. See Use–mention distinction. — Æµ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: The N-word was founded in the 1920s we’re a first African man said the N-word and all Black people were saying it not white people 173.48.210.218 (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bigger question is why can't we just say the word n i g g e r when talking about it? Why n-word? 206.84.248.245 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is the first N-word invented 

message: The article states that a subcommittee was formed for studying Ebonics.  Of what was it a subcommittee? 136.36.180.215 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  subcommittee