This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article seems to gloss over all controversy associated with AAVE/Ebonics in the US by merely saying "it happened." Is there a reference that can be included to detail this, as it is relatively important in public perception of the dialect. Gleffler 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the content of the "Educational issues" section insufficient? (Is there any other controversy?) -- Hoary 04:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I created that ass- redirect to this article. I gotta say I don't have a source other than "the streets". I'v heard people say it many times and if you think about it that's a pretty good source for AAVE. anyone else who's studdied AAVE could prob confirm. I need help on wikipedia:wikiProject Sociolinguistics/Slang! Kɔffee drinks you 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I rearranged some stuff.
under grammatical features was
phonology, lexical

now it's
phono, all the grammar (largest piece), lexical
Kɔffee drinks you 08:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the questionable claim that multiple negation “can be traced to West African languages”—indeed, I’m sure there are many West African languages that use double negatives (that ain’t my area of expertise) but many, many other other non-standard Englishes (to which the first American black speakers of English would have been exposed) also do. And don’t other dialects of English similarly use “to be” without conjugation?

I ain’t heard from nobody on this, so I’m being bold. Wiki Wikardo 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, maybe I’m being (overly) pedantic, but would African-American Vernacular English (with hyphen) be preferrable? — Wiki Wikardo 04:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And I must say, “me fall asleep, massa, and no wake 'til you come” don’t sound like any AAVE I’ve ever heard. Wiki Wikardo 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. That's pidgin. deeceevoice 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to have a lot of controversy, so I just thought I'd explain my edits, so they don't seem malicious.

I changed the line on code switching, because it sounded like it was saying code switching is only using different dialects for different social groups. Every time I've heard it used before, it was in reference to bilingual people switching back to their native language in a foreign country for convience (frequently in mid sentence) This seems to be the more common usuage of the word. Altarbo 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, intervocalic /ɹ/ may also be dropped e.g. "story" realized as "sto'y" i.e. [stɔi]. Is that supposed to mean that the word is pronounced as if it were spelled "stoy"?

I don't think so. I get the impression that it keeps the number of syllables intact so it would be more like [stɔ.i] AEuSoes1 06:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there an AAVE Wikipedia? If not can I make one? Cameron Nedland 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • No, you can't make an AAVE Wikipedia. Voortle 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that AAVE has a conventional written form which would seem to be a prerequisite for a wikipedia. Numskll 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Cameron Nedland 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki software is free. Get a server and you can make any wiki you want. Rlevse 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just created an account to revert the page, I hope I'm following protocol. -- Arglesnaf 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there other common examples of metathesis apart from ask becoming aks? I ask because that particular example is not restricted at all the AAVE - it goes back to Old English. If we're only talking about isolated examples like that, then it's probably wrong to include metathesis as a feature of AAVE specifically - all English speakers do (and have done) it from time to time. garik 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, garik, good point. I've heard aks is inherited from non-standard forms of English, and was part of prestige dialects as late as, like, the 18th century or something. In fact my first encounter with it was from a white kid. Accordingly, I'm excising that li'l tidbit. — Wiki Wikardo 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as Garik correctly pointed out, aks is inherited from standard Anglo-Saxon. If anything, ask is the metathesized form inherited from substandard dialects. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 20:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this article http://www.rehabmed.ualberta.ca/spa/phonology/features.htm "grasp" can also become "graps" in AAVE, hence an example of metathesis apart from "ask" becoming "aks". Klooge 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you check an etymological dictionary, you'll find that graps is Old English as well. Apparently that was originally the only form, though both were current in Middle English. Of course, many aspects of AAVE are shared with other dialects. Maybe we could add something like 'retention of non-standard metathesised forms like...' I know that technically the standard forms are the result of metathesis, but that may be unnecessarily pedantic for this article. garik 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

*lol* I just think it’s funny you gonna use the word metathesis (I think I pronounced that right) then worry about being pedantic. As long as we’re making a technical explanation, why not strive for accuracy? Wiki Wikardo 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A fair point:) Well, I've included a rewritten version of the metathesis point, though it's probably not terribly elegant. garik 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude. I know metathesis is a good fifty-cent word, but why include it if it ain’t? Wiki Wikardo 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it might be. We don't know for sure that they're not examples of metathesis; just because they're in Old English doesn't mean they didn't arise anew in AAVE. The other thing is that there must be other examples of non-standard archaisms retained in or borrowed into AAVE, and it's a bit weird to only have two examples that look like metathesis (besides, if it's not metathesis, it shouldn't be listed under phonology). So we either keep 'metathesis' plus health warning or we stick them in with some other archisms (though not under the heading of Phonology). For now, the first option seems best to me. What we really need is data on whether these really are the only examples. garik 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to this article, http://www.eng.umu.se/city/therese/Linguistics/phonological_features_examples.htm "wasp" can also become "waps", hence being another example besides "grasp" and "ask" becoming "graps" and "aks". I've starting an article about this phenominum at s-cluster metathesis. Feel free to edit it to improve the article. Voortle 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also common in Old English! I'd love to know if these are inheritances or new metatheses! garik 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Peter Ackroyd's London: A Biography, Cockney dialect retained the metathesis of "ask" pronounced as "axe" into the 18th century, which suggests some link, as much of the Southern white population recently arrived from the UK would have used that pronunciation. It appears that African-American slaves would have picked that pronunciation up from whites raised in London. 72.87.129.78 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article analyses the grammar and phonetics of ebonics in a way that would be completly incomprehensible to anyone who speaks that language. Similar to when a bunch of white men get together and transcribe Coltrane solos, then write "jazz education" essays about what he was "going for" at the time.

Ebonics is not some well-conceived design of a language. It's an accident--the natural evolution (or degeneration)of American English as spoken by African Americans over many years--and shouldn't be presented as anything else. To dissect the grammatical variations of this speach pattern is to miss the point completely. This language is entirely based on NOT understanding the rules of grammer, and on making mistakes and keeping them in the language. No one sat down and designed any of the rules that this article focuses on, and if you discussed this with a native Ebonics speaker, he wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.

This article is written about Ebonics, by people who don't speak Ebonics, for people who don't speak Ebonics. Solid.

People who speak Ebonics read very few articles, if they read anything at all. 66.82.9.82 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Jamba T'rone

You could say that about every other natural language that exists. In that sense, AAVE is no different than any other language or dialect. Nevertheless, it is not based on not understanding the rules of grammar, since it has its own grammar. Your understanding of it is based on not understanding what grammar even is. AEuSoes1 20:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolute agreement with AEuSoes1 here. Just because AAVE doesn't have a strong tradition of prescription, doesn't mean it shouldn't be properly described.-- Pharos 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, son. It IS based on not understanding the rules of American English grammar. Which accounts for its phonetic similarities to American English, but differences (misuses) in word meanings. Show me the text in which every rule of Ebonics grammar is explained, and I'll show you a life-sized cardboard cut-out of Ted Danson.

African American English: A Linguistic Introduction is a good start. There are many books on the linguistics and grammar of AAVE, including books on narrow topics. This is a general introduction. Rlitwin 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there are two things you're getting at. First is an Emic/Etic distinction. Most research articles are written from the etic perspective, that is the prespective of the researcher. Second, all language develops by modifying old grammar rules or creating new ones; and almost never is this done intentionally and willfully. AAVE does use a different grammar, which has roots in English (among others). But to say it is simply English misunderstood is not more correct than to say American English is really Latin misunderstood.

For example, I can say "I wrote an agenda for the meeting." However, the word Agenda is plural in Latin (singular Agendum); over time people have made it singular in English. This does not mean that English speakers are incorrect; they have simply modified usages over time. AAVE is no different. -- TeaDrinker 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The only languages that may have completely explicated grammars are ones that have been constucted. All descriptive grammars of 'naturally occuring' languages are in fact assembled by deriving the rules from examples of the language in use. The idea that Ebonics is somehow a dengenerative form of English because a written grammer doesn't exist belies this fact. However, I do think Ebonics might be something of a special case because of its perhaps unique origins and its widespread use. It seems to shares attributes (to my laymen's mind) with creoles, a class-based dialect, and perhaps a cant( in that it may be used by the minority to exclude the majority). Numskll 20:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that no written proof exists of Agamemnon's sexual exploits, but what does that really have to do with The Colonel's secret recipe anyway? For all we know, she may have called right after Kissinger left the hotel room. In which case, we'd both be wrong here. Nevertheless, I maintain that with determination, hard work, and a little bit of luck, even you can be a winner at the game of life. All my children--L. Ells

do we have to fix this page? I mean, it's a talk page. Do we have to talk in the standard, and if someone doesn't, do we have to edit what they said to conform to the standard? -- Cheeesemonger 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that notice; the Talk page certainly does not have to conform to the Manual of Style.

On a possibly related note, I removed the parenthetical from the following passage in the article, because I couldn't figure out what "fi-t&n" means:

He finna [or "fittin' (fi-t&n) nuh"] go to work.

Here's the diff. -- zenohockey 03:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition and the application of AAVE seems to associate with southern African-Americans and descendents of southern African-Americans. Does the definition of AAVE not apply to those African-American individuals whose roots were principally outside of the south, such as individuals whose ancestors lived in the north prior to 1865? Perhaps some of the speech of these individuals might be measured in communities having concentrations of such individuals, e.g., Oak Bluffs, Nantucket Island, off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. (To a lesser extent: Edgartown and Gay Head. -Their African-American populations are low; but websites have referred to a historic presence of African-Americans.) Dogru144 07:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this definition applies to the southern part of the United States. Moreover, in my opinion, blacks in southern states that use "African-American Venacular" have either little formal education or live in rural areas. I have never heard a black person in the North East use this accent when speaking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.132.194.121 ( talk • contribs).

Maybe it's because they don't want you thinking they're uneducated, stupid, or from rural areas so they code-switch while you're around. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regional slant? You bet there is! I am African American, but I remember nearly falling out of my chair each morning when our (White) assistant principal read the "Mo'nin 'nountmint'" every day over the loudspeaker. It sounded like a defective P.A. system, but when the next speaker (usually a student volunteer) took over the mike, it came through just fine. There was not static in the system; it was all in the man's Ca'lineh Low Contreh accent. This is the accent that I hear in a large number of African Americans in the Washington, D.C. area. (Remember Marion Barry talking about the District of Columbia's 'Amalas suvis?' being slow to respond to 'emuj'cies?' Black, White, Indian immigrant - That's just the Carolinas, which is also the source of the some of the more colorful content of the speech. I have Black and White relatives from the low country; their accents are indistinguishable. And charming. An somtahm dowhrah lahius. (Say it a few times, you'll get it). Also, some of the colloquial speech and idioms of Southern African Americans show up in mainstream Southern folklore (e.g., 'They's people dyin' ain't never died before!' after a rough spell, or 'I feel like somethin' sent fo' and couldn't come.')

Actually, why DO we need all of these supuhflus sybbuhs? Carlaclaws 03:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, How charming! Yes, there is way more of a drawl for everyone in the Carolinas than in DC! Having listened to Ma'ion Ba'y rapping on a record with Chuck Brown, I wonder if he is originally from Carolina! ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 04:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes? No? Maybe? How 'bout this: Why doesn't it move to Oakland_Unified_School_District#Ebonics_controversy and we just leave a link here? Better yet: Why not make a current-event-style article about it? I don't know what the terminology is for a Wiki article on an event that's no longer current. What's in this article is five times longer than the Oakland School Board article, and about a third of the entire AAVE article.

A template that I have just removed alleged that the text that followed contained weasel words. I saw no weasel word, no SGML comment saying that this or that word was a weasel, and no mention on this talk page of how this or that word was a weasel.

Anyone who wants to stick this template back in the article should say which word is, or words are, weasel. -- Hoary 10:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I read (after markup-stripping):

AAVE is often erroneously perceived by members of mainstream American society as indicative of low intelligence or limited education. Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English by those unfamiliar with creolization, or the role of null phonemes, or by those who do not understand AAVE's use of aspect for tense in some cases. Such appraisals also may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy^{[citation needed]}

It seems that the editor who put that {{fact}} tag there wants evidence for the lack of a controversy.

Somewhere there may indeed be an authoritative book whose author credibly asserts that there is no controversy. But I don't think authors of related books would bother to say this. And they don't bother because they routinely, straightforwardly and convincingly demonstrate how AAVE is not "bad". Or anyway, it's easy to show people who are willing to read and consider the arguments presented in three pages or so of text. You'll find one example on pp 29-31 of the Morrow hardback (first) edition of Pinker's The Language Instinct. (The pagination of a paperback is probably different. Well, look near the start of chapter two.) In fact Pinker isn't even a linguist (he's a psychologist), but no linguist is likely to disagree with him here.

If there is a controversy among actual, working, present-day linguists (as opposed to linguists of decades ago, or people from other specialties dipping their toes in linguistics, or the occasional prematurely senile linguist, etc.), where is it? Until this controversy is shown, I'm deleting this request for a citation. -- Hoary 10:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there was a controversy, for the simple reason that the question whether a particular way of speaking is "bad" is not open to scientific investigation. Any discussion presented in the language of morality ("bad English" vs. "good English") cannot reasonably be resolved by a rational argument, hence it's not something that scholars or scientists worry about. One has to take one step back and ask whether people have certain attitudes about AAVE (which they certainly do) to be firmly within the realm of the behavioral sciences: describing which groups of a population hold the belief that AAVE is or isn't "good English" is a valid scientific endeavor; trying to determine authoritatively what is and isn't "good English" is not. -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Crack open any introductory linguistics text, especially a sociolinguistics one, and they're bound to say very early on about how there is no good or bad language. This can naturally be extended to AAVE and the burden of proof is on editors who wish to include a linguist-based controversy. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said, with very minor reservations. (Linguists can and do point out and discuss problems with the way particular people speak. See the literature on specific language impairment, for example. But they don't assert that sociolects are linguistically deficient.) I'm tired of the demand to give any space to any contrary "point of view" that's merely the recycling of ignorance, perhaps encouraged by the effusions of blowhards who often pride themselves on their lack of curiosity. There are indeed very big questions in linguistics (for example, nativism has recently come under intelligent and reasoned attack), and for these, contrary points of view should be presented; there's no comparable question here. -- Hoary 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of the last fifty edits, a third has been pure vandalism and another third reverts. More and more I'm feeling like the editors monitoring this page are bogged down with needless vandalism that would be easily remedied if the page were blocked from editing by unregistered users. This page has gotten more than random attention by bad faith editing for quite some time. What do other people think? Would such an act be a soft of sledgehammer for the cockaroch? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say to all who've contributed here that this is a really good, informative article. Yes, it is a bit difficult for people not versed in all the terminology of linguistics to read (and I am one) but it manages to describe this difficult (and potentially controversial, I think) subject in an even-handed and encyclopedic way. And it's impossible to do that without using linguistics termonolgy. I looked it up because I was randomly thinking about some aspect of this dialect and my question was more than answered. Good work! Dina 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I have to agree. Very interesting, though it might be better footnoted. Has anyone thought to suggest it as a Featured Article? Or at least have it reviewed. • I would not want to see the linguistic chart removed. • I also have, "never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE," and would more likely associate that with a caribbean dialect. • Having encountered a few persons on the South Carolina coast speaking Gullah, I find that an interesting language, and surprisingly difficult to follow. Darentig 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if this article were formatted more like some of the other "variety of English" pages. For example, an IPA chart showing the phonology of AAVE would be nice. The verb system could be described on its own without reference to English, ie. instead of saying " 'he done gone' is equivalent to Standard English 'he went'", we could just say that 'he done gone' is the past perfect form. I'm not adamant about this; if there are any objections I'd be glad to hear them. Makerowner 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the theta to t shift (ie. thin to tin) in AAVE. This is a feature of Caribbean dialects. I also think that the phonological rules diagram is unnecessary and possibly confusing to those without linguistic training. I would like to rewrite this section without the diagram and with corrected rules, unless someone can find a source for the voiceless dental stopping. Makerowner 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the diagram is all right because it provides a technical explanation after a less technical one. Check the sources that are on the page for the th->t thing. If none of them say anything, I can probably find a source. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and they do mention the voiceless interdental stopping, but they also make it clear that it is rare. The page (and especially the diagram) present it like a regular rule that is always applied. Makerowner 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the AAVE word "bogus" comes from the Latin word "bogus" which is cognate with the English word "bogus". Either that or every word of AAVE is actually derrived from various Niger-Congo Group A language words which are both homonymous and synonymous with English by pure coincidence. Perhaps this is a situation that calls for Ockham's razor.

My Shorter OECD lists 'bogus' as 'unknown etymology'. I don't think there is a Latin word 'bogus'. I have no opinion about any Niger-Congo derivation. Makerowner 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Something in this article stinks of not following NPOV. Take the following example:

"Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism)."

I'm not entirely sure about calling the evidence "clear," though what concerns me more is the accusation of public feelings as being "unfounded." 67.9.36.176 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The evidence, at a bare minimum, is simply the linguistic definitions of accent, dialect, and language. I suppose they are unfounded because there's really no evidence to indicate that it is a "degradation" of English any more than modern English is a degradation of Old English. Do you have a better word than unfounded? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this article, I can't help but feel that it was written with a distinct pro-AAVE bias. The following lines especially struck me as non-neutral:

Furthermore, as with many other non-standard dialects and especially creoles, AAVE sometimes has been called "lazy" or "bad" English. Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias. However, among linguists there is no such controversy, since AAVE, like all dialects, shows consistent internal logic and structure.

