text:
Talk:Constructed language

Untitled
Archives
 * to November 2005
 * Nov 2005 to end of 2006

Natural evolution
The opening sentence states "... instead of having naturally evolved as part of a culture". I don't think the 'as part of a culture' is needed or even true, as if the origins of a language are always due to culture (a dangerous word in that respect anyway). JAL 83.80.81.236 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, since no reactions to my comment, I'm going to change it. Jalwikip 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Planned language
This article says that "planned language" is a synonym for "constructed language" sometimes used to refer to IALs. Well, that accounts for most everyday usage of the term, but in the literature the term is actually used with quite a precise meaning distinct from both "constructed language" or IAL: Namely a language constructed for human communication (no matter whether international or not). An example of a planned language that isn't an IAL is Lojban. An example of a constructed language that isn't a planned language is Klingon. The German and Esperanto Wikipedias actually get these distinctions right. Marcoscramer 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Langmaker.com link
Langmaker.com has apparently been blacklisted. We've gotta get it removed from the blacklist, as it's one of the oldest and most important conlanging websites. I note that Langmaker was just speedy-deleted as well. PubliusFL 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Solresol
IMHO Solresol probably merits a mention in the main text. -- 201.51.231.176 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG" link
Why is the link for the article "Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG" one to Google's cached version? The article itself appears to exist at http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.php. 71.82.214.160 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen the original link be down sometimes. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over an article
There appears to be some edit warring over this change: Articles An interview with Sabira Ståhlberg] Interestingly enough, neither side has presented their argument on this page. I'd like to invite them to do so now. For my 2 cents, if there's no reason to get rid of it, I'd change it to: Articles — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benhocking (talk • contribs).
 * [http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/1/esperanto.php Cabinet Magazine Issue 2: Invented Languages, Esperanto: Still Alive and Kicking
 * Cabinet Magizine Issue 2: Invented Languages, Esperanto: Still Alive and Kicking, An interview with Sabira Ståhlberg

 * It's not an edit war. The text was removed because Madzo (talk · contribs) is one of three accounts spamming a number of articles with links to this magazine. To combat spamming, all links are removed. If you feel that the article is good, you may re-add it. Adding numerous links to the same website across a number of articles is considered spam — it is an attempt to raise the profile of that site — they are routinely removed and the users warned. — Gareth Hughes 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, it was added twice and removed twice. I wasn't trying to insult anyone with the "edit war" description. I just thought that some explanation should be given (by both parties) at that point, so I added this little discussion to the Talk page. Thank you for providing your perspective. As for the value of the article, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Ben Hocking (talk 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd say it might be useful to link from the Esperanto article, but probably isn't terribly relevant here. It only talks about Esperanto (with passing mentions of Volapük and Ido in relation to Esperanto), not conlangs in general. PubliusFL 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Slovio
One week ago, the article about Slovio was deleted after a prematurely aborted discussion, Articles for deletion/Slovio (2nd nomination). I have issued a request for undeletion: Deletion review/Log/2007 August 10. Please give your opinion there. If the article gets undeleted, which I sincerily hope for, anyone knowledgable about the subject is invited to participate in the discussion. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article about Slovio should be UNDELETED as the project of Slovio is an interesting and useful project of an international artificial language that may help people from the west understand and commmunicate in all Slavonic countries without the necessity to learn all those 14something difficult languages. Slovio is a live project with a good prospect in the future. Personally, as a teacher of English language, I had several jobs teaching Czech. My students were Englishpeople and the Dutch. I must say, Slavonic languages are really difficult to learn for people from the west of Europe. I am sure that Slovio is an easy way for the many people how to cope with the "Slavonic Babylon" in everyday life, business, and travelling in east Europe. So, I am also 100% sure the article Slovio should be here in English Wikipedia. BTW articles about Slovio are in the folowing Wikipedias: Bulgarian, Catala, Kaszebsczi, Chuvash, German, Esperanto, Spanish, Finnish, French, Croatioan, Upper Sorbian, Hungarian, Interlingua, Italian, Chinese, Korean, Dutch, Polish, Portugal, Russian, Slovenish, Slovak, Serbian, Swedish, and Ukrainian.--Anglos (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * This is the wrong place for such discussion. Please post a note at WikiProject Constructed languages/Edit wars and deletions and then follow the instructions for starting a deletion review. Posting comments on this discussion page will accomplish nothing, because nobody here has any power to undelete Slovio. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly my complaint about Volkspraak should have gone there as well. However, I would like to show solidarity with Slovio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Slovio. I think that article should be written again. Slovio is very useful constructed language. -- MR.CRO95(talk) 26 March 2008, 23:01 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

