Talk:Unsolved problems in linguistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
some are generally interested while learning a language, but some are not self motivated, as they come for class because somebody force them, pople of different background should be able to learn a language , how is it possible?
[edit] noncompliant
The noncompliant tag is pretty self-explanatory... the article is inherently POV, original research, and an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of open-ended free-associated questions asked out loud by a few Wikipedia editors is not an article. (And who says that "Origin of language is the major unsolved problem"?) wikipediatrix 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- This article is interesting. It gives links and references. It creates, for related questions, a hub that is richer than a plain list - we have so many of them here in WP.
- This article has both qualities and defects : not well-formed and useful. I'd like to find a way to criticize it ; to improve it : it is hard. My remark is that, if you take off the "major problem" syntagm (is it a syntagm ?), there is very little POV left. What do you think ? --DLL .. T 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not "indiscriminate collection". It is collection of unsolved problems in linguistics, all of which are properly referenced. There is the whole category:Unsolved problems in other areas. There is nothing much to "improve"; it is just a referenced list, for reference. All what you can do is to fix its style/language and to expand it. `'mikka (t) 15:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is largely a list of questions, with no reference cited to indicate who, if anyone, is actually asking that question. wikipediatrix 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your statement is an overgeneralization. Once again, there is plenty of references. If there is no reference, then the question is taken from the wikilinked article on the corresponding topic. For example, Psycholinguistics has the whole section, Psycholinguistics#Issues and areas of research.
- I appreciate yoru concern for the quality of wikipedia, but next time please don't forget click thru provided links before accusing in oroginal research, especially in areas which are not of your immediate expertise. If you disagree and claim that the particular question is a closed topic, you are very welcome to provide the link. If you think that some problems are trivial, spell it, and I will try to find a more convincing reference. But putting the wholesale "bullshit" label is hardly a productive approach.
- At the same time I am impressed with your list of AFD votes and high rate of success, indicating you have a good eye for nonsense. Do you maintain a "kill ratio"? `'mikka (t) 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ha! Thanks for that. My problem with Unsolved problems in linguistics is mainly an aversion to the open-ended question format. Rather than "How localized is language in the brain?", I'd prefer the problem be stated, rather than asked: "The degree to which language is localized in the brain is currently undetermined." In other articles, like Unsolved problems in medicine, the speculative questions are getting really out of hand, and there's really nothing to prevent someone from adding questions like "Can we someday regenerate missing limbs?", "Can we someday develop the power to telekinetically manipulate our own cellular structure?", "Can we someday sprout a third eye from our pineal gland that can send and receive text messages?", etc., etc. On the other hand, I think Unsolved problems in philosophy is a fine article because it's more than just a list of questions, and you don't have to click on a bunch of different articles to develop an overview of the subject. wikipediatrix 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is largely a list of questions, with no reference cited to indicate who, if anyone, is actually asking that question. wikipediatrix 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] glossolalia/xenoglossa
should these be included on this page? 86.134.216.101 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
