Talk:African-American English/Archive 6

message: It's sometimes claimed on this talk page or in the everchanging article itself that certain "educators and social commentators" (or similar) have no particular beef with AAVE itself but criticize the extent of its use. (After his telltale word "crap" is politely removed, Cosby is made to sound like this.)
I'm willing to believe that such people and such opinions exist, and I'm willing to have them presented in a Wikipedia article. But I haven't encountered them yet. It's my impression that if you investigate what appears to be criticism of the use of AAVE, you pretty soon find that it's based on the same old ignorance of AAVE itself. It argues from false premisses.
This isn't just my impression. The entry for "Black English Vernacular" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language rightly accords the criticism/controversy stuff a small place at the end, immediately before the conclusion. Here's what it says:
(Mention of "diversity" reminds me of a major shortcoming in the WP article. By contrast, diversity is emphasized in the BEV article within OCEL.)
That criticism of the "use" of AAVE stems from misunderstanding of AAVE itself seems to be a lot more than a mere hunch: the OCEL article presents it as a straightforward fact. -- Hoary 00:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, with the right references, it seems appropriate to me to give the reactions of some linguists to the worst things you hear about AAVE, like that it's "intrinsically deficient". Joeldl 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er . . . OK, but I was making a different point: that what's purported to be criticism of the extent to which AAVE is used is often based on prejudices about AAVE itself. I had thought that this was so; the OCEL says it is so. (Or anyway was so: the book is now about 15 years old.) -- Hoary 02:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The popular belief that lower-status speech forms are "mistakes" is not limited to AAVE. You find the same prejudice about a lot of nonstandard dialects. I think something about what linguists think is already in the section "social context". What information are you proposing including that's not mentioned there? Joeldl 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most encyclopedias have signed articles. Pinkville 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica) have signed articles, and yes OCEL does too. But its articles seem pretty bland to me, certainly not argumentative. Yes, Joeldl's right about popular stigmatization of basilects in general. What I'm suggesting is that (a) either articles are found that make critical comments about the use of AAVE while not criticizing AAVE, or (b) the article shows that critical comments about the use of AAVE are based on beliefs that AAVE itself is somehow bad. -- Hoary 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the ''use'' of AAVE, and its premisses

message: Currently the section about criticism of AAVE and the use of AAVE is located in the "Education" section. However this isn't the right place for it. When Cosby criticized the use of AAVE in his speech he wasn't criticizing it's use in education but it's use in general. Having his speech and other criticism in the "education" section doesn't make sense. Moreover, Why keep removing the actual quotes from his speech? Why can't they be included? The reader needs to get an idea of exactly what Cosby was saying and from the mouth of Cosby himself and needs to make an interpretation of it that way.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover I object to the paragraph starting with "Changes in formal attitudes regarding the acceptance of AAVE as a distinct dialect correlated with advancements in civil rights." appearing right after the section of criticism of use of AAVE including Cosby's criticism. Cosby didn't make any implications that AAVE isn't a distinct dialect or any such thing. So having such a section about "Changes in formal attitudes regarding the acceptance of AAVE as a distinct dialect" doesn't make sense.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the phrase "eliminate AAVE through the education system" shows that the topic of the section is appropriately named.  I challenge others to find criticism of AAVE that is not related to education (Cosby's is since he was speaking at an event in celebration of brown vs board of education and his only credential on the matter is his doctorate in education).  Until then I'm proven wrong, I'll be maintaining that there isn't formal criticism of AAVE outside the context of education.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally, through lack of attention, I hadn't realized to what extent Cosby's criticism was related to education. This quote: "Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this?" is almost certainly an indirect reference to the debate about AAVE in education, since that's about the only place anybody has tried to "move ahead" on AAVE. Joeldl 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: An interesting and non-trivial challenge. For my part, I challenge others to find post-1980 education-related or other criticism of AAVE that does not stem from discredited beliefs about AAVE itself (notably, the discredited belief that AAVE is grammatically or otherwise defective). -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoary (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "criticism of AAVE" does that include recognition of AAVE in the school system? Joeldl 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "AAVE itself" obviously doesn't include that, but "post-1980 education-related or other criticism of AAVE" does. NB I'm not saying that no such criticism exists. It's not a matter of you not coming up with any and me then crowing "Nyah! You lost, I won!" Indeed, I think such criticism does exist. But it's not as common as I had thought, or as common as the article seems to suggest. I'd be interested in seeing it. -- Hoary 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Cosby quote/Including actual quotations from cosby. 