To dismiss negative appraisals of AAVE as being due to racial or ethnic bias (even with the "in part" thrown in as some sort of disclaimer) is, in my opinion, irresponsible and even a bit dangerous. I'd like to know which published study or paper found that, without a doubt, "racial or ethnic bias" was behind some people's opposition to AAVE.

The overwhelming controversy and debates concerning AAVE in public schools insinuate the deeper, more implicit deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole.

Insinuations, especially ones that explain away opposition to a topic by accusing those opposed of "deterministic attitudes towards the African-American community as a whole," have no place in an encyclopedia. Such insinuations (assumptions, whatever you want to call them) are very dangerous in a politically- and racially-sensitive article such as this one. Statements like this really need to be cited, or else omitted altogether.

Finally, I noticed that something written by Smitherman was cited quite frequently throughout this article; however, the source was not correctly & explicitly cited in the References section. Without the actual Smitherman article to read, I can only assume that it is also written with a strong pro-AAVE bias.

In light of these issues, I've very tempted to tag this article with an NPOV warning. I'll wait for responses to my comments before doing so.

Don't get me wrong - despite these concerns, I still found the article to be thorough, informative & well-written. It definitely answered my questions. Rhrad 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to see the racism, but I think you're right. There needs to be some citation for allegations of racial bias. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I put some cites in (in that area). However, I agree that the article has kind of a POV tone, and is in need, generally, of some Wikification. Superabo 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your responses. After reading up on Wikipedia policies and the different options available, I've marked this article with a POV-check template. This seemed less extreme to me than an NPOV template, but might still attract a fresh pair of eyes to take a look at the article, and maybe clean it up & Wikify it a bit.

Thanks again for the clear, intelligent responses (I was afraid my comment might be taken as flamebait and/or draw accusations of racism).

Also, Superabo, I hope you don't mind, I indented your comment so any new editors that come here because of the POV-check template will know that this was one continuous thread. Rhrad 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with the contention that opposition and criticism of AAVE has to be racist. It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. The complexity of AAVE words are limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. Criticizing AAVE for it’s lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. I also see absolutely nothing in this article about the fact that a large number of Caucasians also speak something very similar to AAVE. Especially those who are interested in the so called “hip hop culture”. Wikidudeman 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that opposition to recognition of AAVE is not necessarily racist, I disagree completely with the characterization of AAVE as "rudimentary". No modern linguist or even scientifically-oriented person should say that one speech form is 'rudimetary' while another is not. These valuations are based solely on history and sociology: if Blacks had enslaved and transported Whites to Africa, we might have a page about 'Caucasian-African Vernacular Swahili' (or any other African language) and someone would post about how simple and uneducated it is. Second, linguists recognize that all concepts conceivable by the human mind can be expressed in any language. Complex ideas can be effectively portrayed in any speech variety. Third, AAVE and 'Black slang' are not the same thing. The 'many Caucasians who speak something very similar to AAVE' are mostly copying this slang as part of hip-hop culture, as was noted in the previous post. AAVE is an independent variety of English with a distinct grammar from other forms of English. Fourth, to say that criticizing AAVE has nothing to do with "race" is like saying that criticizing Black music (jazz, blues, rock, funk, soul, the list goes on...) has nothing to do with race. AAVE is a central part of Black culture and identity: that's why almost all Blacks still speak it despite having lived amongst speakers of different White dialects for decades and being spread across the whole country. Fifth, saying that AAVE doesn't have polysyllabic words is a) irrelevant, and b) not true. Using polysyllabic words does not make you intelligent, or show your intelligence, or even sound better most of the time. Most style guides recommend using shorter words wherever possible. Whether a certain language variety uses polysyllabic words has nothing to do with its sophistication or intelligence. Chinese, for example, is overwhelmingly monosyllabic; does it also "lack...complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas"? I don't believe that the previous poster was being consciously racist, just culturally insensitive. By looking at language in an unscientific manner, one can easily be caught by racist attitudes that prevail in society.

Sorry for the rant, but this issue is close to me, and I can't stand it when people who don't know what they're talking about continue to spread ignorance about this important aspect of Black culture. Makerowner 05:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll refute what you said piece by piece. 1. I don't know any 'modern linguists' so I can't tell you what they would say but I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. However to make it easier for discussion I will say that what I mean to say is I consider AAVE to be "unsophisticated English" by the fact it is 'without complexity or refinements' compared to American English and British English. 2. What the hip hop artists and rappers use is a form of AAVE. It uses the same syntax and grammar. 3. Even assuming AAVE is a 'central part of African American culture" criticizing it doesn't have to have anything to do with race. 4.AAVE does NOT have many if any polysyllabic. People who speak AAVE tend to use simple words that can not convey much complex meaning. Give me one example of an AAVE polysyllabic word that isn't also a word in AmE or Bme. 5. I'm not saying that a language is unsophisticated due to lack of polysyllabic words. Chinese is a separate example due to it's number of words and it's grammar. It can't be compared to English. Wikidudeman 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that AAVE is rudimentary compared to basic English. What is this "basic English"? Do you perhaps mean standard American English? And what do you mean by "rudimentary" -- morphologically impoverished, or something else? The complexity of AAVE words are limited... I'm a bit lost here. Can you tell me what the subject of this sentence is? "Complexity" perhaps? If so, it seems you've interestingly simplifed the paradigm of BE, so that the third-person singular as well as plural form is "are". Or are you taking the noun that's the closest antecedent to be the syntactic subject? Either way, most interesting! [Y]ou rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. Really? I'd thought that the rap CDs I possess were in AAVE and that there were a lot of polysyllabic words in the lyrics. (Copyright considerations prevent me from reproducing a sample here.) It is also true that the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas. You're onto something with education: read Jonathan Kozol. And urban, yes. So? The vast majority of, say, Japanese speakers a couple of hundred years ago were uneducated; does this mean that their Japanese was rudimentary? Just what do you want to say about the relationship between language and education? Criticizing AAVE for it’s [sic] lack of complexity and ability to effectively deliver complex ideas has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. Really? What else has it got to do with? (Incidentally, the standard way to write the genitive pronoun is "its", no apostrophe. At least among the better educated.) I also see absolutely nothing in this article about the fact that a large number of Caucasians also speak something very similar to AAVE. That's a sad omission. I hope that it will be rectified by some intelligent person who has studied language. -- Hoary 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rudimentary as in unsophisticated. Lack of polysyllabic words words as I stated earlier and inability to convey complex ideas, Such as scientific ideas. Give me one example of a science journal using AAVE. Wikidudeman 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It has nothing to do with 'race' because both African and Caucasian Americans use it. 2. Criticizing my grammar due to 1 apostrophe and saying that it is how the "better educated" use it is not only desperate and pathetic but its also an example of you being in agreement with me. That how someone speaks and their educational background are generally in agreement. Oh and BTW..You misspelled 'rudimentary' in your 1st post. But I didn't bother to point that out before due to it being 100% irrelevant. Wikidudeman 07:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you dispute a claim that the overwhelming majority of speakers of AAVE are people normally termed African American? If so, I'd like to see your evidence (from a solid piece of sociolinguistics research, please). If not, then I think we can accept that AAVE has something to do with race. The opprobrium with which it's greeted may very well be something else too: African Americans are overrepresented in the US underclass, and urban lects are for some reason traditionally stigmatized; race aside, it's hardly surprising that this urban basilect is looked down on by some. Criticizing my grammar due to 1 apostrophe and saying that it is how the "better educated" use it is not only desperate and pathetic but its [sic] also an example of you being in agreement with me. I only criticize the linguistic abilities of those who gratuitously and uninformedly criticize that of others. This time you omitted an apostrophe that would be required in, say, any scientific journal; but apostrophe use is indeed a minor concern: it's merely a matter of orthography, unlike, say, your earlier complexity ... are.... You are of course free to ascribe desperation and pathos to my comments. -- Hoary 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also this article is in violation of WP:NPOV because it provides no alternative viewpoints concerning AAVE. It does not provide any criticism of it's use or correlation between those who use it and their general educational background. How can you claim this article is NPOV when it doesn't even have opposing viewpoints on it's use and impact? Wikidudeman 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What alternative viewpoint concerning AAVE is worth presenting? As for criticism of its use, I see no criticism of the use of Cockney, Chicano English, Buffalo English, etc., and fail to see why the use of this or any lect should be criticized. As for a correlation use and educational level, do you have any solid information from a credible sociolinguistics source? -- Hoary 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, When addressing my posts try to keep yours as brief as possible otherwise I won't have time to refute them. Thanks. Wikidudeman 07:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikidudeman, but being "scientifically oriented" is no substitute for reading actual linguistic discourse regarding AAVE and linguistics in general. Pointing out that scientific journals aren't published in AAVE completely neglects the complex sociolinguistic relationship that AAVE has with other dialects of English. While you and others certainly have an opinion regarding AAVE, it has no place in an article like this (which seeks to discuss linguistic aspects of this dialect) any more than my opinions on Australian English do on that dialect's page. Wikipedia is based on sources and unless you've got a scholarly source, the exclusion of "criticism" regarding AAVE usage (which doesn't exist btw) does not belong in the article. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing 'opinions' here. I'm discussing facts. It is a fact that AAVE is not used in scientific texts adding credence to the fact it's unsophisticated. It's a fact that most AAVE users are uneducated. Also adding evidence to the fact. These are 'established facts' and thus belong. Wikidudeman 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to discuss a mixture of (a) facts of no significance and (b) non-facts. -- Hoary 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling mistake in 'rudimentary' was mine, though I agree that pointing out the mistake with its/it's is unnecessary. Many well-educated writers have difficulty with that rule, and the meaning was perfectly clear. That said, I disagree with nearly everything else Wikidudeman has posted. 1. You don't actually 'refute' my point in any way: I myself am a scientifically-oriented person and I consider AAVE to be rudimentary English. Find a legitimate linguist of the past fifty years who says that AAVE is a rudimentary form of English, then post your viewpoint with citations from that source. Many British English speakers feel that American English lacks 'complexity and refinements', and the French feel the same way about the British, etc. Everyone considers their speech form in some way better than others; this in itself is not necessarily a problem. The scientific study of language is meant to overcome these natural prejudices and allow us to learn more about other people and their cultures by learning about their language. People are of course free to make aesthetic judgements about languages, but to say that one is rudimentary compared to another is to belittle the culture of that language's speakers. 2. Perhaps I didn't explain properly what I meant about slang. Yes, rappers use AAVE, but the main elements picked up by Whites are the slang elements. Many older people with no interest in slang speak AAVE, and many Whites with little knowledge of AAVE use slang that has its origins in Black language nonetheless. 3. I must again stress that AAVE and Black culture are intrinsically tied to Black identity and are therefore connected to race. If someone were to say that the Indo-European language family is rudimentary compared to the Afro-Asiatic, or any other, this is an attack on European culture, and by definition, European identity. This issue is of course more sensitive for Black culture, because it has only been (partially) recognized as legitimate within the last 40-or-so years. 4. AAVE is a dialect of English and uses nearly all words that General American does. To exclude all these words from its vocabulary when searching for polysyllabics is ridiculous. How many polysyllabic words does General American have if you don't count all the ones that it shares with British English? And to say that AAVE words have simple meanings is also ridiculous. If anything, it is the wide range of meanings that AAVE applies to standard English words that separates it from other Englishes. The behaviour known as signifiying constantly applies new meanings to old words. This is also the way that slang works, and AAVE has been one of the greatest sources of slang in the US. Again, I must point out that linguists consider all languages (or language varieties) equally capable of conveying complex ideas. Since AAVE uses nearly all the same words as other Englishes, to say that it cannot convey the same meanings is nonsense. I am glad at least that Wikidudeman can recognize that Chinese is not rudimentary, despite is few polysyllabics; why then can't AAVE be recognized as a 'separate example'? I will keep my posts short if Wikidudeman stops providing me with material. Makerowner 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to keep it brief but you decided to rant on for several paragraphs making it impossible for me to refute everything you said due to my having a life outside wikipedia. Please try to re-explain what you said briefly so that I can actually address it. Wikidudeman 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To call Makerowner's last response a "rant" seems curious, and it takes the form of a single paragraph. I'll keep it brief. Does your life outside Wikipedia extend to reading even elementary (but well informed) linguistics books that deal with AAVE? If so, which ones? -- Hoary 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When someone goes on a long drawn out tirade like that then it's a 'rant'. It might of been in the 'form of a single paragraph' but it contained literally several paragraphs worth of sentences. Does my life outside of wikipedia deal with reading AAVE books? Irrelevant. Only the issues are relevant here not my personal life. Wikidudeman 10:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

First, how was this a "tirade"? Secondly, It might of been: Really, Dude Man, writers of standard English, and of course the editors of science journals, would insist on It might have been, which I thought was standard among educated speakers of English. Third, your personal life is indeed irrelevant to this article; your background seems not to be, as your comments here seem to show a stunning ignorance of the basics of sociolinguistics. -- Hoary 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, you need to clean up your etiquette. Many people have put hours worth of work in this page and your request to limit responses to your comments (and calling failures to do so "rants") because you have an outside life is unreasonable and inappropriate. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did go on long with my response. I didn't keep it short because there were too many points to refute. However, I've noticed the box at the top of the page asking us not to debate the subject of the article and I think that's probably a good idea. Although I obviously don't agree with Wikidudeman's perspective, my various points (and those of many others) don't seem to have changed his mind. That is also not Wikipedia's purpose, so I will avoid this discussion where possible. I will, however, watch the article to make sure none of this perspective gets in without proper expert sources (which I'm 99% certain do not exist). Sorry to have wasted space trying to help someone understand. Makerowner 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article in some time, and am just noticing the claim that AAVE is somehow "rudimentary" and lacks polysyllabic words. These assertions are ridiculous/outrageous on their face and betray, at best, a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. deeceevoice 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Outrageous, show profound lack of knowledge? Yet you can't give a single example of how I am wrong in stating it? How many polysyllabic words does Ebonics contain that aren't also words used in standard English? Let me guess..Offdahizzyfosizzy? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikidudeman is missing an essential point. He's comparing the forms of AAVE that are most divergent from Standard English to formal varieties of Standard English, and calling them rudimentary. The thing is, the strongly divergent forms of Black English are always used in informal contexts. In formal contexts, Blacks in the US use forms of English that are closer to Standard English. I'm white, and when I'm speaking informally to friends, I don't use a lot of polysyllabic words, or use particularly complex grammatical constructions. In that sense, my English is every bit as "rudimentary" as AAVE. It just so happens that the simple grammatical constructions I use informally are possible in formal English, in which more complex ones are used as well, while some of the corresponding simple grammatical constructions used in informal AAVE are not possible in formal English. That doesn't mean that the more complex forms also present in formal Standard English are part of my everyday language. Just because a word like plenipotentiary exists in Standard English doesn't mean that I'll use it in the same informal contexts where AAVE is used. So I really think Wikidudeman is comparing apples and oranges, and being unfair to Blacks who use AAVE. Joeldl 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has a strange form of citations that I can't follow. The citations seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link. Wikipedia explains how to correctly cite sources here Wikipedia:Citing sources. It looks like whoever did it was trying to use Wikipedia:Harvard referencing but did it incorrectly. Whoever put those numbers in the aricle should cite the sources correctly. Wikidudeman 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your particular dissatisfaction here. A quick look at the article shows that (i) for the most part it uses the author–page system (a well-established version of the author–year–page system), but (ii) it adds a couple of footnotes for sourcing. This combination of (i) and (ii) is odd, and for this reason alone (and perhaps for other reasons too) something needs to be done. But what are these citations that "seem to be based on numbers which have no corresponding link"? I suspect that you're referring to (i); but if so, this is odd, as it's a well-established system. (True, it doesn't agree with WP:REF, but the latter is only a guideline, not a policy; and its recommended "Harvard referencing" is distinctly unhelpful when long papers or books are cited.) -- Hoary 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the first paragraph of the article says "About “80 to 90 percent of American blacks” speak AAVE “at least some of the time” (Smitherman 2". This type of referencing system is totally unhelpful if it doesn't provide any other information. Who is "Smitherman"? Where is his work found? What pages? Etc. If it's a website then reference it as such. If it's a study or journal or book then reference it as such. Otherwise it's meaningless. Wikidudeman 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This criticism of yours is well founded. There's nothing wrong in principle with the method of citation, which is to page 2 of a work by Smitherman, but there's plenty wrong with all these citations of Smitherman's work, because, as you point out, it's not in the list of references. I'll try to go back through the history of the article (a dreary job, what with the number of times it has been edited unnecessarily) to find who mentioned Smitherman, and then write to that person. But I have to attend to a few other chores first. -- Hoary 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All of your sources need to be formatted properly otherwise they are meaningless. Wikidudeman 05:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the word "your" in "your sources", but that very minor matter aside the sources seem pretty meaningful to me. The problem here is that Smitherman's work doesn't appear among the list of them. -- Hoary 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're the one who put them there. Did you not? Wikidudeman 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No I did not, as the history of the page will show. -- Hoary 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed {{fact}} from the end of:

Despite the clear linguistic evidence, the American public and policymakers remain divided over whether to even recognize AAVE as a legitimate dialect of English, perhaps due to unfounded feelings that AAVE is a degradation of the English (which may, in turn, be an indication of underlying racial determinism).

