Talk:List of linguists

message: Perhaps a happy medium would be to divide the page into three: one section for traditional grammarians and lexicographers(Panini, etc.), one for modern structural linguists (Hale, Kratzer, Chomsky), and one for people like Eco, who have contributed much insight, but aren't linguists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shock, horror, a suggestion that actually makes sense! (As opposed to the moronic categorization-system.) Strongly seconded! Now, a good word for a person that knows many languages is polyglot. Knowing many languages isn't notable in itself though, and doesn't improve a list of linguists in any way IMHO. Philologists, like Tolkien, should go with the grammarians/lexicographers I think. --Kaleissin 14:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I rewrote the intro paragraph, and mentioned this ambiguity, but the list still needs to be sorted through. Also, I added mention of the term 'linguistician', because i am about to delete the article by that name and redirect it here (after discussing it on that article's talk page). --Torgo 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide the page... 

message: We need the input of a grammarian/linguist at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism at the section entitled "What does nonsense mean?".   Your input on the talk page will help immeasurably in the improvement of all wikipedia articles.pat8722 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling on grammarians for help on the vandalism page

message: The List of linguists is growing bigger and bigger, people seem to be adding every linguist they know (okay, I'm exaggerating a little), regardless of their popularity. Is this really what this list is aiming at? Someday the list might have 2,000 linguists and university professors and maybe 100 or so have their own Wikipedia entry... — N-true 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't agree with you more than this... I know a friend of mine who was added to the list by one of his friends, though he is just a linguistics "student." He had to later delete his name from the list I guess. So this list has kind of become like a playground for kids.  Most of those people must be deleted for sure. Lingforum 01:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is growing bigger and bigger 

message: The list is growing and growing and I think it's quite senseless to have 100s of linguists (many of them quite unpopular) on the page while most of them don't even have a Wikipedia entry. Are there any reasons not to shorten the list down and only keep those who actually have a Wikipedia entry? I'd do that if no one objects... — N-true 23:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well quite a lot of linguists that don't have a Wikipedia entry are indeed very famous; so I don't really agree with deleting those linguists.  But still I think your suggestion is much better than keeping this list, which is almost useless since there are lots of names for whom you wouldnt see any Google results other than this list and Wikipedia mirrors.  Something must be done for sure...  Someone should take the risk and delete all the unknown people from the list. Lingforum 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting red-link linguists.  Go for it, N-true, I'll back you up on it.  If they are truly notable, somebody will write an article about them. -Taco325i 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.Maunus 10:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess it'll take me a while, but I'll do it. There are some "red-link" linguists that I consider important, I might write a stub (or even a full article) on them so they become valid. Thanks for your consent. — N-true 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I went through them as well and recognized at least four that I think should have aticles: Wallace Chafe, John Gumperz and Keren Rice and Alec Marantz.Maunus 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Alec Marantz, of course! Maybe you want to write the article on him? And I'd add Martin Haspelmath as well, as he's working in the same institute as I. Maybe also Balthasar Bickel, not sure. By the way... I spotted L. L. Zamenhof (the creator of Esperanto) in the list. I wouldn't consider him a linguist, as he was an oculist... should he be excluded by that definition? — N-true 23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: N-true has a wikipedia entry because he wrote it himself. Wikipedia is about sharing and updating information. Let the users decide how to use it. I saw you deleted Steve Bird. You also deleted my name. Apparently, you are not familiar with Computational Linguistics. Please stop deleting entries. You can make another list if you wish of "famous linguists" or "linguists I like".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenimi (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you are not familiar with Wikipedia. First of all, I don't have a Wikipedia page — I have a user page (as every user should have). Second, as you can read above we agreed in common (this was a user's decision) only to keep linguists that already have Wikipedia entries. Steve Bird apparently did not. Feel free to write an article on him and add him to the list, it can as well be stub. Same goes for yourself, just that the Wikipedia policy says that people are not allowed to write articles on themselves. Third, I am indeed not familiar with computational linguistics, but I don't know what the point of this might be here. If we kept every single doctor, professor and whatnot who somehow deal with languages in the list, it would be endless and unhelpful. Please accept the decision made. — N-true 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this idea.  If we converted this page into a category rather than a list then we could kill two birds with one stone.  (a) the page would automatically update and (b) it would be limited to linguists with an actual wikipedia page. Grumpygiraffe (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut down to only linguists with Wikipedia entries? 