message: It seems every time I make a contribution to this article you revert it. If I add citations, You revert it. If I correct spelling, you revert it. If I change the name of a section title to something that correctly identifies with the article body, you revert it. And your only edit summary is "rv". That's not an edit summary. You need to explain WHAT you're reverting and WHY you're reverting it. If you just want to change 1 thing in an edit I make then don't revert it. Make that change by editing the article.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude Man, your citation to support the claim that "Criticisms from social commentators and educators have ranged from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech" is of a piece by Alberto Manguel. I believe that it is this Alberto Manguel. He's a writer of fiction and essays (who incidentally didn't go to university and whose CV shows no sign that he has studied language to the degree necessary needed to assert intelligently that anything is an intrinsically deficient form of speech). How is he a social commentator or educator? I'm surprised that you don't mention the title of his piece within this magazine. Have you not read it? I haven't read it, but I have read Pullum's description of it. -- Hoary 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll not refrain from reverting anyone if I believe it's warranted.  Even if Manguel were credible and had said more than one sentence-worth of material on the subject (both things that are not true), that is not the place to use him as a citation.  I've already explained why in the talk page.  I've also explained why the title of that section is appropriate and needn't be changed.    Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as has been pointed out previously, that since the relevant point here is the extent of criticism, it's more appropriate, if possible, to have a citation from a reputable academic source (satisfying Wikipedia criteria) surveying criticism of AAVE and/or its use in education or elsewhere, than to have an illustrative example of the criticism. This could also serve the purpose of evaluating the quality of criticism, although we should be careful to choose language, insofar as possible, that is reflective of a consensus of such surveys. Joeldl 15:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Joe, lets not get carried away with any exclusionist concept of RS. Who's "reputable" and who's not can be debated within the article. NPOV (the balanced presentation of all views on a subject) trumps RS for a good reason. -Ste|vertigo 07:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting using references, if possible whose reputability is not questioned, which themselves effect a synthesis of the most prominent views expressed concerning AAVE, instead of us having to do it. I think you can find extreme views on just about any topic. (Somebody gave the example of the earth being flat.) Citing an example of such a view is not proof that it is widespread or representative. What is proof, in the sense of an encyclopedia article, is a citation of a respected researcher who says that it is widespread or representative. If such references can be found, they are the best we can use. If those sources think certain proponents of one point of view are notable or representative, that would be good reason to mention those primary sources as well. All of this is assuming such sources are available — I think other editors here are likely to be better able to identify them than I am. Joeldl 08:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoary is missing the entire point(as usual). I get tired of repeating myself over and over just so I can be ignored and strawmen created from my arguments. Cosby isn't my source! Obviously "Cosby" himself would not be a reliable source for an article on linguistics. If I were to say "AAVE is crap" and cite Cosby for evidence of this that would violate RS. However the only thing I'm doing is saying "Cosby said this". I'm not making any assertions about AAVE in the article, I'm only making assertions about the controversy surrounding AAVE and what people have said about it. Cosby is not my source. The source is the publisher of his speech. Which is a very reliable source. The same applies for the rest of the sources of controversy surrounding AAVE. So not only does WP:V agree with me but so does WP:NPOV. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "point" of yours has already been shown for the vacuity that it is. Pinkville 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it's kind of funny to see you worrying about Reliable sources here - and someone even gave you a barnstar for your concerns on that issue...  Amazing. Pinkville 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think my points are invalid then you also believe wikipedia policy is invalid. Because my points coincide with wikipedia policy. If you believe wikipedia policy is invalid then maybe this isn't the right place for you.Wikidudeman (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If our former Mediator gets through with what he's attempting then you may be right. In the meantime, give it up. No one buys it. Pinkville 01:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't consider Cosby to be your source, then you wouldn't cite him as such in the article.  I understand the distinction you are trying to make but it comes off as misleading and nitpicky.  Cosby is the intellectual authority you are appealling to when you quote him and that is what makes him your "source."  At the moment, I can't really think of a more appropriate word.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm gonig to assume good faith on that comment, Æµ§œš¹. I'm going to just assume you aren't intentionally ignoring my posts and you simply overlooked what I posted. To clear things up i'll repost what I said so you might be able to catch it this time. I'm not making any assertions about AAVE in the article, I'm only making assertions about the controversy surrounding AAVE and what people have said about it. Cosby is not my source. The source is the publisher of his speech. Which is a very reliable source.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cosby's ideas are not crackpot. Firstly. Secondly, Cosby isn't the source. I must have said this a dozen times. The source is the publisher of Cosby's speech.Wikidudeman (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is Cosby? Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Cosby would only be the source if I was using his assertions as an argument for what he said. I'm not. Wikidudeman (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Æµ§œš¹, Stop reverting me. 