LsF
"As with Interlingua, it is difficult to explain how LsF might be viewed as constructed." - I find this a ridiculous sentence. Someone took a natural language, and changed it to something else. That's construction. It's like taking a big block of wood, making a sculpture out of it, and tell everyone that's not 'constructed'. Jalwikip 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. Same with the similar content about Interlingua higher in the intro. PubliusFL 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

 * This is erroneous on several levels. To begin with, the analogy is flawed. Say rather that you take a car and modify it--raise it, lower it, change the engine. Have you "constructed" a car? In a sense, yes; but you haven't built one from scratch, which would involve a lot of forging, casting, etc. You aren't even on a par with a factory. For the first problem is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL LANGUAGE. All languages are human artifacts; they do not naturally occur any more than tools. (Even tools made by animals other than man aren't particularly "natural.") However, there are different degrees of "construction." LsF is a kind of planned creoloid; the processes involved and intentionally invoked are largely the same as those that unintentionally produced the Romance languages. It is, in other words, a minor mod of an existing language. Interlingua is similar: it's a planned inter-Romance dialect. Esperanto, on the other hand, is a major modification, taking features from various languages and trying to create a harmonious whole from them. So it's less "natural" than LsF or Ia, but certainly no less real than any "natural" language.Ansric (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you have any objections to my recent rewrite of the paragraph on Interlingua and LsF, their naturalness or artificiality?
 * I see the beginnings of an edit war over the sentence "one could argue that all human languages are artificial"; I would rather see it with a cite to some theorist who actually argues that, if it's going to be in the article. -- Actually, I just thought of a possible cite; Claude Piron cites Rabelais to this effect in Le Defi des Langues. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where has Folkspraak gone?
About six months or so ago I read a very helpful article on this site about the artificial pan-Germanic language "Folkspraak". The article was helpful, current, and presented comparisons of different languages and this new language which I found fascinating because of the way in which language evolves and relates through time and across cultures. This page was directly responsible for my newfound interest in English etymology. It's gone! Why would such a helpful, comprehensive, page whose content is not duplicated or available anywhere else be deleted?

There are individual Pokemon with Wikipedia entries. There are 8-bit Nintendo characters who receive pages and further sub-pages. Why would anyone with the slightest notion of or respect for scholarship delete Folkspraak? I don't speak the language, I don't participate in its construction, but I can clearly see that it is a new and interesting development, with more practicality than older invented languages like Esperanto.

Tonight I wanted to show my girlfriend the Wikipedia entry for Folkspraak because she had thought it was such a bold idea and hoped to read the examples of the Lord's Prayer in German, Dutch, English, and Folkspraak. We couldn't do that, because someone thought that the space could be better used for such gems as aged Chilean pageant winners and a playlist of songs about dogs.

I know that it is difficult for Wikipedians to selflessly expand, prune, edit, and judge articles. I appreciate that I take advantage of their hard work every time I use this service. However, it baffles me that Wikipedia seems so often to err on the side of stupidity. I cannot imagine who decides that an article about an all new invented language, highlighting original techniques for creating an intelligible whole out of a babel of assorted languages is not worth reading. It is important, it is original, it is of interest to serious students of language, literature, linguistics, and etymology. It clearly has the power to inspire people. Why is it unworthy? And why do we instead have a record of every one of the five General Mills Monster cereals, from the popular Count Chocula to the discontinued Fruit Brute?

I am just writing to express my sadness at the way Wikipedia seems to be heading. I will lose all faith unless Folkspraak is re-instated within the month and the Brutus' that stabbed it in the back are reprimanded. I may cry as I remove Wikipedia from my bookmarks. Please; exhume Folkspraak and let your people learn!

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst   Are full of passionate intensity" -From W.B. Yeats "The Second Coming"

(William Butler Yeats Wikipedia Entry: 7457 words Buffy the Vampire Slayer(TV series):9811 words) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw infos about Folkspraak on Wikibooks. Like Slovio, it is very useful. If you learn Folkspraak, you can talk to German and Dutch people. I think it's very easy and, like I said, useful. -- MR.CRO95(talk) 27 March 2008, 10:45 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More specific criticism of external links?
Someone added this template to the external links,

