Talk:Global Language Monitor

Article tags

I think the article asserts notability but is still reads like a promotional, article could also benefit by explaining the origins, staff and recent developments (the book). Benjiboi 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated tag for tone instead. Benjiboi 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This article repeats the unsubstantiated claims of the organization, which have been widely disputed and dismissed by serious linguists and lexicographers. Passages detailing these criticisms are promptly deleted by the creators. It is garbage, an insult to the Wikipedia project, and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellencwaine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the Global Language Monitor's Research page. It appears that the organization's research is taken quite seriously by many in the academic community, since citations include: International Journal of Web Information Systems, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Pattern Recognition Letters, Computer and Information Technology, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, the Societa Dante Alighieri, and many others.

No, it appears that several authors with no linguistic credentials have been gulled into uncritically accepting the GLM's claims, on the assumption they were being offered by an honest research organization.

Re: the 'garbage' statement above, it appears that matters of dispute need not descend to the name-calling level.

I withdraw "garbage." Try "lies."

I found this in a recent article about the controversy:  "Prescriptivists” believe in rules and dictionaries. Then there are those who, like Payack, are “descriptivists,” embrace this constant evolution of English. Theirs is a struggle of geeks, described by author David Foster Wallace as “the seamy underbelly of US lexicography [of] ideological strife and controversy and intrigue and nastiness and fervor.”   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.246.31 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 

The NY Post quote is irrelevant to this article. Virtually all academic linguists and lexicographers are descriptivists of some flavour, so prescriptivism vs descriptivism is not an issue here. The controversy is about what other descriptivists think of GLM's assumptions and research methodologies. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is now up to date, as far as I can tell.

The tag from 2007 on advertising/promotion should be removed, since no company's advertisement would ever carry so many well documented criticisms, IMHO. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.20.66 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There are other aspects to consider than presence of criticism. For instance, is it promotional by excessive detail? By use of material that comes from the company's own sources rather than secondary ones? By use of promotional language? For instance, "coming of age of English as the first, true global language" is not a neutral description of the media coverage; it's the MLM soundbite they quoted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the coming of age language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.22.174 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Re this edit, I reverted it because it introduced into a list some words that were not on the list at the source cited, thus misrepresenting the source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating listing as requested

Updated WOTY (which was not updated since 2008), and Other Lists, adding the first three terms high tech buzzwords. top colleges, and fashion capitals.

Also arranged sections chronologically, since some info still needs to be updated.