message: Here's the start of the op-ed piece by Walker, linked to within the section on "AAVE in education":
#Oh really? The KKK are pretty stupid and unimaginative, but alas they're not that unimaginative. I wish they were. However this (to take just one example) was a hugely more effective way to impede kids' academic progress.
#What's this talk of "teaching Ebonics as a separate language"? I hadn't heard of any notion of teaching AAVE as a separate language. Who was talking of doing that?
-- Hoary 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did some digging, too. Walker has no academic credentials and is principally know for his involvement in a couple of right-wing propaganda organs. It's probable that he's black, though, so I guess for some people that makes him a credible source on AAVE. Lame. Pinkville 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I hadn't even thought of looking up Walker: I was merely attempting to assess his sanity via his bizarre first sentence. But here he is. Having been big in retail, he's now the head of some "conservative" outfit called "New Coalition", and is a name on all sorts of things, e.g. he's "a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute", which the not always reliable Wikipedia tells us "is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which asserts that global warming is a myth". (So perhaps all those thermometer readings are just a commie plot?) Pretty humdrum depressing right wing stuff. -- Hoary 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lee H. Walker: Just another nutball?

message: While the "mediation" process here is in a bit of a lull, our "mediator" is busy elsewhere. Odd things are going on at Wikipedia:Attribution. This, in case you're not up to date on such matters, is pretty weighty stuff: This new merged policy page has replaced Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (which, you'll recall, were often cited as two of the three pillars of WP, the other being NPoV). And yup, This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. [...] When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Feel free to look at the history yourself, but here's a brief summary (provided for those who, like me, read top to bottom rather than bottom to top):
*04:09, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo, "rewrite"
*04:13, 24 February 2007 Robert A West "Undid revision 110505964 by Stevertigo"
*04:20, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo "restore - take it to talk if you have an issue"
*04:21–04:33, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo series of six edits in the section "Reliable sources", none with an edit summary
*04:56, 24 February 2007 Gerry Ashton "Revert material that belongs on talk page, not in the policy"
*09:41–09:43, 24 February 2007 Stevertigo series of three edits, one of which has the edit summary "Explain the ambiguity. The subjective nature of the definition need to be acknowledged and clarified"
*10:41, 24 February 2007 Marskell "rv rambling essay"
So what's it all about, then? That last set of three edits by Stevertigo replaces one paragraph with eight (one of which is a quotation from elsewhere). Here's the last but one of the paragraphs that our mediator wants to get in:
Ah. Let's suppose for a moment that Pullum et al. are in the minority in believing that AAVE is just as fine a linguistic tool as Standard American English. (I really don't know if this is true, but my inner Ambrose Bierce would not to be so surprised to find it was indeed true.) Then, per Stevertigo, it's quite OK to say that Pullum's is the minority opinion. The "other side" of this topic? Step up Alberto Manguel. Apparently Manguel wrote in 1998 that AAVE is "nothing but a vastly impoverished version of Standard English". Now, it seems to me that "crackpot" is a pretty good term for somebody who either ignores or chooses to remain ignorant of easily available knowledge on a subject that he writes about so publicly. (It's not that he doesn't like books: His WP article tells us that he has thirty thousand of them. But then again maybe he just likes the sight of their serried spines.) 
Our "mediator" points out that NPOV (the balanced presentation of all views on a subject) trumps RS for a good reason. This notion doesn't appear in WP:NPOV. It is, however, very close to something that the "mediator" is simultaneously (and so far unsuccessfully) trying to insert within a different policy page. So he seems keen to align this AAVE article with principles of Wikipedia that he has freshly adjusted to his own taste.
Irish jokes tells us that Irish jokes are a class of jokes based on a stereotype of the Irish people as unintelligent. I won't argue with that. Yes, such a stereotype exists. Ergo, the idea that Irish people are unintelligent is not merely that of a tiny minority. Yet Irish people rightly does not present this "side" of a "controversy" about Irish people. That's because no sane, sober person attempts to argue it. The alleged stupidity of Irish people, the alleged defects of AAVE: the two notions have about the same significance. It's probable that nobody continues to argue for either PoV in anything worth citing, though crackpots continue to argue from one of these goofy notions and perhaps from the other as well. -- Hoary 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we dont have a black jokes article, so wheres the comparison? Are you calling Cosby a racist? Or simply irrelevant? -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: AAAAGH! How many pages worth of comments have we produced on this talk page to convince the Great Mediator (nod to the Great Communicator) and the Wicked Dud Man(sp) of just that point?! How silly are we? They have all the force of irrationality behind them, and irrationality trumps reason all too often. More specific to your post, your Irish example is precisely why I'm opposed to even a "controversy" section in this article (or any article dealing with a people, or a culture, etc.) - it's nothing more than having a section devoted to bigotry related to the subject, in this case, Bigotry directed towards AAVE and its speakers. Is there something notable about the fact that there are people who are thoughtless enough, stupid enough or selfish enough to adopt such bigotries (about any given people/culture)? Do we have to quote such people too? And for balance? As an aside, Postmodern theory has provided a wonderful legitimising notion for all sorts of nuckleheads (to borrow a key term of critical theory from a beloved source on this page): there is no truth, just diffferent viewpoints - warring ideologies, etc. What a crock of shite! Pinkville 12:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, Mr. Vertigo has removed this article from the mediation list. I guess we're all mediated? His work here is done, and now doody calls elsewhere. Pinkville 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've read the first few posts then there's nothing new in these new posts. They're repeating the same old arguments that I addressed weeks ago. I agree that arbitration might be in order. I just didn't want to go that path. I would of preferred discussing it here but it seems that didn't work.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Of attribution and crackpots