This is a complex sentence. Which proposition within it needs a reference? -- Hoary 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of racial bias. See the discussion above. I'm putting the POV tag that you just took off back in. I'm not sure what earlier discussion you point to in your edit summary but as far as I can tell the most recent discussion about bias does not ignore any earlier discussion on the page. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the last part of this sentence. Does what remains require a reference, and if so, which proposition within it?

I don't think so. I believe the rest of that sentence has been discussed already and we've determined it's fine. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that a number of editors say that the article is biased. Have they read and understood the article, have they read and understood basic materials about language (e.g. a very short part of Pinker's popular The Language Instinct, as suggested above), and what cogent, intelligent, well-informed points are they making?

Incidentally, I'm not happy with the article either. Here's an example, chosen pretty much at random: For instance, if a child reads "He passed by both of them" as "he pass by bowf uh dem", a teacher must determine whether the child is saying passed or pass, since they are identical in AAVE phonology. (i) Why transcribe in this way, in which for example the "w" in "bowf" exaggerates the oddness? (ii) Why neither mention that the /t/ is commonly dropped by speakers of fast standard English nor say that this is a feature of deliberate AAVE? (iii) How is this a matter of phonology rather than morphology? More broadly, I think an article about a lect of English should primarily discuss the features of that lect, whereas this article burbles on and on about the consternation that AAVE excites among certain non-speakers -- not a non-issue, but a side issue. -- Hoary 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the discussion that I directed to you above demonstrates how much I know. It seems as though it's little pockets of bias like what has been pointed out and not necessarily the entire structure of the article. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This article contains numerous examples of Undue weight bias as well as obsolete citations. Citations who's information does not contain the information to the claims they are supposedly citing. For instance the citation done to an article by Kendra Hamilton. Not only is Kendra Hamilton not an expert in the relevant matter but she has done no polls or studies to determine "racism" is the cause of criticism of Ebonics. The only sentence that even hints at that in the article is "Indeed, it may well be one of the last remaining bastions of open bigotry threaded through our culture." which can not be used as a source for the claim in the article "Such appraisals may be due, in part, to racial or ethnic bias.". [ [1]] Wikidudeman 10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The complexity of AAVE words are [sic] limited and you rarely see polysyllabic words used in AAVE. (Wikidudeman, 15 January)

Should I be impressed by the trisyllabic obsolete? In fact I'm confused:

This article contains numerous examples of Undue weight bias as well as obsolete citations. Citations who's [sic] information does not contain the information to [sic] the claims they are supposedly citing.

Information not containing information? Hmm. That little matter aside, does "obsolete" now mean "mendacious" or "misleading" or "vacuous" or something similar? I'd thought it meant something else.

(If I may quote Makerowner [21 January]: Using polysyllabic words does not make you intelligent, or show your intelligence, or even sound better most of the time.)

Hoary 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "information not containing information". I said that the citations to the information you're using them as citations for do not contain the information they are supposedly supposed to be citing. I.E. the link I gave. Wikidudeman 09:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This article gives undue weight to the contention that Ebonics should be accepted in everyday speech and is somehow equal in sophistication to proper English. This article contains no references or criticism of Ebonics in any shape or form. This article needs to contain information concerning criticism of use of Ebonics including facts that speakers of Ebonics are generally less educated than speakers of proper english. Some references could be Bill Cosbys "pounkcake speech". It's very shameful that this article does not even mention Cosby's criticism of Ebonics. [ [2]] All it seems to contain are a few authors who hold 1 specific viewpoint and the entire article is basically based on those few authors. Notably "Smitherman". Wikidudeman 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight according to which standard? And is Cosby a sociolinguist, sociologist, or linguist? -- Hoary 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight according to wikipedia's standard. You're only presenting one opinion of Ebonics and only a few authors. Bill Cosby's opinion is very relevant because he is a famous African American professional who has publicly criticized Ebonics. Very relevant. Wikidudeman 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I tidied up the Cosby quote a bit in the Controversy section. I think the quote should stay. It's on-topic, relevant and expressive. Cbdorsett 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? I'll agree that it's expressive, but it's not expressive in the way Cosby probably intended. Let's take a look at it.

I can’t even talk the way these people talk. “Why you ain’t where you is go, ra.”

(i) If we take him literally, he seems to have contradicted himself. Is this the way they talk? Then he's talked the way they talk. Is he not talking as they do? Then we don't have to pay attention to this bizarre example. (ii) I'm not familiar with any lect that's quite what's sampled here.

I don’t know who these people are.

Huh? Come again, Bill?

And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English.

If he's saying that the street corner black urban patois of his youth (more or less resembling AAVE of today) wasn't English, he's plain wrong; as is carefully explained in any of a great variety of elementary linguistics texts. Interestingly, though, he's admitted the possibility of code-switching.

Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads.

Bill, you knucklehead, AAVE is English.

You can’t land a plane with, “Why you ain’t…”

You can and you can't. Tell it to any speaker of L1 American English, and he'll understand it as either "Why you aren't" or "Why you haven't", depending on what follows. I don't claim to be an expert in the language for communication with flight control, but I'd guess that "Why you ain't" is indeed a no-no. I'd guess further that most examples of fully grammatical, fully idiomatic, impeccably standard English are also no-no. That's because conversation at this point is highly formalized, a fact that's irrelevant to which lect one normally speaks.

You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

(i) Calling a lect "crap" is at best a cheap way to get a laugh. (ii) I see no incompatibility between speaking AAVE and being a doctor. As even Cosby admits, people speaking nonstandard lects can and do code-switch. AAVE is just as good a tool for medicine as is any other lect, AAVE is just as good for communication with a fellow speaker of AAVE as (say) Boston English is for communication with a fellow speaker of Boston English; speakers of any lect can and do modify their speech according to interlocutor, situation and purpose.

All in all I think what Crosby is saying is crap, telling us much more about his ignorance than about AAVE. But hey, it's a point of view. Should WP present the "flat Earth" point of view in one section of the article on the Earth? Right now, it's mentioned, but the mention links to a separate article, Flat Earth. Perhaps there could be an analogous link in this article to Irrational criticisms of AAVE. -- Hoary 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would refute you're rebuttal to Cosby's remarks, but there is absolutely no point. You're free to criticize Cosby's remarks all you want. However it's original research and against WP policy. Not presenting them in the article because you don't agree with them is also against WP policy. Bill Cosby is not arguing an academic or linguistic argument here. He's not saying "ebonics" is as linguistically natural as any other dialect. He is stating his professional opinion and it's very relevant to this article. Wikidudeman 09:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what "original research" do I depend on above, Dude Man? I reject their appearance within the article as they are ill-informed, say nothing about AAVE other than that fairly prominent people make extraordinarily stupid comments about it. Can you explain how his opinion illuminates AAVE? -- Hoary 10:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Cosby does not count as a verifiable source. He does not back up his statements with data, is not an expert on linguistics or language in general. He's a comedian with an opinion. As such, including his statement does not count as conforming to WP:NPOV. I've removed the "criticism" section because of this and because its tone is completely in violation of NPOV. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Cosby is not presenting a linguistic argument. He's presenting an argument based on his professional experience from decades as an entertainer and working closely with the African American Community. Not only is the statements quoted of him making verifiable but they also fit the definition of reliable sources. Wikipedia says that sources with 'dubious reliability' should be excluded. However my sources is anything but dubious and the pound cake speech actually happened. Your quibbles with disagreeing with them have absolutely no relevance to their reliability. Wikidudeman 09:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, AAVE is a matter of language. Language is in the province of linguistics. There is indeed considerable disagreement within linguistics, but no linguist I can think of trifles with views such as Cosby's, the wrongheadedness of whose little tirade is stunningly obvious to any intelligent adult who (unlike you, it seems) has spent more than thirty minutes reading a relevant linguistics (even pop linguistics) text. Linguists' disagreements with Cosby, crudely summarized in my disagreement with him expressed above, are not mere quibbles: he's not slightly but completely wrong. (Far be it from me to be rude about this much-loved American entertainer, but I'm tempted to say that when it comes to language he's got his head up his ass.) As I don't much care whether Cosby made this speech, I'll accept that he made it; yes, its existence is thus verifiable. It tells us no more about AAVE than what the fantasies of "creationists" tell us about the history of the universe. And that's why I took the trouble to refute what he said, above. (As somebody who seems to enjoy refutals, you may wish to attempt to refute my refutal.) -- Hoary 10:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If a linguist argues with Cosby then they aren't arguing a linguistic matter but a sociological and peronal matter. Cosby's assertions are mostly sociological and are for the most part 100% true, whether you want to admit it or not. Whether linguists agree with him or not is totally irrelevant. His criticism of Ebonics has a place in this article. I don't need to or have time to 'refute your refutation'. Your refutation is irrelevant and is original research. Some people have criticized Cosby's speech and their criticism exists on the page about the speech. However since Cosby has criticized Ebonics, His criticism will remain on this page. Wikidudeman 13:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly you're under the impression that being strongheaded is the way to edit articles. You've been reverted by Deeceevoice, myself, and Fordmadoxfraud. In addition, users such as myself, Hoary, and Makerowner have expressed disagreement with your approach to the article. Wikipedia makes articles through consensus.

I'd also like to point out that you are being utterly hypocritical when you say that you are "scientifically-oriented" while negating the importance of linguistics in the discussion of language-related topics. Being scientifically oriented does not mean being an atheist and accepting evolution (yes, I'm looking at your userboxes); it means understanding and accepting the use of the scientific method. Just as astronomy is the scientific study of the stars and planets, linguistics is the scientific study of language. Now, if you're still afraid to pick up a linguistics book, I'll quote from An Introduction to Sociolinguistics: Fourth Edition by Wardhaugh (2002):

There has been widespread misunderstanding in the United States of AAVE, both of its characteristics and of how it is used (see Mufwene et al., 1998). This misunderstanding has had a number of unfortunate consequences. Many educators regard the various distinguishing characteristics of AAVE as deficiencies: black children were deficient in language ability because their language did not have certain features of the standard, and the consequence of that deficiency was cognitive deficiency... In the late 1960s, this view led to certain proposals to teach black children the standard variety of the language... In this view, black children suffered from 'verbal deprivation' or 'had no language,' and it was the duty and responsibility of educators to supply them with one. This view also found support among many African Americans who looked down on AAVE. Lippi-green (1997, p. 200) has observed that 'It cannot be denied that some of the most scornful and negative criticism of AAVE speakers comes from other African Americans.'

... That such children need 'compensatory education' for their lack of linguistic ability is a complete misinterpretation of the facts. (pp. 343-4)

Since this introductory text (which is balanced in its description of controversies and disagreements among linguists) characterizes criticisms of AAVE use as "misunderstanding" then it's not just the dominant view in linguistics. It's the only view. It's quite ambitious that you would like to alter the discourse regarding AAVE to include criticism, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. And if you're going to do that, I suggest you brush up on the current discourse so you can at least look like you know what you're talking about. I recommend the sources at the bottom of the article as well as English in Black and White by Burling (1973). Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, merely being black doesn't automatically render someone an authority on all issues relating to blacks. Don't say Cosby's assertions are "sociological". He's not a sociologist, and has, to my knowledge, performed no research on the subject. He is no more an authoritative voice on the subject than Eddie Murphy. His public criticisms of the subject perhaps have a place in his own article, certainly not here.

Also please treat other contributors with the respect with which you wish to be treated. Wikipedia articles are created and edited by consensus, and it appears at the moment that the consensus is against you on this issue. (If you wish to poll the editors on this page, I'm fine with that.) Stubbornness and edit-warring do not ever lead anywhere good. Ford MF 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with Fordmadoxfraud [lovely username!]. First, Cosby's comments are, in a sense, sociological, in that they fall in the domain of sociology. The trouble here is that as sociology they're worthless. Further, public criticisms such as those made by Cosby do, I suppose, have a place in WP; they're just as wrongheaded as "Creationism", but like "Creationism" they have a non-negligible impact. To say that they're worth noting is not at all the same as saying they're worth elevating to a status comparable to that of the standard linguistics perception of AAVE. (Neither should every article have a section on "Criticism", as Dude Man seems to think.) I'm also less than enthralled by the WP idea of "consensus"; I find it easy to imagine a situation where a right-headed editor is hugely outnumbered by wrong-headed editors, and as Dude Man earlier seemed to relish making refutations of what he saw as wrong, I've invited him to continue doing so. I'll read any such refutation with interest and am willing to be persuaded that I am wrong; but I note that Dude Man seems to have lost his enthusiasm for refuting that with which he disagrees. -- Hoary 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with Fordmadoxfraud. I put back the controversy again. Deleting a section entitled "controversy" is not the way to show that there is no controversy. The facts that Cosby is or is not a linguist, is or is not a sociologist, does or does not make a point eloquently, uses or does not use AAVE himself, is or is not a well-known public figure - these are all relevant to his credibility, but not to whether his comments have a bearing on the subject. You guys who keep deleting it - are you suggesting that there is no way to quote public comments on the subject, not even to show that there is controversy? I find it hard to believe that educated people hit writer's block so hard when they see something they personally disagree with. Before you stick me with your branding iron, take a look and see whether I've taken a position with regard to what AAVE is. Language vs. dialect? Should or should not be taught in schools? Language variant or sloppiness? The position I have taken here is that the reading public should be informed. How does Wikipedia do that without telling them? Cbdorsett 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for even-handed criticism, but using a popular entertainer (with no qualifications in, well, pretty much any field except acting) as a critical source smacks of tabloidism to me. Why not call up Chris Tucker, Oprah Winfrey, Danny Glover, see what they have to say about it? Can't we find an actual authority here? Cosby's comments--taken out of context, as a quick scan of the "Poundcake Speech" article shows--would be easily derided as racist if he wasn't himself black. If that doesn't automatically make them POV, it at least makes them highly iffy.

At the very least, including the quote is utterly POV, by the nature of its very informality. My suggestions for a consensus compromise here: 1) leave the Cosby dissent, ditch the rambling quote. 2) Find someone else. Anyone. (Well, anyone who isn't a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or something.) Find some other dudes who have uncomplimentary things to say about AAVE. Because right now, the article reads as a broad consensus of professional sociologists and linguists in one corner versus...one American actor. Not much of a balanced dissent. If that consensus does not actually exist, please, for the love of god, dig up some citations that don't come from a comedian. Ford MF 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it needs to be moved to the end of the article, not just stuck in willy-nilly in the middle of the grammatical and morphological info. Ford MF 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "consensus", FMF? The German language article doesn't have a "criticism" section, even though it's easy to find schoolkids learning German as a foreign language who'll tell you that German is too difficult, sounds horrible, is illogical, stupid, etc etc etc. If you're looking for some other dude to ridicule German, you need look no further than Mark Twain's. Should the article on German thus acknowledge that there is a "controversy" about German? Well, if WP is a resource of received ideas, a kind of distillation of unthinking cliches and stupidity, then certainly it should. Yes, look for some famous dudes who've mouthed this nonsense, quote them and bingo you've got citations! But I was under the impression that WP purported/attempted to be a worthwhile encyclopedia.

It's simple, really. AAVE is a lect. Lects are the province of linguistics. No linguist who's taken seriously claims that any lect is defective; ergo AAVE isn't defective. I believe that there's a consensus on this among thinking, well-informed people; I'm open to persuasion that I'm wrong.

There are disagreements about certain aspects of AAVE just as there are disagreements about certain aspects of standard English. When these aren't too technical or trivial, they should be covered.

There are also disagreements about certain social aspects of AAVE. Intelligent summaries of these may be presented -- but not just semidigested quotations of gobbets from miscellaneous dudes (or anyway dudes who manage to stop short of being flaming racist nutballs).

Or maybe I'm wrong and, say, the article on sodium should point out that it's written not only "Na" but also (according to substantial numbers of schoolkids) "So", and that although chemists say this and that about it, that's only a theory and lots of right-thinking dudes interviewed via random phone calls, etc., claim that it's something you drink in cans, that it gives you heart attacks, that it's something commies put in the water supply (you name it). -- Hoary 08:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure his comments have bearing on the subject. They have a bearing on the subject just as the comments of a "creation scientist" have a bearing on an article on cosmology. Bluntly, they're worthless. Yes there is a controversy (in the sense that there's a controversy over whether creation of the universe took six days). Yes the reading public should be informed about it somewhere. No, the right way to do that is not to throw in a slab of nonsense from Cosby. Instead, the right way is to summarize the "criticism" in a way that makes the criticism coherent. (And, of course, to present the counterarguments.)

And I also believe that the right place to do all this is not in this article, which should be stripped of its political and pop-linguistic ingredients and link prominently to an article about these, which I'm willing to accept needn't be titled "Irrational criticisms of AAVE".

Language vs. dialect? The former. Should or should not be taught in schools? This is an interesting question (raising other questions, such as "taught" in which sense, and taught to whom), but if it belongs anywhere it belongs in that second article. Language variant or sloppiness? The former, as is simply explained in any of dozens of linguistics texts. (Can you name a reputable linguistics text that says that no, it's sloppiness?) The "sloppiness" allegation can also be summarized and dealt with in that second article.