 * The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

Can said person please make more specific criticism here on the talk page about which links are irrelevant or inappropriate? Most or all of them look fine to me. Though maybe a few should be spun off into sub-articles like Artistic language and Engineered language...? If we make an article about methodologies of creating conlangs (as opposed to types of conlangs) -- that might be worth doing, though tricky in avoiding HOWTO violations -- then the whole section of "how-to" external links could be spun off to said article. --Jim Henry (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed the "linkfarm" template since no one has objected to any specific links in the last week. Shortly after writing the above I removed or commented out some links that seemed unsuitable or duplicative of others. --Jim Henry (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of text about artificiality or not of certain auxlangs
Here's a draft rewrite of the problematic passages about Interlingua and Latino sine Fleksione that earlier posters have mentioned:

The synonym planned language is sometimes used to refer to international auxiliary languages and other languages intended for actual use in human communication. Some prefer it to the more common term "artificial", as that term may have pejorative connotations in some languages. For example, few speakers of Interlingua consider their language artificial, since they assert that it has no invented content. While this is not true of Esperanto and Ido, some speakers of these languages also avoid the term "artificial language" because they deny that there is anything "unnatural" about the use of their language in human communication. (In Esperanto itself, the equivalent of English "artificial" does not have the same pejorative connotation, having more connection with the concept of "art".)

Calling languages "planned" also addresses a difficulty with the term "constructed language": a few languages are loosely grouped under this heading as a result of shared history and uses but are not, by their proponents, themselves viewed as constructed. Interlingua's vocabulary is taken from a small set of natural languages with much less phonological modification than in Esperanto or Ido, and its grammar is based closely on these source languages, even including a certain degree of irregularity; its proponents describe its vocabulary and grammar as standardized rather than invented by the International Auxiliary Language Association, a linguistic research body.

Similarly, Latino sine Flexione (LsF) is a simplification of Latin from which the inflections have been removed. As with Interlingua, some prefer to describe this process as "planning" rather than "constructing" the language. Both LsF and Interlingua are considered major auxiliary languages, although only Interlingua is widely spoken today.

If no one objects I will copy this into the main article in a few days. Meanwhile feel free to suggest further edits here. --Jim Henry (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

- The sentence : "it has no invented content. While this is not true of Esperanto and Ido" is highly questionable. If you look at http://remush.be/etimo/etimo.html you will convince yourself to the contrary. Some are considering the 45 correlatives (when, where, what... then, there, that ... never, nowhere, nothing etc) as "artificial" but even they were not invented from thin air (in Eo: kiam, kie, kio... tiam, tie, tio... neniam, nenie, nenio...). Esperanto has just regulated the way these words are build. Ido uses "natural" words for those correlatives.

--Remush (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"with much less phonological modification than in Esperanto or Ido" same remark as here above. Look at http://remush.be/etimo/etimo.html. There is no more variation between Esperanto and the various languages using the same word, than between those languages themselves. English is the language that deviates most from the general way a word is pronounced.

--Remush (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Conlanger community
I fixed a redirect link to conlanger that now goes to List of language inventors, but that list has little to do with the conlanger community, which is the subject of the paragraph where the link occurs; most of the language inventors on the list aren't particularly involved in the community mentioned here. Should there be another article on the conlanger community as such, not on the CONLANG mailing list per se since that was judged non-notable a while ago and deleted, but on the broader community including the CONLANG list, the relay list, ZBB, the LJ conlangs community, the LCS and LCC, etc...? Or should we add that as a section here and spin it off to another article when/if it gets long enough? Main sources for such an article or section could be Higley's 2000 article and her 2007 book on Hildegard, and maybe some of the videos of talks from LCC1 and LCC2. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you'd be hard pressed to find reliable third-party sources for such an article. At most you'd get the occasional article on a particular conlanger, but next to nothing on the community. — Gwalla | Talk 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I just mentioned two such sources -- one, "Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG: Inventing Languages on the Internet" by Sarah L. Higley is already referenced (and linked) in the article. Her more recent book has a chapter on modern artlangers including some discussion of the online community.  If we can find one more source I think we're good to go. --Jim Henry (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The 'one more source' I thought we would need is probably Arika Okrent's In the Land of Invented Languages; I've heard things about it but haven't seen a copy yet. Diana Slattery's recent article "Conlanging: the Not-so-secret Vice" might qualify too, but I'm not sure if the zine it was published in will qualify with the deletionists as a reliable source.  A talk on the conlang community's history by David Durand and Sally Caves during the recent Language Creation Conference at Brown U. is helpful as well, when and if the video of it is online and we can cite it/link to it thus.  I don't have much time for editing Wikipedia lately, but if there appears to be support for spinning off the section on the conlanger community's history into another article and expanding it, I'll work on it some while hence. --Jim Henry (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Telescope rule
Someone has a "citation needed" tag at the end of the "Telescope rule" paragraph. Why is the internal link to Propaedeutic value of Esperanto not citation enough? I'm going to remove the cite needed tag in a few days unless someone objects. --Jim Henry (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible native speakers of Interlingua
This isn't a good enough source to cite by itself, but it may give someone a starting point to track down more definite information. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite/reformat of complex material in history section
This,

