Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Chaski


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ansh 666 06:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Carole Chaski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nice lady who does interesting work, but I'm struggling to find anything like GNG-compliant coverage.  E Eng  01:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete. Interesting to me as a Shakespeare authorship fan. With a GS h-index of only 10 in a popular field maybe WP:Too soon yet for WP:Prof. Just one player in an interesting field with lots of PR hype put out for commercial reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep I have to ask whether the nom adid the expected search for any additional additional reliable sources. In about 15 minutes, I have found the following quotes and materials:
 * "The search for sounder science is what motivates Carole Chaski" (Washington Post)
 * "Chaski has been working to perfect a computer algorithm that identifies patterns hidden in syntax." (New Yorker magazine)
 * "Some experts are more optimistic. Carole E. Chaski, president of Alias Technology and executive director of the Institute for Linguistic Evidence, has taken on what she terms 'the keyboard dilemma' (NYT)
 * Carole Chaski, chapter on "Author Identification in the Forensic Setting" (The Oxford Handbook on Language and Law)
 * "The first linguist to consider markedness in terms of authorship systematically" and "“Chaski should be credited with having brought forensic authorship comparison (as opposed to long text authorship ‘attribution’) into the scientific arena, and out of the darkness of literary criticism, canonical literary corpus construction and discourse analysis modes of authorship identification." (textbook, Forensic Linguistics: Second Edition)
 * "in the United States, "Dr. Carole Chaski has pioneered the syntactic analysis of authorship"
 * Preface to NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND THE LAW Proceedings by Carole Chaski
 * “the leading expert in the field of forensic linguistics” (Forensic Magazine)


 * International work:
 * "an expert report submitted before The Hague District Court by Dr. Carole Chaski, who is an expert in forensic linguistics and who analyzed the authorship…" (lawsuit against Russian Federation)
 * Bullying from the perspective of Forensic Linguistics (Spanish confeence)
 * Chaski is the front runner in the area of Forensic Linguistics. (Canadian conference)


 * While Chaski may not meet the WP:PROF criteria, surely the above reliable sources demonstrate the article can be developed to strengthen the case for WP:GNG. And I did not even include here any of the articles on her Shakespeare validation work of the Kurt Cobain suicide/murder conspiracy fiasco or the controversy over the different takes on forensic linguistics, specifically the contrast with the methods of James R. Fitzgerald of Unabomber case fame. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll let my esteemed fellow editors follow the Washington Post link and see what's there for themselves; it's something, but can only charitably be called anything that would even begin to contribute toward GNG. After that, things go rapidly downhill:


 * The New Yorker text on Chaski reads, in its entirety: Carole Chaski, the executive director of the Institute for Linguistic Evidence and the president of Alias Technology, in Georgetown, Delaware, which markets linguistic software, agrees. Chaski has been working to perfect a computer algorithm that identifies patterns hidden in syntax. With enough linguistic material to work with, she says, she can run the program and draw accurate linguistic conclusions. Her goal is to develop a standard “validated tool” that police, civil investigators, and linguists can turn to when testifying in crucial cases, such as a capital murder trial. “If this is real, these tools should be so reliable that I can automate them and somebody can use them,” she says. Chaski foresees a time when forensic-linguistic “technicians” will do what DNA technicians in crime labs do: “They learn how to run a piece of software or run a Southern blot”—a standard DNA test—“through electrophoresis and then go, ‘Here are my results.’ ”In Chaski’s view, a trail of words can be parsed to reveal its author, but that work is best done quantitatively, through brute computational force, not qualitatively, by subjective scholars. Forensic linguistics, she believes, should not be limited to a few highly credentialled experts who have been approved by the courts to testify. She warned me of the recklessness of an “academic” and an “ex-cop” hanging out a shingle, and said their methodology was “fraught with error.” In the small world of forensic linguistics, it was obvious that she meant Leonard and Fitzgerald.Leonard said that Chaski’s computerized approach made him “want to take a nap.”
 * NYT text on Chaski reads, in its entirety: Some experts are more optimistic. Carole E. Chaski, president of Alias Technology and executive director of the Institute for Linguistic Evidence, has taken on what she terms “the keyboard dilemma,” that is, “the problem of identifying the authorship of a document that was produced by a computer to which multiple users had access.” She has developed computer software that categorizes grammatical structures as “marked” and “unmarked”: an unmarked noun phrase, for instance, has its main noun at the end of a simple phrase (“our marriage,” “a divorce”), while a marked one has the noun in the beginning of a phrase (“anything you ask”) or in the middle (“the rest of our lives”). These aspects of a writer’s syntax are relatively stable across different styles of writing, Ms. Chaski argues. They are also less prone to technological intervention — compared to spelling and punctuation, which can be changed on the fly by spell-check and autocorrect features ... (Ms. Chaski claims 95 percent accuracy with her syntactic method.)
 * 'The Oxford Handbook on Language and Law "text" on Chaski is, in its entirely, bullet item reading: Carole Chaski, Author Identification in the Forensic Setting
 * The text on Chaski in Forensic Linguistics: Second Edition reads, in its entirety: The first linguist to consider markedness in terms of authorship systematically was Carol Chaski ... Chaski should be credited with having brought forensic authorship comparison (as opposed to long text authorship ‘attribution’) into the scientific arena, and out of the darkness of literary criticism, canonical literary corpus construction and discourse analysis modes of authorship identification.
 * Shall I go on? This is nothing like GNG.  E Eng  21:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet any notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Carole Chaski is used by the FBI, CIA, major corporations and was the star witness to a $50B Fraud case in Russia. Outrageous Attack going on here... Carole Chaski is possibly THE leading expert in the field of Linguistic Evidence. Her expertise is acknowledged worldwide. Her International Expertise was recently used to protect investors from 50 Billion Dollars worth of Russian Investment Fraud... and I quote,

"The Yukos case is among the most flamboyant investor-state arbitrations (Chevron v. Ecuador a close competitor). Yukos reads like a paperback thriller-settling of scores between rogue oligarchs and the Putin regime with billions at stake. Definitely worth a mini-series on HBO or Showtime. Last night at the ISDS answer to the Oscars-the Global Arbitration Review annual awards-a Dutch court snatched the prize for most important decision 2017, a highlight of the black-tie event in a Milan hotel.

The Hague district court judges had set aside the UNCITRAL/Energy Charter Treaty award against Russia. That decision is on appeal in Holland. And there are proceedings elsewhere. For instance, the DC Circuit stayed litigation on the arbitral award pending a final outcome in the Netherlands."

And, who pray tell was the person that protected the investors from the Fraud? Again, I quote:

"The plot thickens when the plagiarism detective comes on the scene-top linguist Dr. Carole Chaski evaluates the text of the award and comes to the conclusion that "with over 95% certainty, Mr Valasek himself wrote approximately 70% of the three most important chapters." here's the link:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKwasny (talk • contribs) — RobertKwasny (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The site quoted is some kind of advocacy site.  E Eng  20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) That's true EEng#s - I've NO history within Wikipedia -- does that mean my truth is less valuable than your assassination attempt? Granted I've not posted an article before, contested one or played in this playground... but I do believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way... so fade away, I'm your magnifying glass and your misdeeds are enlarged by my lack of Wiki Sophistication. Play on that all you will - I readily admit my shortfalls in this playground.

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Administrator intervention against vandalism -- Look, I've never used Wikipedia before RobertKwasny (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC) but I'm starting to get the hang of it... EEng#s you should be ashamed for what you are attempting to do to a valuable addition to society... Play all the games you want... I'll keep watching the vicious nature of your Personal Vendetta!

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) If meeting of the GNG is the sole reason being used to assert a notability, then yes... those sources being used for showing notability need to be significant (IE: more than a trivial mention even if not the main topic of the source material) in that they address the subject directly and in some detail. But again, Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically allows that the GNG does not always have to be met. It is the verifiability of any assertion in a reliable source that is always mandated... and per guideline, notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual. So with respects, a topic missing out on meeting the GNG is not the final nail in the coffin.