Or of course Wikipedia can remain studiedly "neutral" about these "controversies". Such treatment of tired old controversies -- controversies that (at least among people who are well educated in the subject) are long dead and buried -- deserves the ridicule it's likely to get. See this for a (non-WP) precedent. -- Hoary 05:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, not opposed to the discussion of controversies. But controversy here seems more like Cosby's than AAVE's. At least, 95% of the media coverage the speech received was on the order of "Bill Cosby Has Lost His Damn Mind", and not a thoughtful discussion of AAVE. Criticisms and counter-arguments should be presented. I just think Cosby's is windbaggy and ridiculous and should be supplemented with, you know, something by a real person. Ford MF 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹. Wikipedia is not a democracy. consensus means everyone agreeing on the format of the article not majority vote. Also, The "Scientific method" has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. Cosby is not discussing the validity of Ebonics being a dialect as i've stated 3 times already. The only one being 'strong headed' would be you. Quoting random linguistic books and posting totally off topic passages from them won't get you anywhere. ALso your link is not a wikipedia article. [ [3]] it leads nowhere. If you mean "No original research" then nothing I put in the article is original. It came from Cosby. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ford MF, Cosby has had many years experiences in the black community working closely with African Americans on numerous issues. Cosby's criticism is very relevant. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait...so you don't even have to be black to be an authority? You just have to work "closely" with them? Doesn't that qualify most of America? Ford MF 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how you consider a linguistics textbook off topic, especially since the section I quoted from is titled African American Vernacular English. Perhaps if I quoted some of the actual criticism you'd be more open to it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill Cosby's quote in this article is as relevant as can be. Currently this article is so POV that it's absurd. This article does nothing put present Ebonics in a positive light and does not provide any alternative viewpoint of Ebonics or criticism of ebonics. Not only does this article (as i've established) use false sources to make incorrect points. But it doesn't even present other viewpoints in a very politically and sociologically charged issue. Wikidudeman 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does nothing put present Ebonics in a positive light -- Dude Man, it has already become obvious that you have never taken the trouble to look in a linguistics book. It now seems that you have not taken the trouble to read this article. Or if you have, can you explain how for example the description of AAVE phonology puts it in a positive light? To me, it merely presents the facts. and does not provide any alternative viewpoint of Ebonics or criticism of ebonics. Read above, passim. Not only does this article (as i've established) use false sources to make incorrect points. No Dude Man, you haven't. You've merely established that one item is missing from the list of references. -- Hoary 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, I'm not interested in the "linguistic" aspect of Ebonics. I'm interested in the sociological aspects of it. I have read this article very clearly. When I say false sources, See my example in "Obsolete citations". This article is very POV. Instead of presenting Ebonics in a neutral light showing both the criticism and support. It ignores criticism and makes up strawmen and tries to refute them. That's not NPOV. Wikidudeman 08:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, "Obsolete citations": I didn't know what you meant (as you didn't use "obsolete" in any way familiar to me), but anyway you were complaining about some citation of something by somebody called Hamilton. I've just searched for "Hamilton" within the article and the string doesn't appear. (Perhaps you removed it; I can't immediately say.) Well, I look forward with some trepidation to viewing the fruits of your sociological expertise. (Tip: Look in some authentic sociology books. Publication by a university press is one good sign.) -- Hoary 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Kendra Hamilton citation because it didn't contain the information it was supposed to be citing. Wikidudeman 08:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹, It's off topic because we're discussing the sociological aspects of AAVE and not it's inherent linguistic aspects. Wikidudeman 10:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's like you didn't even read the quote. I've included criticism in the education issues since, as I quoted, criticism comes mainly from educators. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm loathe to agree with Wikidudeman about anything in this article, maybe we should include greater mention of 'Public Perception of AAVE', with a clear indication that the opinions expressed in the section are not considered scientific or reliable by experts in the field. This would be the same sort of thing as explaining the views of the Flat Earth society while acknowledging that they are considered to be wrong by nearly everyone else. What does everyone else think? Makerowner 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What do I think? I think your insistence that criticism of AAVE is on the same level as the "flat earth society" or "Creationism" is laughably bias and doesn't belong on wikipedia. Wikidudeman 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite the previous debates over POV (whether AAVE is a valid form of communication or not), I think there is another POV problem with the article, though probably not a conscious one. The origin of AAVE is heavily debated in the linguistics community, yet the article only shows the creolist position. Although I am a support of the creole origin theory, I think the theory of AAVE as a preservation of White non-standard Englishes should be represented as well. Makerowner 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, this is something that I think I can help on. Although I hope you don't mind that I use the "random" sociolinguistics textbook that I have at hand. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading about a group of American Blacks who moved to the Dominican Republic and whose speech was used as evidence to support the 'non-standard English' hypothesis. I can't think of the name of the group or where I read it. Any ideas? Makerowner 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The group is called Semana Blacks. There seem to be several pages on the subject listed on Google, but they're in Spanish. Anyone who can read Spanish, please summarise the information on the talk page so we can incorporate it into the article. Search Semana+AAVE. Makerowner 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The group is called the Samana Blacks. You may get more results in English if you search for Samana + AAVE. Maimone 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section is in a good place. Being right after "in schools" and right before grammatical features. Putting it at the end of the article would be out of context considering the previous part about the controversy in schools. I will likely be adding more to the controversy section soon. Wikidudeman 08:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This articles style of citation is not in sync with wikipedia's WP:MOS. The correct way to use citations is shown here WP:CITE#HOW. There are a few accepted ways of citing sources and this article is no consistent in it's citations and one specific common form of citation used in this article is not accepted anywhere on wikipedia. Looks to be a quasi-Harvard reference style or something like that, Impossible to determine anything from it. Wikidudeman 08:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Impossible to determine anything from it -- Dude Man, did you read this? Is anything else hard to grasp? (Are you perhaps a little out of your depth here?) -- Hoary 08:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example "Many blacks, regardless of socioeconomic status, educational background, or geographic region, use some form of AAVE to various degrees in informal and intra-ethnic communication (Romaine 111)." From this all I can gather is that someone named "Romaine" is used as a source for this assertion and that's it. What does "111" mean? It's not year. It's not the name of the book or study. It's not the date. So it must be the 'page number'. But page number of what? Impossible to know. Do you know? Wikidudeman 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably of some work by Suzanne Romaine, a prominent sociolinguist. Right, this too should be listed. The article is defective here. This does not mean that the system used is incomprehensible (or that it can't be improved)

While you're busily adding citations and (sometimes with justification) criticizing existing citations, you might pay more attention to the former. You've just added this URL. What you don't say is the author, title, etc. Here's how:

Lee H. Walker " Ebonics in Education Is Just What African-Americans Don't Need", Crain's Chicago Business, January 27, 1997.

Incidentally, it strikes me as a pretty feeble piece. It's a set of assertions, really: a short essay, lacking any real evidence. (But then it's from a self-confessed "conservative" website.) Where's the sociology, Dude Man? Hoary 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SMITHERMAN, ROMAINE, COULMAS, and TRUDGILL are used in the body of the text as a cite several times, but it is not anyhwere else (refs section), so we only have their name and a page number. We need title, publisher, etc to turn this into a proper footnote. These appear to be books or academic papers and someone familiar with them need to supply the info so proper refs can be generated. Lead needs to summarize the article too. Rlevse 17:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Smitherman was easy enough to find, Trudgill has published numerous works. I've included the most likely source since Coulmas' and Romaine's were introductory sociolinguistics texts and Trudgill mainly publishes books about English English dialects. Whoever cited the other three must have cited Trudgill. But I could be wrong. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, Wikipedia citations should be formated so that someone doesn't have to google it to find out who the person is and do extensive research just to see what publication the sources is coming from. That's not how wikipedia works. Moreover, Yes, I incorrectly cited that website. If you didn't fix it I will (when I re-add it since you erased it). Attempting to "refute" op pieces from websites criticizing a highly controversial subject such as AAVE as an attempt to exclude all criticism from the page is absolutely POV and very bias. Wikidudeman 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia citations should be formated so that someone doesn't have to google it to find out who the person is and do extensive research just to see what publication the sources is coming from. Yes, I agree with you. (Again, I don't want to defend those particular citations. And neither do I deny that many citations should be improved.) ¶ Yes, I incorrectly cited that website. If you didn't fix it I will (when I re-add it since you erased it). No, you didn't cite it incorrectly; you cited it less helpfully than you could have done. I don't think I deleted mention of it (even though I thought it near worthless and thus deletable). ¶ a highly controversial subject such as AAVE no, Dude Man, AAVE is not highly controversial; or anyway not among thinking people. It's a lect. There are controversies about it, just as there are controversies about English in general -- unexciting example: Is the "it" in "It's misleading to claim that AAVE is controversial" expletive [null] or cataphoric? -- and indeed controversies about iguanas and Newfoundland (see Pinkville's splendid explanation below). There are also controversies (much hot air, but some cool and reasoned thinking as well) about the degrees to which AAVE and SAE should be encouraged for the education of students for whom AAVE is the native lect; these controversies have nothing to do with the intrinsic quality/value of AAVE, other than in the minds of people who are (and sometimes seem to choose to remain) ignorant of very elementary linguistics. When non-trivial, genuine controversies about AAVE deserve representation in the article. When they are (perhaps unfortunately) significant to the wider world, pseudo-controversies about AAVE and very uninformed silly ideas about AAVE deserve a mention too, but they certainly do not merit treatment comparable with that given to reasoned thinking. -- Hoary 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹, If you say you "incorporated more criticism in the social context section" then why did you completely erase the Cosby pound cake quote? I have re-added the pound cake quote to the end of the "History and social context" section since you completely erased it without explanation. Wikidudeman 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he deleted it because it's mere piffle, as I demonstrated above. You have not yet refuted my demonstration. When arer you going to bring some big guns from sociology, or must you depend on the word of a fading comedian? -- Hoary 11:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Piffle"? I've already explained why the Cosby piece belongs here and YOU haven't refuted MY explanation. If you continue to erase contributions I make I'll have to seek administrative assistance with this matter. Wikidudeman 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually have explained why I removed it the last time I did so. For someone who's got a 1RR userbox on their page, I find it odd how you ignore consensus. The other information's citation does not have the authority that it claims to make and I believe that the information I entered pretty much covers the same ground. Hopefully you aren't so unreasonable as to disagree with rewording what you've included. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 11:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation had absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. I explained that already. You can't continue to remove contributions I make to neutralize this article. It is becoming pretty difficult at this point to assume good faith when you want to keep this article as POV as it is. If you want to "reword" it then that's fine, But not to the point it does not resemble criticism anymore. Wikidudeman 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess since it was such a dramatic reword it's hard to tell that it is such.

• AAVE has been criticized for its persistence of use → Educators have long held that attempts should be made to eliminate AAVE usage through the public education system.
• despite its unacceptability in most cultural contexts → arguments that its use, by being considered unacceptable in most cultural contexts,
• AAVE has been described as an academic impediment to students who are attempting to make the transition from AAVE to Standard American English → is socially limiting.

I deleted The idea of teaching AAVE in classrooms has also been criticized by some since this is a strawman argument. No one has proposed the teaching of AAVE and, as the article states, such a criticism shows a misunderstanding of the situation (not of AAVE necessarily).

And if you'd like to seek a dispute resolution in regards to Cosby, go ahead. There have been several refutations of his speech in this talk page and you have ignored them. I'm honestly having difficulty assuming good faith on your part and the only way I can understand your behavior in the past couple of days without violating AGF is to assume ignorance or to assume bibliophobia. There's also no policy against assuming impatience so I'm gonna do that too. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1.I did not say AAVE has been 'AAVE has been criticized for its persistence of use' someone else put that in there. If you have a problem with it I will change it. 2. It is unacceptable in most professional social contexts. That's a fact. 3. Many people have proposed teaching AAVE in classrooms to help the children adjust to proper English.[ [4]] 4. Again, None of your arguments address why this page can't become neutral by adding social criticism of use of AAVE from famous social commentators. Not only that but your "Revert" also reverted my deletion of the references used in the article body that don't belong. Wikidudeman 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who put it in, I was simply being thorough. I think you misunderstand the link you just cited. It proposes using Ebonics to teach standard English. Saying that that is teaching Ebonics is like saying that using English to teach English-speaking students Spanish is teaching them English. Now I'm sure that the method proposed in that link has been criticized, but it would help to find a source that doesn't misunderstand the issue.

I noticed your deletion of references in the article body but I don't understand why those ones don't belong but others do. The books they come from are all cited at the end of the article.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bill Cosby is not qualified. His opinio has no weight in the issue as far as the article is concerned. Quotations from "famous social commentators" do not make an article on language more neutral. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What you linked here [ [5]

is an example of where I was changing the formating of that, I didn't put it in originally. The references I erased were erased for a purpose as I explained three times already. They are 1. Not in format with how wikipedia uses references (doesn't use them in the article body) 2. They already have components in the end of the article in the 'references" section. 3. Only citations should be used in that form where each statement or sentences is cited. That's why I removed them. I hadn't removed all of them YET but I was getting it before you pointlessly reverted it. Your assertion that Cosby is not "qualified" is nothing more than your personal opinion. In MY opinion he is qualified to comment on this issue and his comment does belong. Wikidudeman 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Is your opinion worth more than mine? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my place to say since wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL. Given that it is NEUTRAL we need to either present BOTH opinions of AAVE both positive and neutral or present no comments of controversy at all since such comments tend to be either in support of AAVE or against it. Currently the entire article presents AAVE in a positive tone mentioning no criticism or controversy from a neutral standpoint. Wikidudeman 22:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article does present criticism:

Educators have long held that attempts should be made to eliminate AAVE usage through the public education system. Criticisms range from asserting that AAVE is an intrinsically deficient form of speech to arguments that its use, by being considered unacceptable in most cultural contexts, is socially limiting.

Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nothing more than a strawman argument used simply to refute in the very next paragraph. Wikidudeman 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that describing historical "changes in formal attitudes" is a refutation of criticisms (and they are not strawman arguments. I can cite sources for both sides if you'd like). It is a fact that [some] people have been trying to eliminate AAVE usage longer than [some] people have been countering against this and attempting to foster formal acceptance. Perhaps an expansion of that paragraph is in order, but Cosby is not the way to do that and even if Cosby were qualified, there would need to be people who are more qualified (i.e. educators, scholars, linguists, sociologists). Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

AAVE is a language, a specific form of the language faculty which all humans possess. It isn't a position that some people have put forward, it's not a social or a political movement, it's not a point of view, it's not a style, it's not an element of a cultural production (like violence in a film). It isn't something that can be argued with or against. So it cannot be met with criticism. "Criticism of AAVE" is a logical absurdity, on the order of "criticism of the Sun", or "criticism of iguanas". It's meaningless. There are people who have claimed that reptiles, such as iguanas, are inherently evil on some level, and there are some who have railed against the Sun, but such moments of individual or collective psychosis are not regarded as meaningful, except as examples of irrationality or insanity. An example that cuts closer to the bone might be a hypothetical suggestion to include "criticism of Newfoundlanders" in the article on Newfoundland and Labrador, but such an idea would be quickly and rightly dismissed as both an absurdity and racist. However, properly contextualised, such "criticism" could reasonably be included in the article Newfie, which plainly deals with criticism of Newfoundlanders, though in a less euphemistic manner: "Usage as a derogatory term". Incidentally, the article Newfoundland English does not possess a section dealing with "criticism of Newfoundland English", although the dialects of the island have often been regarded with hostility by outsiders and been the subject of (ongoing) campaigns to undermine their extistence. Might there be a lesson there? Pinkville 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually language can easily be argued for or against and is a cultural production. Comparing criticism of 'use of language' to the 'sun' is absurdity. However, If you want to play semantics Pinkville and say that AAVE as a 'language' can't be criticized then let me rephrase. This article needs criticism of the use of AAVE. Since people 'use' aave in numerous circumstances and the use of the 'language' can easily be criticized and has been. Rather than accusing other users of racism who happen to disagree with you and want the article to become neutral perhaps you should assume good faith and think twice about your faulty position. Wikidudeman 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And what, precisely, does it mean to talk of "criticism of the use of a language"? What's the important distinction between a language and its use? One implication of such a notion is that languages without users are beyond criticism, so dead languages like Linear A are safe from judgement. I don't know that that's what you had in mind. The obvious distinction between a language and its use - the one we all take for granted - is shown in specific examples of language use: speeches, songs, novels, the CNN news ticker... These can all be criticised, if one feels so inclined. But again, that's not what you were thinking of, is it. There's also the performative aspect of language, how well individuals use their mother tongue, which is dependent on physical, mental and environmental variables too numerous to begin listing... and irrelevant because they have bearing only on the abilities of individuals, not on the general "use of a language" that you are interested in. Elsewhere on this page:

1. you refer to AAVE as "rudimentary" and "unsophisticated"
2. you assert that "people who speak AAVE tend to use simple words that can not convey much complex meaning"
3. you claim that "the vast majority of AAVE speakers are uneducated and come from urban areas"
4. you are skeptical of finding "a science journal using AAVE", etc.