message: I move that we table the "social criticism"/Cosby discussion on this talk page.  If Wikidudeman still feels the need to argue with the editors who disagree with him, we all have our user talk pages. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Cosby discussion vote

message: *SV says: Im tired of being insulted by Asshoes and Hoary and Pinkville. You may wish to consider how your effort to "mediate" compared with mediation as described and as agreed to. I for one found your efforts to be very much less mediation than a probably well-intentioned but peculiarly impatient and inattentive attempt at troubleshooting, complete with snap judgments. 
** Fair enough. -SV
*SV says: Theyve been over this a thousand times, but they are still holding to the view that Cosby is an immaterial source as far as linguistics is concerned. For them, the context is the study of language, not the common discourse or misconceptions. The context is primarily the study of language, yes; but it's also sociological, political, etc. Cosby is incoherent and negligible at any level.
** Its ironic that what you criticise as incoherent was largely understood, in the context of humour, by a black audience. Hm? -SV
*SV says: Unfortunately youre not approaching this from a sociological view. Right there. Dude Man seems to have been relying on whatever happens to be easily googlable and easily digested. That's no way to approach issues, linguistic, sociological, or other.
*SV says: Naturally the other side feels personally attacked by attacks on AAVE, in which "the other side" seems to mean "those who oppose what Wikidudeman is trying to do" and therefore includes me. My response: Rubbish, I feel nothing of the sort. But anyway this kind of thing is not debatable. I have little or no idea of the motivation of anyone who has recently been posting here, and don't much care. I do have some idea of their respective knowledge and understanding of AAVE.
** Rubbish indeed. -SV
*SV says of comments such as Cosby's: You would think that your opposition would know well enough how to deal with such comments such that they could write enough context to frame them. But that gets into the discussion of whether Cosby is ignorant - something they naturally dont want to deal with, because for all his claimed ignorance, Cosbys comments represent a view which is popular, or at least funny. Well, SV, you and I have different ideas of what's funny. (If I want US humor, I'll take Pryor or Colbert.) Sure I can deal with a discussion of whether Cosby is ignorant: so far as he is even understandable, either (i) he is ignorant, or (ii) he's acting ignorant (I really don't care which). But he's not very understandable, and this alone is sufficient reason for his comments not to merit attention. I can frame Cosby's comments, but I really don't see that they merit the effort. Why? Well:
** Oy the effort. -SV
*SV says: What weight can a trivial piece of info like the Cosby bite have in relation to the formal study of how languages evolve. That's not exactly how I'd phrase it, but it's good.
*SV says: You're speaking different languages. The language of cultural poltics and the language of linguistics are different enough to be scary to the other. Not true. I've been reading Baugh's book Beyond Ebonics; it combines both. I happen to have studied sociology, which is relevant to cultural politics. Just give me cultural politics as written by somebody who is well-informed, open minded, and balanced.
** I was hoping you would do some of the writing. I am agnostic on the subject. -SV
You talk of contexts. Right then, the contexts are those of:
*a conspicuous basilect (and basilects are stigmatized)
*a conspicuous ethnolect (and the US remains racist)
*generations of ridicule of Black talk
*increasing understanding of lects among those who actually read (and write) books about them
*popular ignorance of, or ignoring of, code-switching
*de facto segregation of US education (worse, failure even to honor Plessy v Ferguson) and chronic poor educational opportunities for Blacks
*recognition of particular problems in the acquisition of literacy by Black kids
*innovative attempts to overcome these problems
*the intellectually dubious (if well intentioned) formulation of the [original] notion of "Ebonics", with its rather unfortunate naming
*the rush to ridicule "Ebonics" (in more or less its original meaning), largely by those who show little sign of knowing what it's about
*the lazy misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of what the proponents of "Ebonics" (in the original sense of the word) actually wanted in schools
*chronic tension between assimilationist and separatist factions within Black US society
*the correct understanding that recognition of "Ebonics" (meaning AAVE) as a distinct first language would cost US education systems a pile of money
*rosy myths about the ease with which earlier generations of people speaking different languages or lects learned standard English and integrated within mainstream US society
*anti-intellectualism in American life [hmm, that phrase has a familiar ring to it], and the lack of interest in reading or hearing what actual linguists (etc) would say about AAVE, and the dismissal of these people as pointy-heads, etc.; the insistence by those who haven't read and thought that the truthiness as revealed to them by their moms, TV stars, tabloids, etc., is as worthy as are facts approached by others.
Those are just a few of the contexts, off the top of my head. Given a few hours, I might tinker with them, aggregating one or two, deleting one or two, adding more. And even after that, I might not have got them right: I don't claim to know all the answers on the status of AAVE and am open to intelligent arguments. I'm sure that, given time, the contexts can be reformulated and summarized by people who are at least averagely intelligent, well read, and energetic. It can't be done by people merely starstruck by particular entertainers or by Google hits, etc. -- Hoary 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know youre not perfect. But Its a damn good list. -Ste|vertigo 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged mistreatment of the "mediator", contexts for this article