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) WP:ANYBIO states that winning a notable award or receiving multiple nominations for such awards shows notability... as long as the assertion is properly WP:Verified in reliable sources. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:ATH has long accepted per consensus that performing at a professional level in a major sport is acceptable in allowing inclusion. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:PROF states that someone could be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) And while, there is probably some other more relevant pages than Carole Chaski is VERY notable and VERY expert. I believe I've made my point Administrators. EEng#s is PROUD of being knocked off Wiki before... RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) and his personal attack against Carole Chaski is transparently obvious... get a life, you sad man.

KEEP: RobertKwasny (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Admins, please review EEng#s history and take him down again.


 * Comment – - As a new user, you may have missed the behavioral guideline to assume good faith. While  and I may argue the merits of whether the subject of an article meets WP:GNG or WP:ACAD, we assume that our motives, at least, coincide in the effort to make the encyclopedia better. When you make an argument here, please refrain from personal attacks, either in the text you contribute or in the edit summary. I’ve struck your extra votes above, as each person participating only has one vote. - Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GmE. People like this don't fool anyone.  E Eng  23:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Grand&#39;mere Eugene for explaining the rules to this Newbie...RobertKwasny (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC) I'll refrain from further elaboration on a personal nature - I'll just add Ms. Chaski's extensive body of work for Administrative Review and I intend to reach out to her and assist her in doing a proper edit on her full background:

'''Listed below are publications and presentations in forensic linguistics, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and theoretical linguistics. All publications are authored by Carole E. Chaski PhD and joint publications list co-authoring research associates.'''

Academic Book Chapters

2012. “Author Identification in the Forensic Setting.” In Lawrence Solan and Peter Tiermsa, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Oxford University Press. 2010. “Linguistics as a Forensic Science: The Case of Author Identification.” In Susan Behrens and Judith A. Parker, editors. Language in the Real World.Routledge. 2008. “The Computational-Linguistic Approach to Forensic Authorship Attribution.” In Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein, editors. Law and Language: Theory and Practice. Düsseldorf University Press. 2008. “Authorship Attribution in a Multinational Corporate Setting.” With Mary Snider Boldt. In Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein, editors. Law and Language: Theory and Practice. Düsseldorf University Press. 2007. “The Keyboard Dilemma and Author Identification.” In Sujeet Shinoi and Philip Craiger, editors. Advances in Digital Forensics III. New York: Springer.

2005. “Forensic Linguistics, Author Identification and Admissibility.” In Cyril Wecht and John Rago, editors. Foundations of Forensic Science and Law: Investigative Applications in Criminal, Civil and Family Justice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Academic Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

2013. “Best Practices and Admissibility in Forensic Author Identification.” Journal of Law & Policy, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York. 2007. “Identifying Authorship by Byte-Level N-Grams: The Source Code Author Profile (SCAP) Method.” International Journal of Digital Evidence, Spring 2007, Volume 6:1. With G. Frantzeskou, E. Stamatatos, S. Gritzalis, and B. S. Howald. 2006. (accepted and I withdrew this manuscript). “Discriminant Function Analysis Results for Authorship Attribution in the Forensic Setting.” International Journal of Speech, Language and Law. 2005. “Computational Stylistics in Forensic Author Identification.” Proceedings of the SIGIR 2005 Workshop on Stylistics. ACM SIGIR 2005, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. 2005. “Discriminant Function Analysis in Forensic Authorship Attribution.” Proceedings of the Classification Society of North America/Interface Foundation Annual Meeting. Interface Symposium and its Proceedings: Computing Science and Statistics. St. Louis: Washington University. 2005. “Who’s At the Keyboard? Recent Results in Authorship Attribution.” International Journal of Digital Evidence. Volume 4:1. Spring 2005. 2002.“Language as Clue: Authorship Identification in an Electronic Society.” Law Enforcement Executive Institute Forum. Volume 2, Number 3. September 2002. Published by University of Western Illinois. 2001.“Empirical Evaluation of Language-Based Author Identification Techniques.” Forensic Linguistics: International Journal of Speech, Language and Law. Volume 8:1. pp. 1-64. June 2001. Published by University of Birmingham, England. 1997. “Who Wrote It? Steps Toward a Science of Authorship Identification.” National Institute of Justice Journal. September 1997.

ON COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS:

1994. “The Future Pluperfect: Double Tense in Southern American English.” American Speech: Journal of the American Dialect Society.