Though these claims have been addressed in the appropriate places above, I've plopped them together here to get a better look and see how they represent your interest in "criticism of the use of a language". 1 is a claim for an intrinsic property of AAVE; it says nothing of "use". The claim is false. 2 is a claim for the verbal habits of AAVE speakers; it makes no claim for the language itself and is a specualtion that would have to be examined and, if someone could provide any evidence or study results, might reasonably be included in an article on the sociology, neurology or psychology of AAVE speakers, but not on the language. 3 again makes a claim about speakers of AAVE and not about the language, but it's worth noting that the vast majority of speakers of all languages are not linguists or grammarians, and certainly the majority of speakers of all languages are not university-educated... is there some way in which the observation has a bearing on this discussion? I don't see how. As for "come from urban areas", it's mildly interesting to recall a time when urban dwellers were considered sophisticates and people living in outlying regions and rural areas were considered hicks. 4 is a claim for AAVE exceptionalism. Scientific journals - even linguistic journals - employ a formal register of English that, for example, I don't use in my day-to-day life, and nor does anyone else (unless they are quite peculiar). But you're not talking about register, you're talking about a particular language that for whatever reason (its rudimentary and unsophisticated nature, as I understand it) is unlikely to appear in a scientific journal. But I'd be just as amazed to find an article in, say, the Lancet written in Newfoundland English (I have a vision of a published study of child-rearing practices, I'm After Using Fig Tits for Infants...). Register doesn't have any direct bearing on this discussion either.

By your own admission you "don't know any 'modern linguists'", and the only reference points you mention for your knowledge of AAVE are hip hop/rap and Bill Cosby, so I'm guessing you don't actually speak AAVE, and it's just your scientific orientation that leads you to conclude that "people who speak AAVE tend to use simple words that can not convey much complex meaning". But note - maybe it's just a slip - that in that passage you actually pass judgement on the people who speak AAVE and not on AAVE itself. We'll let that slide and return to your most recent comment: "This article needs criticism of the use of AAVE. Since people 'use' aave in numerous circumstances and the use of the 'language' can easily be criticized and has been." Odd that people use their own language in "numerous circumstances", what is the preferred alternative? Yes, there are many examples of AAVE - and many other languages (and their speakers) - being attacked, often with quite ingenious scientific-sounding justifications, but such rantings, however dressed up in the trappings of science, common sense, religious doctrine, stand-up comedy routines, etc. still do not constitute criticism, which is a rational (and not necessarily antagonistic) approach to a subject that is the product of human agency, creation or development. One can criticise a use of a particular construction or expression (e.g. I could argue against the usage present in "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids", vs. shrank), one can criticise a use of inappropriate register (e.g. "possessing an amicable colleague, such as yourself, is most gratifying"), and so on, but one can't criticise a language in itself, unless a proposition like, "the human digestive system is rudimentary and unsophisticated" has meaning. All languages are founded in the same set of linguistic operations with only minor variations. No language is more or less "rudimentary" or "sophisticated" than any other. Specific fields of human enquiry have their own jargons, which is a different matter. If one wants to describe the properties of photosynthesis, then AAVE - or Newfoundland English, or Bostonian... - is inappropriate; similarly, if one wants to discuss krumping styles, only AAVE has the necessary complexity, subtlety and vocabulary to do so.

At base, you seem to be asserting that AAVE is not a language or a lect, but rather a faulty, crude and obstinate approximation of Standard American English* and that, on that basis, criticism of it is justified. Do you have authoritative sources to back up that assertion and that criticise AAVE in those terms? I don't believe you'll find any. Any such sources would not be linguistic sources, but political, and therefore inappropriate for an article describing the properties of AAVE. Pinkville 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

*What you presumably mean by "proper English".

Some good points there, Pinkville. One clarification (?) and one quibble. ¶ And what, precisely, does it mean to talk of "criticism of the use of a language"? What's the important distinction between a language and its use? I've a hunch Dude Man wants to say something about where lects should and should not be used, e.g. AAVE may be used among chums but not in class. (If so, I disagree with him; but this is by the way.) ¶ If one wants to describe the properties of photosynthesis, then AAVE - or Newfoundland English, or Bostonian... - is inappropriate; similarly, if one wants to discuss krumping styles, only AAVE has the necessary complexity, subtlety and vocabulary to do so. I'd disagree on both. I see nothing inappropriate about the use of AAVE to discuss photosynthesis. It would be unlikely and surprising (and also needlessly confusing for observers [let alone participants] for whom English was an L2); but among speakers of AAVE, why the hell not? Like any lect, AAVE has unlimited access to the lexicon of standard English, certainly any terms needed to discuss photosynthesis. Likewise, Newfoundland English and so on are perfectly capable of discussing krumping styles, though of course they may have to borrow items from the AAVE lexicon in order to do so. -- Hoary 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Chums vs. class is certainly the sort of distinction I imagined was being considered. Thanks for the photosynthesis clarification. You've come much closer to what I had hoped to say. Conventional wisdom posits barriers between AAVE and discussions of photosynthesis, but of course such barriers do not exist linguistically. I don't know if there's any East Coast krumping, but there are some fine East Coast hip hop artists. And I've seen jig steps used in American street dance... Pinkville 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pinkville, It's impossible for me to address everything you said with this type of format. I can't go in and pick out every single sentence and then refute it without actually quoting your post and then making this talk page completely incomprehensible (Sort of like AAVE). However I will address one or two things. You claim that "No language is more or less "rudimentary" or "sophisticated" than any other." No, Not many people use scientific English in their everyday speech but the fact remains that standard english can easily be used in a scientific context and the same rules apply to it. However can AAVE be used in a scientific context? How many Journals use AAVE? None? Why not? Simple question, Don't go off on 3 paragraphs of ranting off topic to answer it. Wikidudeman 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another SIMPLE question that requires a short and simple answer. Would you consider it ok if I simply switched to AAVE and used non-complex AAVE in all of my posts? Wat up, jigga? If I gunna talk nuttin but ebonics din wat u gunna think? U gunna think me be mo oh less smart? oh u gunna think dat be whack? Be truthful. If you don't consider AAVE adequate to discuss sophisticated topics like these then I rest my case. Wikidudeman 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikidude, you've been wasting our time. You speak with zero authority on the subject. Can you stop and read an actual book on the subject? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would answer your question in Ebonics but I don't think there is an ebonics equivalent of the English word "book". Wikidudeman 22:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, since you'd rather not be taken seriously, I think this discussion is over. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, your use of eye dialect (e.g. "u" for "you") is really too silly. But despite your worst intentions, your question in cod-AAVE actually makes perfect sense. So yes, if you want to keep writing in cod-AAVE on this talk page, by all means do so. Since you repeatedly bring up the matter of the adequacy of a particular kind of English for expository purposes, I'll say that your cod-AAVE may be more comprehensible than some of your attempts to write standard English, in which you perpetrate sentence fragments, failure of verb agreement, elementary orthographic errors, etc. ¶ Better still, stop writing here while you go off and educate yourself about AAVE. -- Hoary 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Resorting to personal insults now? Typical. I find it funny you criticize my grammar considering your numerous spelling errors. Wikidudeman 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm being as serious as these circumstances warrant. I've explained my position and the only responses I get are either straw men or other such fallacies, You seem to be intent on engaging in an edit war with me so I've stopped making edits to the article, You refuse to give any leeway or meet me halfway at introducing the Cosby quote to the article or any other components that make it more neutral, You seem to think that having references in the middle of the article is OK. So what's the point of even discussing it any further anyway? The only thing I can do at this point is get a comment from someone neutral to this cause, Then go through mediation and even possibly further steps. Wikidudeman 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been clearly explained above, Cosby is a non-expert who is not taken seriously and is here speaking nonsense. You haven't explained that he is an expert or that he's taken seriously (other than by saying that he's Black and famous) or that he is here making sense. What would "meeting you halfway" imply -- sprinkling the Cosby quote with explanations in "[ ]" so that he doesn't come off as such a fool? More broadly, you appear to be writing from premisses that are utterly uninformed and wrongheaded, and you show no interest in reading even the most elementary book of real linguistics (or, it seems, sociology). ¶ Someone neutral to this cause -- what "cause"? Me, I'm neutral about AAVE. Its grammatical and other differences from standard American English I view as dispassionately as I do those of Newfoundland English, Boston English, etc. I'm not a proponent of AAVE and I haven't praised it. All of this makes me a pretty normal editor of and commenter on this article, on a subject of which I am not at all an expert but about which I have read actual linguistics books. ¶ I'm happy to hear that you have stopped making edits to the article: the break may give you time to go to a large library and do some serious reading. Not little op-ed pieces by disgruntled businessmen or (would-be) civic leaders, not the rants of uninformed comedians, but careful expositions (from university presses or other non-fringe publishers) written by people who have spent years studying these matters. -- Hoary 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason i've stopped making edits to the article was due to numerous violations of the WP:3RR by yourself and aeusoes1. Which is why I'm taking further measures to put neutrality into this article. Wikidudeman 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Like anybody else, you are welcome to report anybody's (e.g. my) violations of WP:3RR. You do so here. -- Hoary 05:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain from being a 'tattle tale' and go the other route such as requesting a comment and then if that doesn't work an official mediation. Wikidudeman 11:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Phonological features" has many difficult terms. a few explenations would be good. – 213.114.217.37 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a reasonable request for the article. It's particularly reasonable as a reaction to this part: Pronunciation of the dental fricatives [...] changes depending on position in a word. [...] The rule for AAVE can be expressed in standard phonological rule notation: plus graphic. I regret that editors here who have some interest in a dispassionate description of AAVE have been so distracted by silly requests as to be unable to attend to this. The red link in the bit I've quoted is unsatisfactory, and the casual reader can justifiably complain about having this phonological jargon shoved at them with neither explanations nor links to explanations.

Phonology is one of my weak areas (I had a long-winded and boring phonology textbook and a boring teacher), but I'll try to attend to this matter within the next couple of days. Others better qualified than myself are most welcome to beat me to it. -- Hoary 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd do it myself but I'm the kind of person who's so into the jargon that it's harder for me to see what someone not hip to the lingo would and would not understand. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider the phonology first. The redlink should have gone to distinctive feature, and I have so rewritten it. It's not possible to link from within the generated graphic, but I was going to add a footnote pointing out that features such as sonorant are all explained within distinctive feature. However, although consonantal, continuant and sonorant are explained, alveolar, dental and labiodental are not. Of course I know what the latter three mean: they're standard phonetics terms. But are they arbitrary additions to the binary features listed in the article? Are they binary features that were previously thought to be fundamental but that were fairly recently disposed of in favor of more fundamental alternatives? (Sorry if these questions are stupid: remember, I never claimed to have more than a primitive grasp of phonology.)

(Actually the Distinctive feature article implies that its own treatment is out of date: in recent developments to the theory of distinctive features, phonologists have proposed the existence of single-valued features. These features, called univalent features, can only describe the classes of segments that are said to possess those features, and not the classes that are without them.)

Yes, phonology. Why the phonology/grammar distinction? I'd thought that phonology was regarded as an essential part of grammar. (If so, it would of course be OK to have a "Phonology and phonetics" section and a "Syntax and morphology" section.) -- Hoary 10:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I did a bit of cleanup in the phonology section. Hopefully I didn't make it more complex. I removed the phonological rule notation because I think a casual reader unfamiliar with linguistics will get thrown off and it doesn't say anything more than the prose that comes before it. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, thank you very much -- but there's much more to be done. Consider this gem (after markup-stripping): Word final devoicing. Thus, pig sounds like pick and cup like cub. The obvious solution is to switch cup and cub but unfortunately (a) this article has been subjected to so much petty vandalism by nitwits over the months and (b) my own grasp of AAVE is so miserably poor that I'm not completely sure of this "improvement". -- Hoary 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering none of the editors to this article are willing to make any compromise in adding the Cosby quote to this article or any other relevant criticism I have no other choice but to request an official mediation WP:M which might be able to help resolve the disputes. All relevant parties must consent to the mediation before it can progress. If you are willing to mediate this topic to help solve the dispute then please say so here. Thank you. Wikidudeman 00:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The page to agree or disagree is listed here.[ [6]] If you want to solve this dispute then please agree to the mediation. Wikidudeman 00:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was rejected for a technicality. I can see that it wouldn't have gone far in your favor anyway. You can't go to WP:RFC the day before you go to RfM and consider it something you've tried. RFC takes a few days (even a week). Also, I don't see any evidence of your going to WP:AN/I. Essentially you haven't tried anything other than discussing the issue and they don't like that at RfM. We ought to wait a few days for the rfc to come along. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait a few days before filing another RFM. Wikidudeman 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I only skimmed through the article, so I don't know, but is there a section on the pronunciation of numbers? My friend (African-American) says "fiteen" instead of "fifteen". Or is that already covered somewhere else in the article? Thanks. Knightskye 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an issue of how easy it is to understand the pronunciation section of the article. I think once that's adjusted the pronunciation numbers will be clearer. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw that the article has a failed RfM. I would have thought that a RfC should be tried first and would bring along some new editors. My comments below are made as if in response to an RfC. I like the article and hope you can quickly come to an understanding about the point you are currently held up on. The referencing needs attention: that is obvious. The range of academic sources referred to seems good, though. I would suggest that, apart from referring briefly to where AAVE is spoken, when and by whom, the article should start with the linguistic aspects. I was interested in knowing more about the dispute between linguistics experts on the origins of AAVE and how much it shares with other dialects of English, how much is derived from African languages and how much is a result of language mixing. Then the article would come onto the sociolinguistics questions. In a section that could be headed "attitudes" commentators like Cosby could be mentioned. The notable point is of course not that Cosby, a non-expert, holds these views but that the media takes an interest in his views. "Schools" could be a sub-heading under "attitudes". The article could have a to-do list on the talk page, starting with the referencing. I'm not watching the page, but please post on my talk page if you want me to contribute further. Itsmejudith 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to remove/alter a pile of stuff.

• Bogus (tentatively said to come from Hausa): the OED tells us that this is A cant word of U.S., about the origin of which many guesses have been made, and 'bogus' derivations circumstantially given. Neither it nor any other source I've seen even mentions a Hausa origin.
• Jive. Neither OED nor DARE mentions a Zulu or any other etymology.
• Paddy, we're told in this article, is likely derived from paddyroller; DARE doesn't mention this and says that instead it's an extension of the meaning from that of "Irish".
• Roach-in-the-corner-killers seemed impossibly long-winded to me; DARE does list roach killers but doesn't mention the term as being in any way special to AAVE.

I'm aware that this section risks becoming very uninteresting, but etymologies should be backed up by specified, reputable works of etymology, rather than mere speculations or real but uncredited scholarship.

-- Hoary 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. I've been suspicious of that section for a while now. I think it should probably be mostly taken out. There are distinctive lexical features in AAVE, but I don't have any sources on hand. I'll check at my university library if I can find anything, but I think you shoul delete these words. Makerowner 03:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the naming conventions of Wikipedia, this article should be titled Ebonics rather than AAVE considering Ebonics is the term the majority of English-speakers are familiar with. Again, this would be in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- 24.107.176.113 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer AAVE because it is more formal and precise. As the article states, 'Ebonics' comes from 'Ebony Phonics'. This is innaccurate because AAVE is not simply a system of phonics but a lect with a distinct grammatical system. Also the word 'Ebony' is not generally used to refer to Blacks, at least not anymore. Makerowner 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not up for a vote and it doesn't matter what the editors prefer. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be named to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle:

“

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for [u]readers over editors[/u]; and for a general audience over specialists.

”

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read the naming conventions page, and I suppose you're right. I'm suprised there's no convention about accuracy of names. For example, most Americans fill up their cars with 'gas', but the Wikipedia article should be called gasoline, because that is more accurate. I'm also suprised there is no convention for avoiding potentially offensive names. Makerowner 03:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Most english speakers are familar with "gasoline". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am forced to request a move from an administrator, I would do it myself but there seems to already be a page called "Ebonics" that redirects to here. Someone already tried to rename this page to "Ebonics" to adhere to the naming conventions but apparently it didn't work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Controversial names, which tells us If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain; if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes.

"Examined on a case-by-case basis": the expression is grotesque, but the meaning is clear. OK, let's examine this proposal on the basis of its, uh, case.

I'll agree that African American Vernacular English is not a very widely known term, and that neither is AAVE. However, the consitutents African American and English are now standard, and vernacular is widely known among educated people (not only those who are educated in linguistics). Whether African American Vernacular English (below, AAVE) is the best of all terms is not something I want to explore here; because the only suggestion has been to rename it Ebonics, let's instead consider the merits of Ebonics.

Coined some time between 1973 and 1975, Ebonics was a very little-known term until December 1996, when the Oakland (Calif) school board put it in the news. (Even the OED 2nd edition of 1989 didn't bother with it.)

It's still not very well known, it seems. I looked for it among English dictionaries of 1997 and later; here's what I found. (The criticism might be raised that it's a proper name and many dictionaries give space only grudgingly to proper names; I therefore name the proper names that bracket the place where Ebonics ought to be.)

• Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary (1991). Ebonics not mentioned; the dictionary does list the proper names E-boat and Ebro.
• The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998). Ebonics not mentioned; the dictionary does list the proper names Ebla and Ebro.
• New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998). Glosses Ebonics as American Black English regarded in its own right rather than as a dialect of standard English.
• John Ayto, Twentieth Century Words (OUP 2000) explains that Ebonics was coined in 1975 and means African-American vernacular English, especially as considered to be a language in its own right rather than a non-standard dialect.
• American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th ed. (2000). Ebonics is merely a cross reference to AAVE and a pointer to a "Usage Note" at Black English.
• New Oxford American English (2001). Identical entry to that in the NODoE.

For those who don't know the word, Ebonics is hard to parse. (Bizarrely for a word meaning a dialect or language, it's partly derived from phonics used to mean phonetics.) Meanwhile, AAVE is easy to parse (or at least it is for those who know the word vernacular).

AHDEL is careful to make AAVE its primary term.

Not a single dictionary that I encountered presents Ebonics as a normal and neutral term for the way that many US Blacks speak. (Note for more theoretically inclined linguists: I very much regret this phrase "the way that [XYZ people] speak" with its emphasis on performance rather than competence: I'm trying to avoid "language" and "[dia]lect" and also linguistic jargon.) Instead, it's shown to be a loaded term: it implies that this way of speaking is somehow independent of English, even that it is a separate language. It could be argued that AAVE is similarly a loaded term, implying that this way of speaking is merely a form of English. You may then wish to coolly consider the facts, which are that the overwhelming majority of linguists regard this way of speaking is a dialect (or lect) and not a language, and that the great majority of speakers of other kinds of English have little trouble understanding this way of speaking, certainly much less than they encounter when trying to understand, say, Dutch.

I also speculate that the term Ebonics is particularly beloved by blowhards (on both sides of the "controversy") and that AAVE is less likely to scratch their itches.

Even if I put aside that speculation, I strongly oppose any notion of renaming this article "Ebonics". -- Hoary 13:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS thinking that Ebonics deserved its own short article, I created one. -- Hoary 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary. This page shouldn't change its name. While African American Vernacular English is pretty long, it is the neutral term used and most familiar by linguists. Since searching for Ebonics redirects here (that's right, I reverted you, hoary). Ebonics should redirect here so that there is no issue of anyone not finding it. The article is structured so that someone not at first familiar with the term will quickly figure out what it means. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for anyone curious, this has been discussed be fore. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your revert, aeusoes1, as this destroyed all mention of "Ebonics" having a much broader meaning than "AAVE", and its theoretical baggage. (I happen to think that the baggage is rather batty, but that's beside the point.) I've therefore resuscitated the article, making it clearer that what people are most likely to be after appears instead in this article. Meanwhile, I've reverted your alteration to this article too, not least because although "Ebonics" does indeed come from "phonics", it does not come from "phonics" as explained in the article phonics.

You may wish to revert me again. Before doing so, I'd ask you to read, digest and consider the content of the Ebonics article.

In the earlier debate, somebody writes retitling a single article "Ebonics" seems a bad idea. Oh, that somebody is me. But NB I'm there talking about a grand unified article about Black US English. (Also, I knew less then than I do now about the original purpose of the term "Ebonics".)

It's possible that Ebonics is better turned into a disambig page: perhaps for (a) Ebonics (linguistic theory) (i.e. much of what is now at Ebonics) and (b) African American Vernacular English. Fine, let's discuss this or a similar solution. But let's not get into a revert war that results in material that's sourced and worthwhile being cut.

(Of course, you may believe that the material I put in Ebonics is not worthwhile, or is Cosby-order crap. Again, I'm open to arguments.)

Hoary 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I now think that "Ebonics (linguistic theory)" is inferior to "Ebonics (language group)", but I may change my mind yet again. Thinking people are welcome to make suggestions. -- Hoary 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly a linguistics scholar - I have a "lay" interest in the subject - but I'm well aware of the distinction between Ebonics and AAVE. If I did not already know of an article in Wikipedia called "African American Vernacular English", I would search for "African American English" or "Black American English" or something similar, but it wouldn't occur to me to search under "Ebonics", unless, not finding any of the other possibilities, I turned to it in desperation (maybe it's just my idiosyncrasy, but I suspect I'm not alone). The trouble is that "Ebonics" is a political term, which is perfectly fine in that field of human activity and thought, but not fine in the context of the study of language... It's a term that is complicated by the assertions of its advocates that it should be taken as a linguistic term, but without the support of linguists. Hoary's argument on the related point makes perfect sense to me, that "Ebonics" is intended to suggest a language independent of English vs. "AAVE" which explicitly makes the connection to English. Regardless, "AAVE" is the term for the dialect, "Ebonics" is the political term used by certain people making claims for a particular conception of African American culture. Consequently, two articles would be best, with redirects as appropriate. Pinkville 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoary, What you're doing here is trying to rationalize why it's best to keep this article the name it is from an academic standpoint. But that's not the point of naming articles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions clearly states that articles should be named by what they are most commonly referred to by most English speakers. Whether "Ebonics" is technically accurate is irrelevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Dude Man, I'm not trying to "rationalize"; I'm trying to explain. As for the bit about an academic standpoint, I deliberately used general-purpose sources. Wikipedia:Naming conventions does indeed clearly say what you say that it clearly says; it also clearly talks of other factors that you clearly ignore. -- Hoary 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm an African-American, and I don't use the term "Ebonics." In fact, no one I know uses it, except in a dismissive and offhand manner, referring to the ignorance, bias and backwardness of those who, in fact, use it dismissively/demeaningly and as a class- or ethnically charged pejorative. "Ebonics" is, in fact, a recent, colloquial, politically charged term that is unencyclopedic and inappropriate in an academic or scholarly context. Those of us who have studied "Black English" for some time now recognize the label "Ebonics" as a flavor-of-the-month sort of naming convention. It's a term made popular by the recent media fracas in Cali (and elsewhere), but is neither an acceptable nor accurate substitute for "AAVE." (This has been discussed here before.) Given the pervasiveness of the electronic media and the decreasing literacy of particularly American society, we should be wary of affixing shallow, hot-button, media-driven labels to phenomena simply because certain segments of the population (often young and/or not very well-read on a particular subject) may not be aware of them by any other name. That is, in part, what wiki redirects are for. deeceevoice 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you use the term "African American Vernacular English" in everyday speech? Deeceevoice? Your personal experiences aside, Ebonics is much much more commonly used than "African American Vernacular English" is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

lol - Actually, when I speak of the phenomenon I do! And I never, ever use "Ebonics". Because this is an encyclopedia, the approach to subject matter here should be scholarly and informative -- and not pander to racially motivated bias, media hype or ignorance. The fact is "Ebonics" is not a value-neutral term. Many -- myself included -- see it as a pejorative. deeceevoice 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe someone would use the term "African American Vernacular English" in everyday speech but it's irrelevant. Unless you can provide an source of "Ebonics" being a "racist" term used specifically by racists etc then I don't see how it fits the criteria as controversial. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe whatever you will. I'm a well-read, learned African-American who understands the power of words, and that's just the way I roll. I'm not here to convince you that many consider "Ebonics" a racist term. What I'm telling you is that there are many who consider it so; that's hardly a news flash. "AAVE" is, in fact, value-neutral and is, therefore, far more preferable to "Ebonics." Furthermore, I find your assertions that AAVE is "rudimentary" and monosyllabic hilarious. AAVE is vivid; complex; rule-driven, structurally (like other dialects); often metaphorical; powerful and creative -- precisely why so much of American English (and other languages, as well) is shot-through with our contributions, why the popularity of the African American spoken word is a worldwide phenomenon. Lotsa luck proving that ridiculous assertion. deeceevoice 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. First you say that you're not here to convince me (though that's the point of the discussion pages) then you make the exact same statement you say you're not trying to convince me of. What exactly is "many"? Who specifically considers "ebonics" to be a racist term? How do these people represent "most english speakers"? You're copping out by calling anyone who uses "ebonics" opposed to AAVE uneducated. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, It's irrelevant. Most English speakers identify with "Ebonics" opposed to AAVE. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The intent to convince is predicated on one's faith that the other is willing to engage in the sort of discussion that might lead them to change their mind. There's little evidence on this page that you might be so willing. However, in the spirit of the forlorn hope... some points. You're reluctant to accept one African American's word that the term "Ebonics" is offensive to many, yet you claim to know the minds of "most English speakers"... As for Wikipedia guidelines and conventions... generally it's perfectly right to use the most commonly used term for the title of an article, but it's not (as you insist) a hard and fast rule, there are many cases (and they must be judged on a case-by-case basis) in which a lesser-known alternative is better for a variety of reasons. A casual glance at the numerous articles dealing with topics in Israel, Palestine, the Occupied Territories, etc. should make that quite clear. But that's not the issue here. "Ebonics" and "AAVE" do not refer to the same thing. Some people - a tiny minority - have advocated for "Ebonics" to be regarded as the "proper" name for AAVE, but even they (as I understand it) have loaded the term with additional meanings that lie outside the bounds of linguistics. To take an even more tightly tangled knot of intertwined and dangling meanings, consider the various ways in which the term "postmodern" is used, depending on the context; thus, there is a series of articles dealing with postmodernism in literature, architecture, globalisation, critical theory, etc. In our case, we have the advantage of there being different terms for different subjects, "Ebonics", the poltical construct, and "AAVE", the dialect. Pinkville 03:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mock Ebonics" in the wake of the 1996 controversy is a topic that has been studied academically. I refer specificallty to an article, "Mock Ebonics: Linguistic racism in parodies of Ebonics on the Internet", published in August 1999 in the Journal of Sociolinguistics. The authors explain their choice of terminology, "We use the term Ebonics, which is often associated with Afrocentricity and political correctness, because both the Oakland Board of Education and the Ebonics parody pages themselves use this term." (I can e-mail this to whoever wants it.) In other words, it's a term used by one political group in promoting Afrocentricity, and by another, what the authors call the "Anti-Ebonics Ideology", in mocking it. Most linguists for most purposes will use AAVE, and most ordinary people use "Black English" or something. To most people "Ebonics" has political connotations: to a small group of Afrocentric activists (not all, certainly) positive, to many more people negative. We try to avoid terms with negative connotations in titling ethnic articles; i.e. we have Roma rather than "Gypsy".-- Pharos 03:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You state that "To most people "Ebonics" has political connotations: to a small group of Afrocentric activists (not all, certainly) positive, to many more people negative." Do you have any sources for this? That "Most people" consider "ebonics" to be a political term? Or that "many more" consider it to be negative? Moreover, Would you consider "Black English" to be a better substitute to rename this article to? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the source I gave above, the authors specifically felt they had to justify using the politicized term "Ebonics", because of its usage in the controversy. Obviously Afrocentrists are in the minority (probably even of African Americans), and the usage outside of that context, as explained, is generally pejorative. I would consider "Black English" or "Black American English" to be far better names than "Ebonics", certainly, but AAVE seems to be the accepted name and our general demographic article isn't at "Black American".-- Pharos 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotations from the Dude Man: Most English speakers identify with "Ebonics" opposed to AAVE. I don't even know what "identify with" is supposed to mean here. Unless you can provide an source of "Ebonics" being a "racist" term used specifically by racists etc then I don't see how it fits the criteria as controversial. Its controversial nature is clearly and briefly explained in Green's textbook African American English and other such mainstream sources, and explained in greater length in such works by mainstream scholars as John Baugh's Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice. (Dude Man, have you yet brought yourself to crack open a single book on this subject, or are you still relying on op-ed pieces and the like?) It could also be pointed out that there is a controversy right here, for what Wikipedia squabbles are worth. Would you consider "Black English" to be a better substitute to rename this article to? Certainly not, because AAVE is quite distinct from, say, Jamaican or Trinidadian English. -- Hoary 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man has put the "Ebonics" article up for AfD. -- Hoary 04:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, You evaded what I posted. What you said was that "To most people "Ebonics" has political connotations: to a small group of Afrocentric activists (not all, certainly) positive, to many more people negative." How could the authors you posted support this assertion? Did the authors do some sort of opinion poll for the term "Ebonics" vs "AAVE"? No. You're asserting that "Ebonics" is a controversial word and has a negative meaning to most people simply because "mock ebonics" websites have popped up in the past decade. I don't see how such a conclusion can be made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

People just don't do polls on the connotations of every word in the dictionary. That's not how most scholarship works. I have quoted qualified scholars working in the field pointing out how "Ebonics" has been primarily used by Afrocentrists and Afrocentrist-mockers. That's Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is absolutely no requirement that every piece of social research has to be backed by a poll (though if we had one, that would be interesting).-- Pharos 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the fact that "Ebonics" is used by 'Afrocentrists and Afrocentrist-mockers' but the assertion that "Ebonics" is commonly understood to be a "political" word and has negative connotations to many people. This is what i'm questioning because this is what you asserted to defend this article remaining "AAVE" opposed to "Ebonics". Adhering to wikipedia naming conventions articles should be named what most english speakers identify with, not academically correct terms. The controversy exception doesn't fit here and that's what the debate is about. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in further discussion with this guy. The preponderance of opinion here (as well is in previous discussions here -- see the archive) is that the article title should remain as-is. deeceevoice 16:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's probably true, Deecee. But an edit conflict meant that I'd already written this: ¶ the assertion that "Ebonics" is commonly understood to be a "political" word and has negative connotations to many people: the evidence for this assertion is presented with considerable detail and care by John Baugh in his book Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN  0-19-512046-9 [hard], ISBN  0-19-515289-1 [paper]). As for the other things Dude Man says, they've already been addressed. ¶ I wonder whether Dude Man has yet managed to read a single intelligent book about AAVE, and if so, which. Baugh's book is slim and goes very easy on technical terms; it's quite palatable even for people who find it hard to read books. On the other hand, it's probably quite beyond those people who find it hard to read anything whatever that disagrees with what they already happen to believe. -- Hoary 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this, the conclusion is that it seems best to me to keep the article title at the current place. Quite simply, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to be based on - largely academic - reliable sources. Seeing as those reliable sources are not using the term "Ebonics", it is probably correct for this page to remain separate, as the term which those sources are using. Nothing wrong with a separate article on the history and usage of this term Ebonics, which, as google shows, is clearly notable in its own right. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the article should keep the title 'AAVE', discussion of the name 'Ebonics' might be useful as well. Hoary, I think rather than having a full article devoted to it, the term might be better explained in this article. I haven't read this book by Baugh, but if it has some information on the social/cultural uses of the term, that would be helpful. Makerowner 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Makerowner, I'm always (well, usually) happy to entertain thoughtful disagreement.

You, Pinkville, Pharos, Deeceevoice, numerous others, and I agree that African American Vernacular English is a much better title for an article on this ethnolect/sociolect/language than is Ebonics. Even those who disagree (is there more than one?) must concede that there's no consensus (even in the odd WP sense of that word) to change the title.