message: Hello, editors!  Those of you engaged in the discussion(s) above will be interested to know that the LINGUIST List recently sent out an email call for academic linguists to look at this page and comment on the list.  So far I have received several suggestions for names to be added, but no suggestions for deletion.  Interestingly enough, many of the suggested additions to the list are linguists that already have Wikipedia articles; they are just not included on the page.  I have identified these linguists and will link them in.  
Also, I would like to call attention to the formatting of the page.  The first several sections use the format "Last, First" name to list famous linguists.  The remaining sections use the format "First Last" name.  In the interest of easier scanning, I have edited sections D-F to continue the "Last, First" name format.  This is a tedious task, but I will plan to continue formatting the remaining sections this way.  However, if anyone would like offer argument in favor of another format, please reply here or leave me a note on the LINGUIST List talk page.  Best, --Linguistlist 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, dear LinguistList (of which I am a member of as well, hehe)! The reason for that only A to C are formatted that way is that I did this and didn't get any further yet. I always tidy up an entire letter's section, which takes quite long, 'cause I have to look on the linguist's article pages and often homepages and CVs to find out where and when they are born and what they're dealing with. Having the names in "Last, First" format will help. I could imagine that someone might come and complain, because usually name lists on Wikipedia are in the "First Last" format, sorted by last name, but I don't think that there is a rule to do it that way. — N-true 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LINGUIST List Spotlight

message: Seems like maintaining this list is a tedious task (ie many tedious issues have come up, like getting the names in the right format, whether there should be red-linked--ie not in Wikipedia--linguists on the list--standard WikiAnswer is 'no' AFAIK, deleting/adding, merging with the entirely redundant 'modern linguists') - why do we want a list like this? All it takes to generate such a list automatically is to tag all the linguist bios in Wikipedia as 'linguist'. I checked physics and computer science - they both have 'List of' pages so maybe they know something I don't - but they're also fairly poorly maintained, although they don't have any red links - still seems like a waste of time--Ewan dunbar 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a fair amount of Wikipedia editing, and I've found that most lists should be migrated to categories.  Since categories are decentralized (think B+ trees), they don't need the high level of maintenance that lists do.  Also, most people on this list are already categorized as a specific type of linguist, so this list is mostly redundant.  But if somebody else wants to maintain it, I won't stop them.  –jonsafari 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to continue maintaining it. I think, this list provides more details than a simple category, i.e. you can search for linguists that, for instance, deal with lexicography or Dravidian languages, which I think can be quite handy. — N-true 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with this suggestion.  Migrating to a  category vs a list is an excellent suggestion. Grumpygiraffe (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have a list? 

message: Why is this article part of the "Education" project?? Maybe someone doesn't know what linguistics is? Not the same as pedagogical grammar, which would be part of Education, I suppose. If anything, shouldn't it (wait for it)... be part of Linguistics? Torgo (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, screw it, I'm just changing it. If someone from Education wants to come over here and dispute, fine with me, but gosh, sure seems like this article belongs in project linguistics to me. Torgo (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Education??

message: I see Christopher Ehret has been removed from the list as "not a linguist", but I don't see the connection here. His article says he is a scholar of African historical linguistics, and historical linguistics is a sub-discipline of linguistics. Why would he be excluded from the list? I'm not saying that the removal was wrong, necessarily - I'm just curious as to why. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would give him the benefit of doubt, and include him in the list.  Not all the people on this list are linguists by training, but some are academics in other disciplines who have made notable contributions to linguistics relating to their area of expertise. Christopher Ehret is a professor in the Department of History at UCLA, but his UCLA page indicates that his research interests and publications cover linguistic topics, and so it is reasonable to include him in a list of linguists. BabelStone (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, well that explains the "why", then. I tend to agree that we should include scholars with notable contributions to the field even if they aren't actually linguists by training. But I also think we should have a relatively high bar for what is considered a notable contribution to the field or not. Using research interests and publications sounds like a good call to me. I'll put Prof. Ehret back in for now, and we can judge any others on a case-by-case basis. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us not forget that Benjamin Lee Whorf (as in Sapir-Whorf) was a chemical engineer for an insurance company by trade.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Ehret 

message: I don't understand why we need this list article (listicle?) at all, when we have categories. I also think we have too damn many categories that are too fine-grained, but that's an argument for another day. Why do we need this list? It only gives a potential platform for people without an article to self-promote. Then we have to argue about whether that person is a real linguist or not. If someone is really of note, then let someone write a stub article for them, submitting to the validation process for that, and categorize it appropriately. I propose deleting this page. But I don't know (or care much) about the bureaucracy of how deletion gets done, though I know there is a strict bureaucracy around it. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why in the world do we need this?