1992. “Networked Academic Publishing and the Rhetorics of its Reception.” Centennial Review. With Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth.

1990. “The Big Three in Contemporary Syntax: Review of Geoffrey Horrock’s Generative Grammar.” American Speech: Journal of the American Dialect Society.

1988. “GB, GPSG and the Separation of Case and Agreement.” Proceedings of CLS Parasession on Agreement. University of Chicago: Chicago.

1987. “Encoding Case Variation in the Grammar.” Proceedings of NWAV XV. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

1986. “Linear and Metrical Analyses of Manam Stress.” Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. XXV.

1985. “Parser Design and the Mapping from Competence to Performance.” Brown University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume V.

Monograph

1999. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Also available through National Criminal Justice Reference Service: NCJ 178240. This was jointly authored by the Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence in which I served.

Academic and Professional Conference Presentation Abstracts and Invited Lectures (Invited Lectures are Starred *)


 * 2014g. “Forensic Linguistics: Myths and Truths.” American University, Washington DC.

2014f. “Collecting Ground-Truth, Web-Based Data for Research in Forensic Linguistics.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.


 * 2014e. “Science and Conscience in Forensic Linguistics.” Martin Luther King Celebration, Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan.

2014d. “Data for Empirical Foundation in Forensic Linguistics: Overview of Symposium.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.

2014c. “Collecting Forensic Linguistic data: Experimental Subjects and Authorship Identification.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. With Judith A Parker.

2014b.”Collecting Forensic Linguistic data: Police and Investigative Sources of Data for Deception Detection Research.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN. With Sgt. Larry Barksdale and Michael Reddington.

2014a. “The Four Corners of Investigative Forensic Linguistics.” TALE: The Association for Linguistic Evidence 2014, Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.


 * 2013f. “Forensic Linguistics and Digital Evidence.” George Washington University, Washington DC.


 * 2013e. “Opportunity and Community in Forensic Computational Linguistics.” University of Washington Computational Linguistics Program, online presentation.


 * 2013d. “Forensic Linguistics, Watergate and Insider Threat.” Wecht Institute of Forensic Science, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. With Philip T. Mellinger.

2013c. “Do Police Suicide Notes Differ from General Population Suicide Notes?” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. With Robert Dourglas, Jr.


 * 2013b. “Linguistics as a Tool in Interviewing and Interrogation.” Wicklander-Zulawski Elite Training. Pleasanton, CA.

2013a. “Re Forensic Linguistics: Five data Handling Issues.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.

2011c. “IntentFinder: A System for Discovering Significant Information Implicit in Large, Heterogeneous Document Collections.” With Lyle Ungar and Steve Liebholz. Proceedings of IEEE Homeland Security Technology, Boston, MA.

2011b. “Facebook and the Faceless: Authorship in an Electronic Society.” With Alice Lustre, Esq. Jurisprudence Section, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA

2011a. “Is This a Real Suicide Note? Authentication Using Statistical Classifiers and Computational Linguistics.” With Denise Huddle. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Section, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.


 * 2010f. “Forensic Linguistics in the Real World of Law.” Marymount Manhattan University, New York, NY.


 * 2010e. “Authorship Identification Methods.” Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.


 * 2010d. “A Modern History of Handwriting Examination.” National Association of Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.


 * 2010c. “Forensic Linguistic Methods for Document Examiners.” National Association of Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.


 * 2010b. “ALIAS and web_ALIAS.” National Association of Document Examiners Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.


 * 2010a. “Forensic Linguistic Methods.” University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA.

2009d. “The Language of Trauma Narratives.” Proceedings of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health. New York, NY.

2009c. “Forensic Linguistics: Curious and Instructive Parallels between Voiceprints and Forensic Stylistics.” With John R. Middleton, Esq. Engineering Sciences Section. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Denver CO.

2009b. “Validation Testing for FLASH ID on the Chaski Writer Sample Database.” With Mark A. Walch. Questioned Documents Section. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Denver CO.

2009a. “Using Computational Forensic Linguistics to Screen for Pedophilic Communications.” With Raye Croghan. Digital and Multimedia Section. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Denver CO.


 * 2008d. “New Directions in Forensic Linguistics: Syntactic Approaches to the Analysis of Forensic Texts.” Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.