The question then becomes that of what to do about Ebonics. Until a few days ago I had no idea that "Ebonics" would be a worthwhile article: though I did know a more than negligible amount about AAVE (or whatever you want to call it), I knew virtually nothing about the term "Ebonics". Since Dude Man insisted on making it an issue, I decided to look it up -- and what I read surprised me. Although its main denotation (let's forget its connotations for a moment) is the same as that of AAVE, its original denotation is very different from that of AAVE. So what should one do about this? It seems an excrescence within an article on AAVE that follows the mainstream (and to me, blazingly obvious) line that AAVE is English, probably influenced to some extent by African forebears but genetically no more "African" (Niger-Congo?) than, say, Wolof is Indo-European. This is no reason to ridicule the original notion of "Ebonics", whose context (back in 1973/75, let alone 1996) was clearly that of an effort to recognize as systemic what we now call AAVE, for excellent educational purposes. If we now reconsider the connotations of "Ebonics", perhaps a discussion of the term might be put within an article on AAVE (in a section on the history of perceptions of AAVE). But even if it did indeed belong within AAVE, this would be no excuse for simplistic talk such as "AAVE and Ebonics just mean the same thing" (unsaid addition: "and I've no interest in any argument to the contrary, let alone the notion of reading up entire printed pages about the subject"). Moreover, the resulting single article on AAVE would eventually become immensely long. I'm already sure that the kerfuffle about pedagogy and the Oakland School Board (etc etc) would be better placed in some independent article rather than in the main AAVE article, and with the term "Ebonics" we have a clear opportunity to hive off content elsewhere, even if, as I doubt, this content were suitable for the AAVE article. -- Hoary 03:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would make the article rather long. You suggested earlier having 'Ebonics' disambiguate to this page and one more focussed on the social/cultural/educational issues around AAVE. That seems like a good idea (if there is enough sourced material for the second page), but I'm not sure 'Ebonics' is the best title for it. As explained above, Ebonics is not a particularly widely used term, and it is also not 'transparent' or easily understandable based on its constituent elements. Since the name is literally 'Ebony phonics', users may be confused into thinking a) that the article is primarily about phonetics/phonology and b) that this is the normal term used for this lect. While the article would surely explain otherwise, many readers will skim the article unattentively, and miss this point. Something like 'AAVE in American Society' or 'Language in African-American Culture' (ugly as those titles are) seems better to me. The section in this article on the Oakland decision could be moved there. My only concern is whether there is enough material to create a whole article on this topic without simply quoting one or two authors at length. There is a broad variety of viewpoints on the subject; hopefully enough of them have reliable sources to make the article balanced and informative. Even if there isn't enough material for this article, one dealing only with the Oakland schools decision would help shorten the article and focus it more on the language itself. My ultimate target for this article is to have something along the same lines as Scottish English, Australian English, etc., where the lect is simply described in its own right. (Let's not forget that AAVE probably has more speakers than either of those varieties!) Splitting this article into a more descriptive one and a more sociolinguistic one would help move toward that goal. (By the way, it's he). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makerowner ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

We agree a lot more than we disagree. First, yes, I agree that the article on AAVE should primarily describe it. As a description merely up to the sentence level takes up well over a hundred pages of Green's textbook (recommended!), I'm sure that, presented informatively, this would be enough for one article. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of what is already in this AAVE article should be out of it and elsewhere. But unlike you I see more than two subjects here (quite aside from "Ebonics"). Very tentatively, these are: (i) the lexicon, phonetics and grammar of AAVE; (ii) distinctive discourse features of AAVE (signifying, etc.); (iii) varieties and degree of usage of AAVE; (iv) pedagogical issues of (and panic and hysteria about) AAVE. The second and third of these are sociolinguistics, which I think I can understand but which I've never studied, and the fourth combines education, mass psychology, media studies, US politics, etc. I hope a real sociolinguist will chime in. Even if none does, just one hour from now I may have a different tentative classification: I'm just putting these up to spark intelligent discussion -- Hoary 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago, I suggested in another talk space ( Talk:African American literature, I'm thinking) an article treating the African American oral tradition -- which would include the practice of "signifying" as well as other "distinctive discourse features." It's a cultural tradition that is broader than the mere mechanics, if you will, of syntax, pronunciation, grammar, etc. deeceevoice 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea, but we should be careful in defining this, as I think we'll be setting a precedent for all other traditions (I couldn't find any other culture-specific "oral tradition" articles).-- Pharos 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't much care where others take it, and "precedent"? Hardly. The "African-American oral tradition" -- in precisely those words -- is a long-standing and well-established subject of study and scholarship. Google it, if you wish. deeceevoice 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's an important subject of study. I just meant we should think carefully about how exactly to define the topic, because articles of this type haven't been written on Wikipedia before (though they should and presumably there will be more in future). I don't have any particular ideas here, just pointing out its something new.-- Pharos 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebonics was presented as a label for AAVE to prevent black children being told their speech was "defective" and to instill pride, and to make teachers understand that the student was not simply speaking English badly. This reportedly led to efforts or plans in Oakton, CA to instruct children in Ebonics, which led to people making fun of it, with purported vocabulary lessons. I did not see reference to this backlash. Also it would be enlightening to let people hear how persons in West Africa with limited English experience pronounce English words. From George Mason University, [7] is a series of recordings and phonetic transcriptions demonstrating some of the sources of AAVE, mixed in against the speech samples from around the world. You hear West Africans say "axe" for "ask" and "wif" for with when reading a standard paragraph with agood sample of English speech sounds. It might be a good addition to the article, but it has people from around the world as well, so the listener needs to know which languages are from where. Edison 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not "Oakton" but (rather famously) Oakland, which you'll see gets a mention in the article.

AAVE now benefits from some excellent books. (I'm now reading that by Lisa Green.) If you have a good book about AAVE at hand, do please help to make this a better article. -- Hoary 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

From a purely linguistic perspective, AAVE is no "better" or "worse" than any other dialect of English. It is no less capable of conveying complex information, nor is it any independent indicator of intelligence. It is as richly complex a dialect as "Standard American" and has no deficiencies whatsoever as a means of verbal communication. And there is not a credible linguist who will tell you otherwise.

Any and all criticisms of AAVE rest squarely on dialectic bias and social assumption. The lack of AAVE use in scientific journals or major publications is more a matter of author and audience rather than the capacity of the dialect to convey the same information discussed in Nature or Scientific American. Furthermore, non-speakers of AAVE frequently have a great deal of trouble understanding it because of verb aspect difference with Standard American which precludes using it as a common medium of communication.

Overall, if this article adds any criticism of AAVE, it ought to be labeled clearly as "social criticisms" and must not be represented as linguistic criticism. UMassCowboy 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that all goes to show, mister pointy-heated east-coast university person [emoticon], that all "credible linguists" are incredible and biased. Bill Cosby (for example) just has to know much more about Ebonics than pointy-headed incredible linguists like Baugh and Rickford and Smitherman and Green, because he's black. Say what -- they're black too? Well, he's famouser than they are, and millions of US television viewers can't be wrong! -- RighteouslyIndignantEditor 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman has once again decided that he knows more about sociolinguistics and AAVE in particular than the all the other editors of this article combined and all scientific researchers in the field. The To Do List has something about showing social criticism of AAVE, citing the Undue Weight policy. I would like to quote a relevant portion of the text:

Articles...may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

The idea that AAVE is somehow deserving of criticism from a linguistic viewpoint is equivalent to the idea that the Earth is flat, from the viewpoint of scientific acceptability. Can someone please remove this so some new editor doesn't mistake it for a decision reached by a consensus of the editors of this article? Makerowner 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cosby's opinions aren't "tiny tiny minority views". His views are represented by many people. Just because you don't like those people doesn't negate their opinions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dude is half right. I can't quite figure out "represented", but Cosby's views are shared by many people, it seems. What negates their opinions is not my dislike of those people (actually I don't dislike them other than their cynical and professional mouthpieces) but the simply and clearly demonstrable ignorance of those opinions. Yes, Makerowner's main point is entirely right: The idea that AAVE is somehow deserving of criticism from a linguistic viewpoint is equivalent to the idea that the Earth is flat, from the viewpoint of scientific acceptability. -- Hoary 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You admit that many people share Cosby's viewpoints. This adheres to WP:Undue weight which clearly states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" which of course I can name. Since "many" people agree with Cosby and far from 'many' believe the earth is round, it is an absolutely pointless comparison. Your current objection to the addition of the Cosby quotes and further criticism of AAVE is thus unfounded and does not adhere to WP policy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To Wikidudeman: How 'bout you stop your tagging this and that, your filing for deletions, comments, mediation, etc. so that you and other editors can go ahead and attend to the first (and only reasonable) request you've made, which is to add and refine the citations in this article. Many fine editors have had to spend valuable time dealing with the brush fires you've set here and there while work that you and everyone else agree is necessary goes unfinished. Pinkville 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't insult my intentions or accuse me of hijacking. I'm just working to improve this article the best I can. By accusing me of intentionally hijacking this article for this reason or that reason is against wikipedia guidelines. You should assume good faith of all editors WP:AGF even if what they are doing doesn't agree with you. If you know anything about forestry then you would know that setting brush fires in an attempt to improve the forest is something that is done. See Controlled burn. The only reason I add tags and request mediations is to improve this article. If you don't want to work with me in improving this article or go through mediations to help improve this article and settle disputes then you're simply not being cooperative in improving this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just working to improve this article the best I can. Do your good intentions and considerable effort extend to reading any reputable, well-informed books on the subject, Dude Man? If so, could you specify them? If not, may I recommend choice among these? -- Hoary 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Books by whom? Linguists? I'm not making a linguistic argument here. I've already read material that is relevant to what I'm stating. BTW those books are all the same title and price at around 100$ U.S... Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a linguistics article, by the way. And an alternative to buying books would be to visit the library. Pinkville 04:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

With far reaching sociological implications and needs opposing sociological viewpoints from people like Cosby. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And the library? None nearby, perhaps? Pinkville 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a suggestion as to how you might consider directing your energies more productively. You've already started one RfM that was rejected because you failed to follow the correct procedure, and started another that is underway, you've filed a RfC, which I assume is still in effect, you've filed an AfD for the related article Ebonics, which resulted in a "Keep", and you've added a "To Do List" that implied consensus on adding "Social criticism", though no such consensus exists.. I suggest you give all that a rest and work on what we all do agree on - the need for proper citations. Other issues can be dealt with at a later date, and perhaps the process of finding and citing some authoritative sources for the article will clarify for you some of the issues discussed on this page. Pinkville 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You should pay attention more. The only reason I failed the first RFM was due to a technicality. And I never "failed" a RFC. You can't fail an RFC. A few people have already commented from my RFC including User:Itsmejudith. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You should read more carefully. I said that "you failed to follow the correct procedure", and yes, that is a technicality. I never claimed that it was more than a technicality - in fact, that was my point - so busy tagging this and that you didn't manage to follow procedure. Dig? And I said you filed - not failed - a RfC. And while I'm sure the many thoughtful readers of this page won't miss it, I'll make one more point clear for you. I said nothing of your intentions, I haven't a clue what your intentions are. I was writing of your actions/edits, which are recorded for all to see - as with mine or any other editor's. I made no suggestion of "hijacking" - only of wasting people's time. Pinkville 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse my confusion due to your use of similar words. The fact that I failed a RFM the first time is irrelevant. I learned from my mistake and now I am filing another RFM and hoping the involved participants in the dispute at least make an attempt to resolve this dispute. Proclaiming "I'm right and you're wrong" and trying to rant themselves out of the dispute with paragraphs of unrelated evasions simply won't work. A mediation might work, It's worth a try. I'm taking steps to resolve this dispute. If you think that's a waste of time then perhaps wikipedia isn't the right place for you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping I won't have to say another word on this point. I made a suggestion to you as to how you - and any other interested editors - could best use our time by going ahead right now with what we do agree on, i.e. citations. Is there anything controversial about that? I made a point of suggesting that you hold off on the other discussions until the citations were done. Again, anything problematic about that? Your actions quite clearly have not had the desired effect of helping to resolve this dispute; I was suggesting a way that might do so - if that is of real interest to you. Once more, is that obstructionist? not civil? failing to assume good faith? - or any other evil you've implied/stated I (and others) am guilty of? Pinkville 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason I can't tackle numerous problems at once. I'm not going to focus on something else which is nowhere near as major as NPOV and let the POV tone of this article continue. I'm going to do all I can to prevent it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's evidence that you can't tackle numerous problems at once. That's the significance of the RfM that was rejected on a technicality. But leaving that aside, I'm asking that you give those of us who perhaps have more difficulty than you in tackling numerous problems at once the chance to combine our efforts on one problem now and then move on to the others without those dangling citations bothering us. Again, in dealing with the citations you may see the discussions on this page in a different light - you might even find that you can argue from a better fortified position than is now the case. In the meantime, the world won't explode because your allegation of POV hasn't been addressed by a rapid deployment strike force. Pinkville 04:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my first time filing a RFM. So excuse me for not being perfect. However I am perfectly able to try to resolve the dispute over the Cosby quote and resolve the citation problems at the same time. I will continue to do so. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So, to summarise, your understanding of "collaboration" and "resolving a dispute" is that all the compromise should come from everybody else and none from you. Pinkville 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I don't think there is a real, contested issue here to warrant a NPOV discussion. Cosby might have some interesting personal opinions of AAVE, but he's a psychologist, not a sociologist. He doesn't have authority sufficient to warrant a real debate here. We've all hashed over the various "social" debates here: that it "sounds ignorant," that it isn't "widely used," et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, that doesn't address anything discussed in the article. The article is clearly a linguistic discussion, not a sociological discussion. I imagine this is because of the absolute lack of real sociological substance on this issue. The sociolinguistic implications of AAVE are documented, but I have yet to stumble across support of any sort that would constitute a need for "NPOV" balance.

I'd give up this fight. It isn't worth the energy. There isn't anything here. If you feel like you've found something credible and Wiki-worthy, post it here and we'll review.

UMassCowboy 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article actually isn't just a "linguistic discussion". If it was it wouldn't mention anything dealing with the sociological aspects of AAVE including the Oakland controversy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, you've already made it very clear that you don't know jack about linguistics. Got any evidence that you know the first thing about "the sociological aspects of AAVE"? Like, say, the title of a real book, written for adults who don't move their lips while they read? -- Hoary 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know enough about linguists. But i'm not arguing linguists and your constant bringing it up is simply a red herring. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"I know enough about linguists." That may be, but clearly not enough about linguistics.

As I wrote some time ago: "I find your assertions that AAVE is 'rudimentary' and monosyllabic hilarious. AAVE is vivid; complex; rule-driven, structurally (like other dialects); often metaphorical; powerful and creative -- precisely why so much of American English (and other languages, as well) is shot-through with our contributions, why the popularity of the African American spoken word is a worldwide phenomenon. Lotsa luck proving that ridiculous assertion." deeceevoice 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have an axe to grind, but, like most people who hold your views, you are abysmally ignorant on the subject -- as you've more than amply demonstrated on this page. Dude, I'mma pull yo' coat (yeah, that's AAVE): objective information trumps tragically ill-informed opinion any day of the week. U ain't gettin' nowhere here. deeceevoice 08:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, can you name a linguist that you know? Knowlege socially isn't the issue (indeed, I've only sat down to dinner with one linguist who has an article in en:WP, as far as I remember/know); no, it's knowledge via having read and understood a book that the linguist wrote? Or else do please explain how knowledge of linguistics (as opposed to linguists) is a red herring in a discussion of an article on a lect. And can you name a sociology book relevant to this that you've read? (Something intended for thinking adults. Publication by a university press isn't a must, but it's usually a good sign.) -- Hoary 08:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say "Linguistics" but my knowledge or lack of knowledge about linguistics is irrelevant. The debate here is about Wikipedia policy as well as the sociological aspects of Ebonics. Not linguistics. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to name a relevant sociology text that you have read, Dude Man? I hope that your knowledge of sociology is considerably greater than your knowledge of linguistics. Before saying that the latter was irrelevant, you wrote "I know enough about [linguistics]"; please note that (a) thinking one knows enough about a subject and (b) actually knowing enough about a subject are very different. -- Hoary 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How does which Sociology books I've read have any relevance at all to this debate? I think it's about time you stop attacking me and my supposed knowledge or lack thereof and stick to the issues. The issue here is the addition of the Cosby quote to the article. This is indeed a sociological topic but my knowledge or lack of knowledge of sociology is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the issue at hand. Which you seem to want to continue to evade, Which is evident from the fact you still refuse to mediate. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one who has been arguing for inclusion of the Cosby quote. What makes you qualified above seven+ other editors? If you say "nothing", then I can tell you what qualifies at least some of us above you: we know a significant deal more about the subject (including the sociological aspects) than you do.

