Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics

Please stop adding requests about things like language policy and certain usage of language to this page. This is intended for articles about language or linguistics, not about conflicts in how to apply terms to articles about completely unrelated topics. The Terminator cyborg/android espcially is a dispute over the meaning of a term in an article about the fictional characters, not about linguistics. As far as I know it's already listed where it belongs: in "Media, art and literature".

Peter ^Isotalo 07:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I find the rationale for inclusion of RfCs for this topic dubious and unclear. The particular issue of note (among others) is the definition of the portmanteau cyborg, with various possible meanings cited and inferred. The RfC was also included in multiple topics due to the wide-ranging topics this touches on (technology, biology, linguistics) and to garner diverse input from Wikipedians of various 'stripes'. If this RfC doesn't belong here, it is unclear what does (given its currently spartan population and subsequently added proviso).

Moreover, what is your authority, Peter, regarding maintenance of this RfC? If you cannot answer this satisfactorily, I will restore the RfC here. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My authority is that I'm a Wikipedian just like you and that I'm a very avid wikilinguist. You're probably familiar with the idea that anyone may edit Wikipedia without prior authorization, so please don't be unreasonable and demand permission to this and that. That includes putting putting things back if you insist on it. I'm not planning on having a revert war.

The reason I removed it is because RfCs are divvied up according to article topic. This issue is a hairsplitter of a dispute which concerns itself with the notion of imaginary, artifically constructed automatons and how close their symbiosis with organic matter must be in order to call them "cyborgs". I.e. robotics or sci-ficruft. The connection relates to semantics about as much as any other "what should this list include"-debate, and the relation to language (as an article topic) is literally none.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and confirmation. I do insist: I too desire compromise and am similarly empowered to edit on Wp as you (and neither of us, thus, require permission), but a substantial debate has arisen regarding not only semantics and what-list-or-not but the relevant definitions – loose and strict – regarding the portmanteau "cyborg", which has fictional and non-fictional implications and meanings (e.g., as with an artificial heart, contact lenses, or prosthetics). Similarly, this touches on numerous topics (given the nature of the word) of real import, and I seek diverse input from appropriate constituencies to arrive at or identify a Wikipedian consensus. I, too, am an avid linguist, and what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander (in many things). On this basis, and it's not an unreasonable one, I will restore the RfC here. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 18:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've briefly skimmed through parts of the relevant discussion, and it frankly seems quite non-sensical and overly verbose to me. And, like any other "what does this term include"-debate, it still has nothing to do with either language or linguistics as article topics. Not even remotely. I don't appreciate that you're so eager to trumpet such a minute issue in so many forums. You should show more deference to the community.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lengthy text was and is necessary since the proponent of the argument has not cited anything directly substantiating his claim. And I believe it has everything to do with linguistics. I defer when appropriate. And, frankly, I'm unconcerned with what you appreciate.

And as for what you should show: more tact in your commentary and respect to other Wikipedians before diminishing an issue or removing things based on your opinion. And that is that. E Pluribus Anthony 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Plese help here. Thanx --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)