2008c. “Using the N-Gram Approach for Forensic Authorship Attribution and Text Relatedness.” Association for Digital Forensics, Security and Law. Oklahoma City, OK. April.


 * 2008b. “How You Can Use Forensic Linguistics.” Nebraska International Association of Identification. Ashland, NE. April.


 * 2008a.”A Computational Approach to Threat Assessment.” European Association of Threat Assessment Professionals. Lucerne, Switzerland. March.

2007i. (with Frances Olsen, J.D.) “A Diachronic Analysis of Judicial Language in Domestic Violence Rulings.” Proceedings of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Berlin, Germany. July.

2007h. “Overview of Research in the Linguistics of Deception.” Panel on the Linguistics of Deception. International Association of Forensic Linguists 8, Seattle, WA. July.

2007g. “Multilingual Forensic Author Identification Through N-Gram Analysis.” International Association of Forensic Linguists 8, Seattle, WA. July.

2007f. “Empirically Testing the Uniqueness of Aggregated Stylemarkers.” Panel on Authorship Attribution. International Association of Forensic Linguists 8, Seattle, WA. July.

2007e. “Real Threats, Simulated Threats and the Unsaid.” Proceedings of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health, Padua, Italy. June.

2007d. “Automating a Reliable System for Distinguishing Real from Simulated Threat Letters.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Section, February, 2007. San Antonio, TX.

2007c. “A Validated Admissible, Computational Method for Detecting Electronic Authorship.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Engineering Sciences Section, February, 2007. San Antonio, TX.

2007 b. “The Keyboard Dilemma and Forensic Author Identification.” International Workshop on Digital Forensics (IFIP- Digital Evidence). January, 2007. National Center for Forensic Science, Orlando, FL.


 * 2007a. “Forensic Linguistics, E-Discovery and Digital Forensics.” Delaware Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section. January, 2007. Wilmington, DE.

2006h. “Text-typing a Suicide Note and Justice for Diaz-Perez. Proceedings of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. July.

2006g. “Text-typing Threat Letters.” (with Blake Stephen Howald, JD and Judith A. Parker, PhD. Proceedings of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. July.

2006f. “Authorship Identification in Actual Situations: Questions, Data, and Methods. Bonn University, Bonn, Germany. May.

2006e. “Multilingual Interferences in Corporate Email Authorship Identification.” (with Mary Snider PhD.) Bonn University, Bonn, Germany. May.

2006d. “The Computational-Linguistic Approach to Forensic Authorship Attribution.” The Language and Law Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany. May.

2006c. “German-American Standards for Authorship Attribution in Multinational Corporation Cases.” (with Mary Snider, PhD.) The Language and Law Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany. May.

2006b. “The Forensic Linguistics of Authorship Attribution. Minisymposium on Language and Law. Yale University Law School. April.


 * 2006a. “Applied Linguistics, Forensic Linguistics and Authorship Attribution.” Montclair State University. February.’

2005f. “Computational Stylistics in Forensic Author Identification.” Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Conference, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. August.

2005e. “Alternative Distance Measures for Validating the Syntactic Analysis Method.” Seventh Biennial International Association of Forensic Linguists Conference, University of Cardiff, Wales. July.

2005d. “Discriminant Function Analysis in Forensic Authorship Attribution.” Joint Meeting of the Classification Society of North America and The Interface, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. June.


 * 2005c. “The Legal and Scientific Status of Forensic Author Identification.” Maryland Public Defenders Conference, Ocean City, MD. May.

2005b. “Syntactic Measures for Authorship Determination.” International Linguistics Association Conference, New York, NY. April.


 * 2005a. “Pattern Recognition Techniques in Forensic Sciences: Results and Software Demonstration” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. February.

2004b. “Recent Results in the Validation of the Syntactic Analysis Method of Authorship Attribution.” Conference on Language and Law, Cardiff, Wales. July.

2004a.“The Syntactic Analysis Method of Author Identification.” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX. February.

2003. “Author Identification in Civil and Criminal Cases.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, Speech and Language Group, Technical Exchange Meeting (including LL, ILE, USSS, Brooklyn Law School). Lexington, MA. October.