Disagree? Prove me wrong. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't bother with ad hominems or appeals to authority or popularity for that matter. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it doesn't matter how many people hold 1 belief, that doesn't make it true. I won't move from the subject at hand either and get into some 'pissing contest' with people who avoid the issues. If you think you know more about linguistics or sociology than I do, that does not matter. It's irrelevant. Stick to the issue here. The issue is the addition of social criticism of Ebonics. That's all. Nothing more. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right: Wikipedia is not a democracy. So you've got a group of editors who disagree with you and know more about the subject than you; how are you going to convince all of them? And, once you get the Cosby quote in there, who else would you quote/cite. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that you know more about linguistics and sociology and science and rollercoasters and the number of hairs on the back of the head of Al Gore than I do. What relevance is this to the addition of the Cosby quotes to this article? I've already tried convincing those specific people of why some criticism of aave should be in the article, They ignore my criticism and evade my points. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a very simple question and for someone who constantly accuses others of evading questions (see above and below), you are awfully guilty of it yourself. I'll ask it in small short words and bold it: After Cosby, who else? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So what matters isn't expertise, argument, evidence, linguistics, sociology or even urine. Is it perhaps truthiness, Dude Man? You want "social criticism of Ebonics"? There are several books about this bizarre phenomenon. Among them, I can recommend John Baugh's Beyond Ebonics. (The others may be good too; I haven't seen him.) But Baugh is neither ignorant nor a household name. Does that disqualify him? -- Hoary 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion for putting criticism of the use of ebonics in this article what does not matter is purported "expertise" from individual posters, 'linguistics' since it isn't a linguistic argument, or random knowledge of sociology. Argument and evidence matter, But evasive arguments and unrelated evidence? I'm afraid not. Does this "John Baugh's" book have criticism of the use of ebonics? I don't have time to read it myself since I have numerous other more important books to read but if it does criticize the use of ebonics as you claim then how about you put it in your own words and PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to read it myself since I have numerous other more important books to read: Then do devote your valuable time to those books, Dude Man. (What books might they be?) -- Hoary 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will devote my time to adding neutrality to this article and reading whatever books I choose to read. However,What specific books I'm reading is something that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. And you're evading my post again. Does this "John Baugh's" book have criticism of the use of ebonics? I don't have time to read it myself since I have numerous other more important books to read but if it does criticize the use of ebonics as you claim then why don't you put it in your own words and PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable question, Dude Man. Actually the book, being a sensible book by a knowledgable person (rather than a trashy screed by for example a racist blowhard) does not criticize the use of AAVE. It does include criticism. I might use it. I do not rush to use it and write up this stuff because I find it much less important and interesting than the nature of AAVE itself, because I find the material depressing (as does Baugh), because writing it up in a fair, intelligent and of course plagiarism-free way demands sustained concentration, and because I have no appetite whatever for writing up anything that seems likely to invite immediate "improvements" by at least one person who seems more dangerously uninformed than I am (I have never studied sociolinguistics and it's a long time since I studied sociology, but I am at least aware that these are drawbacks). Once this talk page has reverted to being a place for a dispassionate discussion of how best to write up AAVE, then I shall consider making major changes to this part of the article. -- Hoary 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Calling all of my sources "racist blowhards" really says a lot towards your biases. Secondly, You're assuming that all of the readers have your tastes and presumptions. Just because you think the people who criticize ebonics are "racist blowhards" and don't believe they should be included in the article can't be used as an argument against their inclusion. So far you haven't prevented a SINGLE good reason against their inclusion that agrees with wikipedia policy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your saying that I called all of your sources racist blowhards merely indicates how poor you are at reading straightforward (and standard) English, Dude Man. -- Hoary 07:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ƶ§œš¹. After Cosby, Who else? Well firstly Cosby is enough. Secondly, When I added the Cosby piece I had another article which quoted Lee H. Walker criticizing the use of Ebonics. Thirdly, I could easily add other criticisms including Alberto Manguel, Raymond Govero or C. Mason Weaver. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already mentioned that Walker doesn't show that he knows what he is talking about regarding the Oakland affair (he erroneously states that they proposed that Ebonics would be taught). After googling the other three gentlemen, I couldn't find much on C. Mason Weaver and I doubt Alberto Manguel (an Argentinian translator) is qualified enough on the issue. Raymond Govero is a maybe. He demonstrates here knowledge of the issues regarding the Oakland decision. Did you have specific books in mind for these three? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again...You saying who is or isn't qualified to comment on the issue as some excuse as to why their criticism can't be mention in the article. That's not how "due weight" works on wikipedia. Just because you think someone who criticizes Ebonics isn't "qualified" enough for your taste really isn't an argument for their opinion not being presented in the article. It meets the criteria for being included. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear. Yes, I was stating my opinion (which, btw, is based on five minutes of googling) but notice that I was asking for the book titles that those three gentlemen have put their comments in. Work with me here. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, perhaps you've failed to notice that there's someone trying to work with you here. Can you please tell me if you had specific books in mind for the three gentlemen you cited above and what they were if you did? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone recently edited the section on negation to indicate that "ain't" can be used where GAm has "will not". I'm not sure if that is correct. I am not a native speaker of AAVE, but to me, "I will not (won't) go home," and "I ain't go home," are not equivalent. Can anyone either provide a source documenting this use or remove this from the article. Makerowner 14:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that edit and let it slide because I know that one can use ain't to indicate a future negation but then your comment made me think about it and I realized that it would only be in cases like "I ain't gonna" so I've removed it. The anon editor who put it in could have made the same mistake I did. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this page is the correct place to discuss issues directly arising from the article itself; judging from the discussions above this is actually the place to set one's bugbears loose on anyone who might do so. ;~) Pinkville 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As AAVE is clearly related to Southern English, I am wondering about the speech of historically Northern African American communities. To what extent has this been studied, how different was it from AAVE, and does it still exist anywhere?-- Pharos 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading about this today. According to the author (whose name I can't remember) the pre-Migration Black communities in the North spoke basically the same way as their White neighbours. Of course, it would be very difficult to tell because the vast majority of northern Blacks moved from the south around WWI, and there were few if any studies on AAVE before the Migration. There does seem to be a difference between modern northern AAVE and southern AAVE, but it is also based on the urban-rural differences as well (Blacks in the South are largely rural; in the North, urban). These differences are also diminishing over time, with city-centred features spreading to the surrounding countryside. I'll see if I can find the author's name for you. Makerowner 01:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some parts of the North had surprisingly large African American populations in the time of slavery– Kings County, New York was I think 1/3 African American in 1790. I would be surprised if their speech was completely assimilated at such an early period.-- Pharos 04:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the only source I've seen that claimed complete assimilation of northern Black speech, but it would make more sense linguistically. Even in areas of high Black population, the social dynamics were different in the North. Blacks in the North were often personal servants and were therefore in close contact with Whites; they were also in the minority in all their areas. In the South, large groups of Blacks lived together with little interaction with Whites (depending on the exact location). The southern Black population was augmented by importations from Africa and the Carribean, meaning that there was greater possibility of first-language interference in English learning. These processes were strongest in the South Carolina area where rice became one of the biggest crops, and Gullah developed as a result. I don't have any hard sources to back it up, but it makes sense that divergence from standard American English would have a correlation with African and Carribean (ie. Creole-speaking) influence and a negative correlation with White English influence. Gullah was most isolated, and diverged the most; AAVE speakers had much more contact and diverged much less; northern Blacks probably would have had more contact with Whites than other Blacks and would have diverged the least. This is all conjecture based on some of the historical settlement patterns, so I could very well be wrong. Makerowner 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. Jimbo Wales himself has stated...

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Prominent adherents is something I can easily name. Not only that but the source I mention in no way go against WP:VERIFY. So far the ONLY arguments that have been brought up are evasive criticisms of the sources themsleves not their verifiability which is a big difference. Their criticism of the "factuality" of the opinions of Ebonics or the authority of those who hold them may be justified but their refusal to add them into the article is not. Wikipedia clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V Their criticism does not coincide with wikipedia policy and they have no justification for their refusal to add criticism of Ebonics into the article. Right now I won't waste my time arguing back and forth in circles with those specific editors who believe this article deserves absolutely no mention of the pound cake day speech or any other criticism of AAVE. I will wait for the mediate process to go through before I make any more efforts with this matter. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I already argued that Cosby is not a verifiable source since he does not back up his statements with data. Also, he is not a Reliable published source. I should also point out that Cosby criticised exclusive AAVE usage, a distinction that I hope you realize since most AAVE speakers are bidialectal. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the mediation has been accepted I will comment on this. Nowhere in WP:VERIFY does it say that your source must 'back up their data'. Not only that but the source in question should not be Cosby himself. Bill Cosby is not my source. Cosby said what he said and no one questions that. The source in question if you are even questioning the source should be americanrhetoric.com which is where I quoted the speech from. The speech happened and americanrhetoric.com does qualify as a reliable published source. Criticism of the use of AAVE should not be presented in the article as if it's right or wrong. It should simply be presented as existing since it fits the criteria of WP:Undue weight. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the main policies of wikipedia is to let the facts speak for themselves. This means presenting all of the relevant facts in an article. It is a fact that Bill Cosby and others have criticized the use of Ebonics. No one questions this fact. This fact is very relevant and therefore must be presented in the article. In order to maintain neutrality. It does not matter if you think what Cosby said is 'wrong' or inaccurate. He said it and many others agree including myself. Adhering to WP:Undue weight it should be presented in a neutral tone as a fact that occurred. Nothing more. Since wikipedia says to let the facts speak for themselves we can allow the readers to judge whether Ebonics is indeed 'bad' to speak or not. However refusing to provide any mention of any criticism of the use of ebonics in any sort of a neutral tone is simply in violation of WP:NPOV Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dude Man, it is a fact that ignoramuses such as Cosby have criticized the use of Ebonics. It's also a fact that well-intentioned people have done so; if you read a book about the issue you might find some. Cosby is not a significant commentator on AAVE as what he says is self-contradictory, blatantly ignorant, or asinine. Arguably there's a certain significance in the fact that people such as him can talk such tripe and not be met by instant ridicule, and it may well be that of demonstrating how little many people know about language (which is not troubling) and how much they think they know (which, to me, is). Any chance that you could read this piece by Geoff Pullum? -- Hoary 07:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that such a criticism exists and is well-documented does not automatically make it relevant. Actor David Duchovny is well documented in having criticized the weather in Vancouver while filming the X-Files there; does this mean that the article on Vancouver should include a section called "Social Criticisms of Vancouver". Bill Cosby is no more qualified to make this analysis of AAVE than David Duchovny is of Vancouver. As far as I can tell for Wikidudeman's posts, his sole qualification is being a "Black professional". Makerowner 17:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not linking to WP:VERIFY. Check out WP:RS and tell me where you think Cosby fits the criterion of a reputable source. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cosby isn't the source. americanrhetoric.com is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you right now, putting all your eggs on just one source that is basically a candid speech will not get you nearly as far as multiple sources that have been published. Are you sure you don't want to elaborate on Manguel, Govero, and Weaver? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MakeRowner,It's relevant because of the media attention it received. There is an article on the poundcake speech. There is no article on Duchonvy's criticism of Vancouver weather. If what Cosby said is relevant enough to have it's own wikipedia article [ [8]] then it's relevant enough to be mentioned in this article which is on the subject. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man: If what Cosby said is relevant enough to have it's [sic] own wikipedia article -- "Relevant" to what? Cosby's rant was sufficiently newsworthy (perhaps for its sheer bizarreness), or Cosby was of enough interest to some WP editors, for that rant to get its own article. The existence of that article says nothing about the importance of his rant to the matter of AAVE. -- Hoary 03:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It mentions ebonics frequently. It was newsworthy. It has it's own wikipedia article. Therefore it's relevant to this article on ebonics. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude Man, in case you haven't realized, this article is titled "AAVE". But yes, Cosby's rant is relevant to AAVE (or, if you must, to Ebonics). So what? The straight-to-video nutball concoction The Clinton Chronicles verifiably exists, was written up in the New York Times and thus was verifiably newsworthy, has its own WP article, and is verifiably relevant to Bill Clinton. Yet it doesn't rate a mention, let alone a paragraph, in the Bill Clinton article. Should it? -- Hoary 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "Clinton Chronicles" is on the same level of notability as the Pound Cake speech nor am I certain of whether comparing that to the Clinton article is fair either. The Clinton article is so large and contains so many offshoots that it's relevance to that article is really tiny compared to other controversies mentioned in that article which bring up basically the same stuff. You need to look at the notability of Bill Clinton compared to the notability of the "Clinton Chronicles" and the disparity is huge while the notability of AAVE compaired to Bill Cosby's criticism of AAVE is nowhere near the same. A simple google news search will show the disparity of notability [ [9]] 18,106 results for "Bill Clinton" 0 for "Clinton Chronicles" while there are 0 results for "African American Vernacular English" and 1 result for "Pound Cake speech". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We may be starting to get somewhere, Dude Man, in that you're starting to use your noddle. It's not transparently daft to argue that an analogy is inappropriate. The problem is your use of the newsworthiness metric. The fact is that AAVE is a dialect (or lect, or sociolect, or ethnolect, or conceivably even a language). Dialects (and languages) do change over time, whence the field of historical linguistics. But they change awfully slowly by news standards, and certainly no change presents as dramatic, quotable or potentially telegenic image as Bill Cosby publicly demonstrating that he's ignorant, that he's lost his marbles, that he got carried away with himself, or that he'll say anything for a cheap laugh. AAVE is no more newsworthy in itself than is the dialect that you or I happen to speak, and a news search engine is as odd a place to find out about AAVE as it is to find out about most other aspects of language, aspect itself being pretty typical. The place where we adults read up out about languages is books. I happen to have four relevant books with me, but as it happens none was published after Cosby's outburst so I can't directly compare the authors' coverage of Cosby with their coverage of AAVE as a whole. Can you name a "post-Pound-Cake" book on the subject? Even if nobody can locate a copy, Amazon's search facility may let us see how much space within it is allotted to Cosby. -- Hoary 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I got out of your post relevant to mine is the assertion that somehow Cosby's speech does not matter since it isn't book. However wikipedia often cites speeches and news articles and the like, This is nothing new. Cosby's speech would thus qualify. If you want me to address any other points you might of made then sum them up for me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point out another part of Wikipedia where a speech is cited in regards to a language/dialect/register? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can point out numerous cases where speeches are mentioned and referenced. Not sure about "language/dialect/register" though but I don't see how that matters. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I've got it: You can't and won't read. I'd thought that as somebody who perceives a lack of education and a "rudimentary" language in millions of your fellow-humans, you'd pride yourself on your ability to read or at least on your willingness to have a bash at this commonplace skill. But I was wrong, and thus amicable invitations to read even such short and easily digested pieces as Geoff Pullum's little essay on hypocrisy and ignorance in language sermonizing would thus be lost on you. -- Hoary 07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More personal insults and evasions of my post. I read that post you made but I only addressed what was directly relevant to my post. Let me say it again... If you want me to address any other points you might of made then briefly sum them up for me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so that it doesn't get lost to evasions like so much of what I have said in the past has, I will restate your points and my rebuttals...

• You claimed that Cosby's speech IS relevant to AAVE but it should not be presented in the article anyway because a video called "Clinton Chronicles" isn't mentioned in the Clinton article.
• My rebuttal was that they are hardly comparable. The disparity of notability between Clinton and the "Clinton Chronicles" is evident from the fact that there are 18,106 results for "Bill Clinton" 0 for "Clinton Chronicles" while there are 0 results for "African American Vernacular English" and 1 result for "Pound Cake speech" Meaning that the comparison simply doesn't work.
• Your response was basically an evasion that didn't address my prior post and my response was all that I could get from your post to address. I asked you to Sum up anything else that I couldn't comprehend to actually address.
• Your abusive response was to say that I can't read.

As of yet no one has given a viable explanation for why criticism of aave and the Pound Cake speech can't be mentioned. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Dude Man, no one has given an explanation that you have bothered to read and consider. ¶ On to your points: You claimed that Cosby's speech IS relevant to AAVE but it should not be presented in the article anyway because a video called "Clinton Chronicles" isn't mentioned in the Clinton article. Wrong. I presented that as a thought-provoking part-analogy. ¶ My rebuttal was that they are hardly comparable. The disparity of notability between Clinton and the "Clinton Chronicles" is evident from the fact that there are 18,106 results for "Bill Clinton" 0 for "Clinton Chronicles" while there are 0 results for "African American Vernacular English" and 1 result for "Pound Cake speech" Meaning that the comparison simply doesn't work. As I said, you're comparing newsworthiness, but language is not intrinsically newsworthy. ¶ Your response was basically an evasion that didn't address my prior post and my response was all that I could get from your post to address. So you couldn't read it. ¶ I asked you to Sum up anything else that I couldn't comprehend to actually address. I was writing that, but there was an edit conflict. ¶ Your abusive response was to say that I can't read. You may regard it as abusive; I regard it as a simple inference. ("You can't and won't read" is shorthand for "It appears that you can't and won't read and digest anything longer than a couple of sentences that disagree with your fixed beliefs.") This is something I've thought for several days, but I have until now tried hard to avoid saying this obvious truth. ¶ What are the points I want to put across? They're simple. Go away. Read some books. At least start to become the "automath" that you claim to be. The first twenty pages of any of dozens of good books about language will tell you that you are worse than completely uninformed about this subject, you are grievously misinformed about it. A very easily digestible book about language is Bauer, Homes and Warren's Language Matters. Though temporarily out of print in the US, it should be obtainable via a library. You'll find a detailed description and short review (though one aimed at teachers rather than likely readers) of the book here. When you've become a genuine automath on these matters, come back and edit! -- Hoary 07:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Done for now...

I addressed Hoary's above comment but I accidentally X'd out of my browser before posting it so it all got erased. It doesn't matter anyway because not much of he said addressed my actual points anyway. However, I talked to a member of the mediation committee and apparently our case might not actually go through mediation for a few more weeks even though the committee accepted it, no member of the committee has yet decided to accept it as mediator. Therefore I am going to wait until the case starts going through with mediation before I spend anymore time arguing it. I will however state my final points which have not been addressed as of yet. Wikipedia clearly states that articles should not have "Undueweight" towards one specific POV and should present ALL POV's equal. The only exception is if one POV is supported by such a tiny minority of people that it does not warrant inclusion I.E. people who believe in a flat earth represent such a tiny minority their views would not be represented in the "Earth" article. However people who are critical of Ebonics like Cosby and other authors I've mentioned do not represent such a small minority and warrant inclusion in this article. If this article mentions ANYTHING about the sociological aspects of Ebonics then it must mention those who criticize it. So far the ONLY arguments that have been brought up are evasive criticisms of the sources themselves not their verifiability which is a big difference. Their criticism of the "factuality" of the opinions of Ebonics or the authority of those who hold them may be justified but their refusal to add them into the article is not. Wikipedia clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." WP:V Their criticism does not coincide with wikipedia policy and they have no justification for their refusal to add criticism of Ebonics into the article. Criticizing Cosby himself and throwing insults at him really has nothing to do with his speech being mentioned in the article. I will say it again Bill Cosby is not my source. Cosby said what he said and no one questions that. The source in question if you are even questioning the source should be americanrhetoric.com which is where I quoted the speech from. The speech happened and americanrhetoric.com does qualify as a reliable published source. Criticism of the use of AAVE should not be presented in the article as if it's right or wrong. It should simply be presented as existing since it fits the criteria of WP:Undue weight. Since I spoke with the person who accepted this case on behalf of the mediation committee he has informed me that it could be a while before any committee member accepts this case to actually mediate it. So until then I will go back to what I said earlier...I won't spend my time arguing back and forth in circles with those specific editors who believe this article deserves absolutely no mention of the pound cake day speech or any other criticism of AAVE. I will wait for the mediate process to go through before I make any more efforts with this matter. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This image of the United States filled with the Pan African Flag is used very liberally.

African Americans do not accept this flag as representing them. Why must African Americans be seperated from all other Americans?

It seems that this is a politically charged image to use, and by using it, we are advocating that African Americans accept a seperate nationhood to that of the United States.

I hope we will stop using this image and include African Americans with all Americans.

80.229.242.179 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)