Talk:Integrational linguistics

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved, as outlined in my third comment above. Closing remarks below. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Integrational linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb) → Integrational linguistics (IL)

– The article "Integrational linguistics (IL)," about the approach based on Hans-Heinrich Lieb's work, was created recently. The article mentioned and linked to Integrational linguistics, which is about the separate approach of the same name developed by Roy Harris. Going through the new pages backlog, I found "Integrational linguistics (IL)" and decided to move it to "Integrational linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb)," as I thought "(IL)" was not very clear. I decided to leave the Harris article's title alone, even though the Lieb article claims Lieb's technique was developed first, because the Harris article has been on Wikipedia longer and is larger than the Lieb article (implying, it seemed to me, more interest/use/importance of that approach). Mo Tat 2013 opposes that change, and requests that the page be moved back to "(IL)." Thoughts? I apologize if I shouldn't have gone ahead with the move. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 22:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are my reasons for requesting that the article should not be moved from "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" to "Integrational Linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb"):

1. The official name of this linguistic approach is "Integrational Linguistics". For reasons of disambiguation, "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" may also be used. See, for example:

Brown, Keith (ed.-in-chief). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier. Vol.5,

where Integrational Linguistics (Lieb) has the encyclopedic entry "Integrational Linguistics (IL)", and the approach going back to Roy Harris runs as "Integrationism".

2. Roy Harris started using the name several years after it had been in use (also in publications) for the approach initiated by Hans-Heinrich Lieb. Hence, it would be more correct to move the article on Harris' approach either to "Integrationism" or to "Integrational Linguistics (Roy Harris)".

3. "Integrational Linguistics" (or "Integrational Linguistics (IL)") has been developed by many people of which Hans-Heinrich Lieb is only one (even though he has been the central figure of the approach for many years). It would be somewhat offensive towards the other linguists who have worked on the approach to call it "Integrational Linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb)".

4. The shortness of the article "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" is merely due to the fact that it has only recently been created. Hence, the relative sizes of the two articles in question do not say anything about the importance of the approaches or the recognition they have received.

Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose "IL" is a convenient abbreviation for academic writing, in which "Integrational linguistics (IL)" might be a phrase that introduces the abbreviation. But parentheses in article titles indicate disambiguators, except for when they're actually part of a title, such as "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)." Furthermore, the title Integrational linguistics (IL) gives no indication whatsoever how the topic differs from Integrational linguistics broadly—it's a typographical runaround of naming conventions. The current name isn't perfect; it could probably be moved to Integrational linguistics (Lieb). Mo Tat, I don't mean to WP:BITE you, but please see Article titles, our policy page on how articles should be titled. You'll see the title you favor doesn't meet our criteria. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If two scholars have separate ideas of what constitutes integrational linguistics, we may want to make that page a dab between Integrational linguistics (Lieb) and Integrational linguistics (Harris), or some similar arrangement. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to gauge whether there might be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Harris defaults as primary topic since this article is new, but it seems Lieb's theory is older. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, following the sourced cited by Mo Tat, we move the existing Integrational linguistics to Integrationism (currently a redirect to Racial integration with one mainspace link) and this page to Integrational linguistics, after fixing the incoming links, of course. I'm willing to do the footwork on that if that seems like a good arrangement. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Harris page only uses "integrational linguistics" six times, and only once in the main article itself (not counting the first sentence). Seems like your last plan would work just fine. I'm willing to help with that too! —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 13:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also support BDD's last suggestion, for the following reasons: Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The term "Integrational Linguistics" itself was created by Lieb and had been used in his publications several years before Harris took it up for his (unrelated) approach.
 * 2) BDD's idea corresponds to the solution chosen by the 14-volume Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (quite an authority in the field of linguistics), where the Harris approach appears under the title "Integrationism" and the Lieb approach as "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" (the disambiguating parenthesis could be dropped if BDD's solution is adopted).
 * 3) On the wiki page about the Harris approach, "Integrationism" is given as an alternative name at the outset ("Integrational linguistics or integrationism..." in line 1) and "Integrationism" is used to denote that approach in the rest of the text, in particular the headlines ("Integrationism and Language", "Integrationism and Identity").
 * 4) Roy Harris himself seems to prefer "Integrationism", cf. his own homepage at http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrationism.html, where he does not use the term "Integrational Linguistics" at all.

It seems that consensus has been reached and the last idea formulated by BDD ("we move the existing Integrational linguistics to Integrationism (currently a redirect to Racial integration with one mainspace link) and this page to Integrational linguistics, after fixing the incoming links") can be adopted as a solution. Would Ignatzmice or BDD go ahead with the move? Thanks and regards, Mo Tat 2013 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As the creator of the original "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" article, I am uncomfortable with the current article title, too. I fully support the arguments given above against mentioning Lieb in the title.

For me, the last two alternatives proposed by BDD appear both acceptable—either making "Integrational Linguistics" a dab between, say, "Integrational Linguistics (IL)" and "Integrational Linguistics (Integrationism)", or moving the original "Integrational Linguistics" article to "Integrationism", and "Integrational Linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb)" to "Integrational Linguistics". —Andreas.nolda (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing comment I almost always try to avoid closing discussions in which I've participated, but the request is in the backlog now, and we have unanimous consent among four editors. In particular, those include the two editors who originally disputed this title and the creator of the other article involved. So in the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO, I'll close and perform this move. Integrational linguistics (Hans-Heinrich Lieb) will move to Integrational linguistics, and what's currently at Integrational linguistics will move to Integrationism. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.