2001. “A Validated Method for Authorship Attribution.” International Association of Forensic Linguists Bi-annual Meeting, St. Julian’s, Malta. June-July.

2000. “Identification through Linguistic Patterns.” International Association of Identification Annual Meeting, Charleston, WV. July.

1999a. “Reliability and Author Identification.” National Conference on Science and the Law (sponsored by US DOJ’s National Institute of Justice, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, American Bar Association and National Center for State Courts In collaboration with Federal Judicial Center and National Academy of Sciences. San Diego, CA. April.

1999b. “Linguistic-based Authorship Identification.” Association of Forensic Document Examiners, Continuing Education Symposium, Phoenix, AZ. November.

1998. “Toward an Authentic Science of Authorship.” Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Sciences, Rockville, MD. May.

1998. “An Automated Language-Based Authorship System for Document Authentication.” Questioned Documents Section, Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. February.


 * 1998. “Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship: Progress Report 3.” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. February.

1997a. “Electronic Parsing Authorship System.” International Association of Forensic Linguists Biannual Meeting, Durham, NC. September.

1997b. “Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship: Progress Report. National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, New York, NY. February.

1997c. “Electronic Parsing for Idiolectal Features in Suspect Documents.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Winter Meeting, New York, NY. January.

1996a. “Empirical Evidence for Language-Based Methods of Author Identification.” International Association of Identification Annual Meeting, Greensboro, NC. July.


 * 1996b. “Linguistic Methods of Determining Authorship: Progress Report 1.” National Institute of Justice Research Committee, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting. Nashville, TN. February.

1995. “Language-Based Methods of Author Identification.” Mid-Atlantic Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Fairfax, VA. May.


 * 1993.”The Role of the Linguist in Forensic Investigation.” Major Crimes Division, Raleigh Police Department, Raleigh, NC. April.

ON COMPUTATIONAL AND THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS:

1993. “The Syntax of Double Modals in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.” Chapel Hill Spring Linguistics Conference, Chapel Hill, NC.

1990. “Chomsky’s Rivals: Alternative Grammars.” Exploration in Cognition and Language: The Influence of Noam Chomsky, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

1990. “Accounting for Double Modal Dialects in GPSG.” Symposium on Double Modals in Multiple Framework South Eastern Conference On Linguistics, Greenwood, SC.

1989. “Using Hypercard to Represent Linguistic Knowledge and Teach Metalinguistic Reasoning.” 10th Annual Florida Educational Technology Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.

1989. “A Metrical Analysis of Papago Noun Pluralization.” (w/Kenneth Andrews MPH). Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.


 * 1989. “Parsing Really Natural Natural Language.” Center for Machine Intelligence, University of South Carolina-Columbia.


 * 1989. “Case Theory, Case In Tiers, GPSG/HPSG and Case Attraction in Greek.” MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA.

1989. “Case as Stepsister in GB Theory.” South Eastern Conference On Linguistics, Norfolk, VA.

1988. “Morphological Agreement and Binding Theory.” South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Washington, DC.

1988. “Morphological Conditions on Binding Theory and Syntactic Change.” Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

1988. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence on PRO’s Government.” Symposium on Typology and Parameters, South Eastern Conference On Linguistics, Memphis, TN.

1987. “Case In Tiers and Case Attraction in Greek.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

1987. “Infinitival Constituency in RG, GB and GPSG.” Modern Language Association, San Francisco, CA

1987. “A PROblem in Ancient Greek and Ozark English.” 13th Annual Conference on Language and Linguistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MI.

1987. “Syntactic Markedness and Clausal Integrity in RG.” 3rd Biennial Conference on Grammatical Relations and Relational Grammar, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

1987. “Pragmatic Factors in the Syntax of Ancient Greek Anaphora.” Penn Linguistics Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

1986. “COMP, Case and the Greek Infinitive.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, New York, NY.

1986. “Theta Theory, Case Theory and Ancient Greek Case Attraction.” North East Modern Language Association, New Brunswick, NJ.


 * 1978. “Antigone, Ethos and the Dual.” Bryn Mawr College Classics Colloquium, Bryn Mawr, PA.

ON PSYCHOLOGY OF READING:


 * 1993.”May I Have A Word With You? Adult Literacy and Definitions of Word.” Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA.

