Talk:Explanatory combinatorial dictionary

Tags

I've been thinking about these tags and I have to say I am perplexed. The complaints are

1) the article relies on primary sources rather than third-party sources: this article is a description of a type of dictionary. This type of dictionary was developed principally by Igor Mel'cuk, and the article draws primarily on his work to describe the artifact he developed. Saying this is a fault is rather like criticizing an article about Syntactic Structures that cites a lot of Chomsky.

2) the article may be been written by someone close to the source: I don't see how this is at all relevant if the information contained is factually correct. This is an article about an academic topic, not a controversial or political issue, and it really isn't subject to much spin. I can see why we don't want articles about Sarah Palin written by people from the Tea Party, but there really isn't anything here to whitewash or distort. In fact, we want technical articles to be written by experts, and the experts in most cases are people "close" to the sources. In the interest of full disclosure, I know Mel'cuk and many of the people he collaborates with, and I have collaborated with him from time to time in the past (though not on lexicography or anything at all related to this article). But this should have no bearing on the article, which has to be judged on its own merits.

3) the article reads like a personal essay:??? sorry, that one makes no sense to me. The article is a description of a particular kind of technical dictionary and follows a standard expository pattern in technical writing, beginning with establishing its subject matter, then breaking it down into its component pieces, and finally giving an example to illustrate. I can't think of a better way to present this kind of material

4) the subject is not notable: I'm not sure what this objection is based on. The ECD is part of the field of lexicography and is recognized by people in that field. It is in use by a large and growing group of lexicographers and computer scientists, primarily but not exclusively in Russia and Europe. It is also part of a larger linguistic theory called Meaning-Text Theory which holds biannual conferences that attract over 100 participants, has been the subject of number of books and anthologies (NOT all by Mel'cuk), including a book series published by John Benjamins, and which is of interest to linguists all over the world. The references given in the article show that ECDs by various people have been published by reputable publishers, and the acdemic references show that articles about the ECD and related subjects are published in respected journals.

5) the article presents too much detail: well, maybe, in the sense that most readers won't read the entire sample lexical entry from start to finish. But some might, and each part of it illustrates something mentioned in the (very brief) description above. If Wikipedia is running out of server space and needs the 100 Kb or so that would be saved by cutting out the example, then I suppose it could be cut. But I should point out that the primary sources for this are not the easiest things to get, so having them available here will be useful to those do are interested in this type of lexicography.

Can we please remove these tags? Davidjamesbeck (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been about a month with no objections, so the tags have been removed. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reinstated the primary sources tag. This is a point that often trips up academics when they first contribute to Wikipedia. In a traditional encyclopaedia, relying on primary sources would be absolutely fine, and indeed expected. The need for secondary sources is something peculiar to Wikipedia - because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, there needs to be some way to make sure that editors don't just make stuff up. This way is the verifiability policy, which states that everything has to be cited to a reliable source. Closely related to this is the no original research policy, which contains an interesting clarification about original synthesis of sources, and how it is not allowed. If we cite no secondary sources in an article, and rely only on primary sources, then any way that we relate those primary sources to each other will be our own opinion. It may be right, and it may be obvious to anyone in the field, but there is no way for anyone else to verify that it is correct unless the way we relate the primary sources to each other can be cited to a reliable secondary source. If you want to see the relevant policy here, it is located at WP:PRIMARY. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see the rationale for certain kinds of materials, but finding secondary sources for this is a bit difficult, since most of the people who write ABOUT these dictionaries also WRITE them (the first item in the reference list, for instance, is an article by Me'lcuk about this kind of lexicon, not a lexicon itself). The source you provide below is helpful, though. I think that most of what this article says falls under the provision for descriptive primary sources (the indented paragraph under primary sources in the link you provided). The intention here is just to describe what these things are and how they are supposed to be built—and anyone interested enough to track the primary sources down should be able to verify anything that is said in the article (which I will try to make more accessible).Davidjamesbeck (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Badly written

The article is very problematic so I just restored the tags (you didn't give an edit summary, but having read the above maybe I'll tweak it a bit). It's far too detailed - I'm a linguist with a degree in said field but the whole thing is very confusingly written - almost to the point of it being worth deleting 95% and starting again. I'm sure you wouldn't want that though. Anyway, it has to be rewritten for non-specialists to be able to understand it. Finally, I'm highly suspicious of the title - can you show a reference that shows a native English speaker using this phrase in a reliable source? It sounds like a direct translation from another language.