message: The idea that AAVE is a "degradation of English", although commonly held by the public, is rejected by linguists. See  citations elsewhere in the article (such as Labov) for this. Perhaps the word "unfounded" is a poor choice. But as it stands, the text is more informative than without it. Readers should know what is merely a popular belief, and it is possible and desirable for an encyclopedia to reflect the facts here. Please find a better formulation conveying this information to the reader rather than just doing away with "unfounded". Joeldl 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to this edit. One possible problem may have been that "unfounded" was attached to "feelings". It's hard to come up with arguments for, or to object to the lack of arguments for, "feelings". I've changed that. If there are grounds for intelligent adults who are willing to apply their minds to the study of language (and I mean read introductory linguistics books) to subscribe to this belief, then let's see them. If there aren't, the belief is unfounded, which is a clear word and not a "weasel word" at all. -- Hoary 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unfounded" in education section 

message: Good job to who ever realized that this aricle needs a POV tag. It was undobutably written by a middle-aged white man with no actual interaction with minorities. I found it kinda racist. Slayerofangels 00:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't written by a middle-aged white man. It was written by several people: men, white people and the middle aged probably among them. In what way is it kinda racist? -- Hoary 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's far too politically correct if you ask me. Not racist.Wikidudeman (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How so? futurebird 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've participated somewhat in the writing of this article, and I am neither white nor middle-aged, and I do have actual interaction with "minorities" (I hate that word, but that's a different story). I don't think the POV tag is really necessary. Makerowner 04:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. futurebird 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a little curious as to why this article as tagged myself. I'm going to ask the question to the poster on his/her talk page, but it's basically this: Do you find the treatment of the topic to be somehow racist or POV, or do you find the idea that the topic exists at all as racist/POV? I don't think either one is true in this case, but I dislike the seemingly reactive POV tags some users place above any type of controversial topic (particlarly related to race, religion or sexual orientation), regardless of notability, citation, sources or treatment of the topic in the article. CredoFromStart 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: Should this page maybe be (semi-)protected? This vandalism is getting pretty annoying. We do clean it up quickly, but a) it's a waste of our time; and b) people who see the article before we fix it might be offended or misinformed, or simply think badly of Wikipedia because of it. What does everyone think? Makerowner 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not referring to your input to this article. While I disagree with you on most points, I support the fact that you use the proper Wikipedia processes. I'm referring rather to random phrases, often offensive, being added into the article by annonymous users.Makerowner 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. It's too small to even notice. Wikidudeman (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily this goofball edit (to name just one) wasn't too small for Makerowner to notice. -- Hoary 11:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because 1 person spots vandalism doesn't mean the amount of vandalism is noticeably affecting the article.Wikidudeman (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wikidudeman.  This article experiences slightly higher than average vandalism, but it really is nowhere near the level of vandalism of some other articles on my watchlist.  I think it falls pretty far short of justification for locking it.  It's a minor annoyance here, not a chronic, destabilizing problem.  