1992. “Metalinguistic Awareness and Literate/Illiterate Responses to Segment Deletion Tasks.” Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA

1990. “The Word for Linguists, Oral Poets and Adult illiterates.” South Atlantic Modern Language Association, Tampa, FL.


 * 1989.”Metalinguistic Awareness and the Acquisition of Literacy.” Linguistics Program Colloquium, University of South Carolina-Columbia.

1989. “Metalinguistic Awareness, Literacy and Natural Readers.” Cognitive Science Group, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

1988. “Metalinguistic Assumptions of Reading Methods.” Conference on Literacy and Linguistics. 17th Annual UWM Linguistics Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

1985. “Linguistic Rules and EFL Reading.” 6th Annual USF Conference on Second Language Acquisition, Tampa, FL.

1982. “Literacy, Self and Other: From Plato to Poulet.” Conference on Future of Literacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

Technical Grant Reports

1998. A Daubert-Inspired Assessment of Current Techniques for Language-Based Author Identification. ILE Technical Report1098. Also available through National Criminal Justice Reference Service: NCJ 172234.

ON PSYCHOLINGUISTICS OF LITERACY:

1994. Assessing the TextDisc-Based Workplace Literacy Program: Method, Data and Results. Technical Report. (with Jamie Strauss Larsen). NCSU. Raleigh, North Carolina.

1993. Design of an Assessment Module for TextDisc, a Multimedia Workplace Literacy Program. Technical Report. NCSU. Raleigh, North Carolina.

RobertKwasny (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be a very, very bad idea to draw the subject herself into this situation. That never ends well.  E Eng  03:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The large number of publications accompanied by rather few citations in GS suggest that the subject has made disproportionally little impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC).

Is this some kind of alternate universe...??? RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is full of incompetents, unpublished, no peer review, never been a keynote speaker, have not spent a lifetime developing and expanding discoveries.

With this AMAZING body of work, it is inconceivable that you EEng#s would be so self centered as to THREATEN a scholar... who are you? My name is in the open for all to see... RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And Xxanthippe, "disproportionally little impact"??? Seriously?? You're using that as the Fount of your reason for Deletion? The lack of Google Scholar Citations????

Are you SERIOUS? GS is the HOME of Spinner Article and Fake Citations!!

This expert has: Co-authored in totally respected academic publications: The Oxford Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Oxford University Press.,  Law and Language: Theory and Practice. Düsseldorf University Press,  Foundations of Forensic Science and Law: Investigative Applications in Criminal, Civil and Family Justice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) What does it take to be considered an expert by the two of you?

Eight or nine Academic Peer Reviewed Articles? RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Tons of University Presentations at Major Institutions? American Speech: Journal of the American Dialect Society. Proceedings of CLS Parasession on Agreement. University of Chicago: Chicago. Proceedings of NWAV XV. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. “Parser Design and the Mapping from Competence to Performance.” Brown University Working Papers in Linguistics Volume V.  Eyewitness Evidence: 'A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,'

'American University, Washington DC. University of Michigan George Washington University, Washington DC.

Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA. IEEE Homeland Security Technology, Boston, MA. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA'

I'm stunned that the two of you are colluding to have Carole Chaski Deleted from Wikipedia, she's clearly extremely important in her field RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are your fields?

SAD DAY WHEN TWO ANONYMOUS CRITICS CAN ATTEMPT ASSASSINATION OF AN ACCOMPLISHED INDIVIDUAL !!

The reason being what? The motivation being what?

Clearly, VERY clearly, Carole Chaski is a MAJOR contributor to her field.

Undeniably RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

AS ANY CASUAL READER OF HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS COULD SEE AND WOULD SAY...

Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press. While the verification of any assertion in a reliable source is always mandated, per guideline, notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online. WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive. Meeting one OR the other might be enough to allow consideration of notability. This summary is made per policy WP:V and discussions and AFDs and talkpages and noticeboards for several years. RobertKwasny (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by this process and to see if it is actually easy to disparage a life's work RobertKwasny (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, does this woman ever sleep? RobertKwasny (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of us are wondering the same thing about you. You're not helping your cause by acting this way. Notability isn't about what someone has done, but about what others have written about him or her.  E Eng  16:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep After digging through sources on databases, there's enough for her to pass GNG and she came up with a new technique that while it may be controversial, is certainly used and allowed by courts as evidence. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2017
 * Could you list just three sources satisfying GNG?  E Eng  23:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It occurred to me instead of WP:GNG or WP:PROF, Chaski meets notability under WP:AUTHOR: 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Chaski doesn't fit academic criteria, because she left teaching to start a business as an expert witness; she has created a method of analysis in forensic linguistics that is accepted by US State and Federal courts, as verified by inline citations in the article; she is considered a pioneer in forensic linguistics. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, AUTHOR is for artists, architects, novelists -- stuff like that. But even that aside, I think you misunderstand the significance of "created a method of analysis in forensic linguistics that is accepted by US State and Federal courts as verified by inline citations in the article". What the source says is that Chaski's "statistical analysis of syntax in authorship has met the Daubert challenge in the US court system". I know that sounds like a big deal, but it's not. I've devised Daubert-qualified techniques myself, and it would never occur to me that I'm notable.  E Eng  05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng#s I truly have no cause to help -- I just don't like bullies and blundered into this. It outraged me enough to learn Wikipedia's mechanisms (abet badly) and to speak up - a first for me having been in computing for 41 years. To the others monitoring and deciding on this - I defer - done enough to demonstrate that I'm bad at this and Chaski is a notable that has earned the right and place of honor for her accomplishments, whatever category Wikipedia applies to her - but Deletion... would be a travesty! RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you Megalibrarygirl RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you EEng#s for admitting to being in the same field, perhaps with an axe to grind, I don't know and don't care... but your it would never occur to me that I'm notable. has (at least) given us something that we can agree on. RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC) EEng#s, perhaps you should stop trying to trash someone that is more accomplished in your field, than you... it's the poorest and lowest form of discourse. That is unless your expertise is so superior to hers that you've been the expert witness in a $51 Billion dollar court case - if you have, your credibility will take quantum leaps forward in my world. RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly this $50B court case - trying to identify the culprit that authored the language that was designed to defraud investors, needed an expert... Chaski was the chosen expert. By the rules of Wikipedia, I cannot vote KEEP again, but can only drive home the FACTS that should end EEng#s 's argument that Chaski should be eliminated from Wikipedia. She is undoubtedly an expert by every measure. RobertKwasny (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Chaski is not involved in anything even remotely like what I do. That you think my last post means she is shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
 * Chaski was not "the chosen expert" in the case to which you refer, but someone whose opinion one party has asked the trier of fact to consider.
 * Anyway (for the nth time) notability has nothing to do with being an expert or what someone's written; it has to do with what's been written about someone.
 * I'm paging a few uninvolved admins asking them to collapse your offtopic rants and give you a final warning against further disruption. Consideration might also be given to an UAA or COI action based on  (since you claim above that your "name is in the open for all to see").
 *  E Eng  23:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources brought forward by are sufficient, in my judgment, to show that Chaski is notable. I am declining to act as an administrator here. Instead, I am commenting as an editor, because I have concluded that this article should be kept, despite the ugliness of this debate., let me give you some friendly advice here: Your conduct is beyond the pale, overly combative and completely counterproductive. If you persist in unseemly personal attacks against your fellow editors, another administrator is likely to block you, and I would not object. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  04:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. RobertKwasny didn't know about Wikipedia's behavioral policies, such as Civility, No personal attacks, and Assume good faith when he posted here. (Please look them up now, Robert, and listen carefully to what Cullen tells you above, because if there's further rudeness from you I'll block you myself.) I can't really blame you for that, as you only registered an account on 24 September, clearly for the exclusive purpose of posting at this deletion discussion and attempting to keep the article on Wikipedia. How did you learn of the article and the deletion discussion, please? That's the question I'm interested in, and I've asked it on your own talkpage as well, to make sure you don't miss it. I'm sure you realise that if people are canvassed from the outside to come here and yell at contributors it's a problem in deletion discussions. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep per Cullen328. Clearly has enough significant coverage and accomplishments; misbehavior of supporter notwithstanding.   Montanabw (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.