Oh, also it started with "A Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary" :) Don't we say "an" before vowels? Malick78 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Russian version of this page is much better. It's short! Not much info, but it gives a better idea of what such a dictionary is about. Btw, does such a dictionary exist in English? This would be of interest in the English WP surely.Malick78 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No consensus

I have to admit I'm a bit put out by this. I tried to start a discussion and instead I find that rather than addressing any of the points I raised, you (Malick78) simply deleted the portions of the article you objected to (and that section was a lot of work on my part). You personally may find the article confusingly written, and I'm willing to clean it up or work with someone to make it clearer; however, it is a technical article on a technical topic and isn't any more opaque than dozens of other Wikipedia articles. I also have a degree (more than one) in Linguistics, and I could also say that I "don't understand" a lot of WP articles on the topic, at least in the rhetorical sense I assume is implied above. I don't react to these articles by deleting large portions of them (however great the temptation), nor do I respond to their authors with snide comments about typos or implications that they are non-native or incompetent speakers of English. I also don't presume, just because I personally have not heard of a particular topic, author, approach, or methodology, that it is not of value or interest to the discipline, or others on Wikipedia interested in the discipline. The suspicions you express about the title are unfounded, and could be alleviated simply by consulting one of the cited English-language references (all of which are reliable). "Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary" is a direct translation from another language, but that is what is used in English academia. An idea doesn't have to be expressed elegantly in English to be valid.

• There is no English ECD, which is one of the rationales I had for including the detailed example. The fact that one doesn't exist for English doesn't mean that the English WP wouldn't be interested--in fact, a good description of the ECD might lead someone to create one.

Davidjamesbeck (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The lack of one in English should really be mentioned. The fact that other articles on WP are equally difficult to understand is no defence to this being so opaque. This issue was in fact significantly improved by the cull - in my opinion. I realise lots of work went into it - but the work was to no avail since it was impossible for the average user to make head or tail of. I suggest rewriting it in simpler English. I'll comment more after new year. Malick78 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Term "Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary"

The statement "The term "Explanatory Combinatorial Dictionary" is not widely used in English and is a direct translation from Russian and French." is one part factually incorrect, one part irrelevant. It is the term used in every English-language source that refers to this type of lexicon (see the references provided for this article, as well as any number of additional references that I can provide on request). I suppose it is true that the term is a translation from Russian, but that is hardly relevant or interesting. Unless I have simply been unlucky or unobservant, I have not noticed similar statements on other Wikipedia pages in English (or Spanish) dealing with calqued or translated terminology, and I don't see the point of mentioning this, other than perhaps as a snide way of pointing out that it is not the most elegant English turn of phrase. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• On the other hand, WP isn't here to promote neologisms derived from inelegant calques. That was the impression I got when I first found this article. (PS, since you are obviously the editor most devoted to this page, could you simplify the rest of the article, please? The intro is now acceptable, but the rest of the page is overcomplicated. I fear if I do it you'll be upset at what I cut. Thanks.)Malick78 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If your response to this article has been based on lack of familiarity with the topic rather than any particular knowledge of the subject matter, then you might want to consider refraining from any further editing at all, or at least restricting yourself to doing things that are helpful such as clarifying (or requesting clarification on) things you find confusing in the article. Threats of further destructive editing are not helpful, and not in the spirit of WP. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If "destructive" editing is deleting incomprehensible text, then that is exactly the spirit of WP. I don't have the time to dissect this page in detail, but really - it's far too difficult to understand. And I'm a linguist. You however, do not WP:OWN the page - so don't assume that others can't edit here, or that they don't understand and that it's their fault. It's a confusing and badly written article (and don't assume readers should be familiar with a topic. The point of WP is to explain new things to people who knew little before of the subject. It's not for experts). Sorry. Malick78 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I want to WP:OWN this article—in fact, I would be very grateful for some actual help with it, for example, along the lines of Rimbawan's edits a while back. This seems more in line with what I thought WP was about (viz WP:CONSENSUS), which is not unilateral deletion of material that is hard to understand or somehow distasteful to individual editors, but rather collaborative improvement of material (see, for instance, the text of the tag now at the top of the page: "Please help improve this article to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details"). I will be working on this page over the next little while. And statements of the form "If you don't do X, I will do Y (which you won't like) are threats, by definition. I am trying to assume WP:GOODFAITH here, but the tone of the comments being left on this page and the failure to actually engage in discussion is making it hard. Let's back this down a bit, shall we?Davidjamesbeck (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is far too hard to understand for a lay reader. What we should be aiming at is something more like the introduction given in this book. There's no need to present every last technical detail - that's what specialist books and journals are for. If we can give an introduction to the subject that Joe Bloggs down the street can understand, and still keep the article useful for people who know their linguistics, then we will have done our job well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)