Ford MF 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: Can someone with the requisite knowledge fill out the third column of the following table? I think it would be helpful to have in the article once filled out. —Lowellian (reply) 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This chart isn't really very useful. AAVE has a very different aspect system than standard English, so many of these forms have no direct equivalent in AAVE. Also, your examples are all quite formal. For example, simple future would more likely be "I'm going to walk" than "I will walk" in everyday speech. The above unsigned post is a perfect example of the mindset we're trying to avoid with this article. Thanks. Makerowner 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not against the idea, but it does seem odd. Usually when one writes about a  certain language or lect X for speakers of language or lect Y, one doesn't explain Y in terms of X but instead X in terms of Y. -- Hoary 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand your point correctly, then wouldn't simply switching the second and third columns achieve what you're saying? —Lowellian (reply) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty irrelevant, but I filled it--68.201.118.165 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While it may be useful to some people, I think putting a chart like this in the article would be a bad idea, because it is an oversimplification. For example, for StEng "I'm walking", AAVE could have "I'm walkin" or "I be walkin" with different meanings that both fit under the StEng equivalent. For the present perfect "I done walked" and "I bin walked" both fit into StEng "I have walked", again with different meanings. It's better to simply define these forms for themselves than to try to "translate" them into StEng. Makerowner 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verb table

message: Wouldn't it be appropriate to include a section on the literary uses of this variety of English? Itsmejudith 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: Can we add something to this article about AAVE's impact on American culture, and American culture's response?  I'm specifically thinking about a recent episode of Boston Legal.  Denny Crane told a Black intern interviewee that he was "articulate."  When pressed on the issue, he said that he simply meant the young man did not "sound Black."  The implications of this are tied into concepts of "systematic racism" and the perception of accent in America, where people with British or Newscaster-style Midwestern accents are generally perceived as smarter than people with Southern, Wisconsin, Texas, New York, or AAVE-derived accents, while the latter are considered wiser in matters of the heart and personal life in general.  Such a section should also reference the Boondocks comic strip and TV show. --205.201.141.146 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociological impact 

message: This is ridiculous. So many people looking at this page and no one has discovered that HE FINNA GO TO WORK means "HE'S FINALLY GOING TO WORK." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lex94 (talk • contribs).
:What? No, it definitely means "He's fixing to go to work" (i.e., he's about go to work). I heard AAVE speakers say "fixin' to" to mean "about to" all the time, and it naturally contracts to "finna to" in rapid speech. - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was Lex94's attempt at a witticism. I was not amused. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He finna go to work. 

message: I'm a little reluctant to stir this whole thing up again, but why are there POV tags on this article? I can't see any major issues of bias here; the only thing I've noticed is that the creole origin theory seems to get a little more weight than the retention theory. When I see an article with a POV tag, I tend to be a little less confident in its value and I don't think it's necessary here. I'd like to remove them in a few days, after we've had time to discuss this and hear any objections. Makerowner 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the tags. If anyone objects, please discuss it here. Makerowner 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tags 

message: I removed a dead link to "Garrard Mcclendon" (sic) and I commented that it seemed to have been added as a joke. However the editor's history argued against that, so I googled Garrard McClendon and found that he is an author and lecturer on this topic, and he seems notable enough for Wikipedia. Still -- until there's actually a Wikipedia article, let's hold off on the link from this one. And I take back what I wrote about the link being a joke. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garrard McClendon 

message: "can make bold, bowl, and bow homophones".  Bow as in bow-tie? •Jim62sch• 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, bow-tie.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: which bow?