 * The 17th century saw the rise of projects for "philosophical" or "a priori" languages. It was pioneered by Francis Lodwick's A Common Writing (1647) and The Groundwork or Foundation laid (or So Intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language and a Universal Common Writing (1652), Sir Thomas Urquhart (Logopandecteision, 1652) George Dalgarno (Ars signorum, 1661) and John Wilkins (Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, 1668) producing systems of hierarchical classification that were intended to result in both spoken and written expression. Gottfried Leibniz with lingua generalis in 1678 pursued a similar end, aiming at a lexicon of characters upon which the user might perform calculations that would yield true propositions automatically, as a side-effect developing binary calculus. These projects were not only occupied with reducing or modelling grammar, but also with the arrangement of all human knowledge into "characters" or hierarchies, an idea that with the Enlightenment would ultimately lead to the Encyclopédie.

is pretty complex and moderately hard to read. What about this:

-

The 17th century saw the rise of projects for "philosophical" or "a priori" languages, such as:

 * Francis Lodwick's A Common Writing (1647) and The Groundwork or Foundation laid (or So Intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language and a Universal Common Writing (1652)
 * Sir Thomas Urquhart's Ekskybalauron (1651) and Logopandecteision (1652)
 * George Dalgarno's Ars signorum, 1661
 * John Wilkins' Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, 1668

These early taxonomic conlangs produced systems of hierarchical classification that were intended to result in both spoken and written expression. Leibniz had a similar purpose for his lingua generalis of 1678, aiming at a lexicon of characters upon which the user might perform calculations that would yield true propositions automatically, as a side-effect developing binary calculus. These projects were not only occupied with reducing or modelling grammar, but also with the arrangement of all human knowledge into "characters" or hierarchies, an idea that with the Enlightenment would ultimately lead to the Encyclopédie.

If nobody objects in a few days I'll incorporate that rewrite into the main article. --Jim Henry (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks good to me. Go for it. — Gwalla | Talk 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. --Jim Henry (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional citations?
After the edits I've done in the last week or two, does anyone still think the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template at the top of the article is still needed? If so, in which sections? If nobody objects in a week or so I'll delete that. --Jim Henry (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Jim Henry (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"secret language" and "political language"

 * Secret languages –  devised for a purpose contrary to that of auxlangs: to make communication incomprehensible to strangers ("to keep the communication secret from institutions of social control", like Verlan, for esoteric or mystic religious purpose, as Twilight language, for military purpose and others);
 * Political languages –  devised to serve a sociopolitical pupose: e.g. to create the sense of national unity through a (new) common language (like Modern Hebrew, Indonesian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Nynorsk and the like). Artistic vision of such a politlang is described as Newspeak in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

 * I removed the terms "criptlang" and "politlang" from these paragraphs -- neither of them (or "cryptlang") gets any relevant Ghits, so unless someone provides evidence that they're in use, we don't need to use those terms here. However, I'm not sure we need to list those two as top-level categories in any case; among conlangers the three-way classification into engelangs, auxlangs and artlangs is pretty well established and other types (e.g. personal or hermetic languages) are usually considered subtypes of those three.  Can User:NoychoH provide any evidence for the general use of those terms as coordinate with engelang, auxlang, etc.?  Wikipedia is not about improving on the terminology of a field, but about observing and documenting what terminology is actually used. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Also, the things discussed in the article on "language game" to which "secret language" redirects, and the examples given of political languages, seem barely to qualify as conlangs, being regularizations or slight modifications of natural languages. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

new constructed languages?
Where would one write an article on a new constructed language? I've come upon Niw Englisc, and would like to put an article up on it, but I'm a little hesitant as wikipedia's got patrols going around deleting articles on such things. Would my article on a simple, new, constructed language last? --JamesR1701E (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Based on past experience, it largely depends on what sources you cite. Can you cite sources other than the language creator's own website showing that other people are interested in it / have been influenced by it, etc.?  If you can, how many and of what kind?  If your sources aren't respectable enough by the nebulous standards of the deletionist faction, there's probably going to be an AfD vote.
 * As for "where": if you have a good set of sources that make deletion unlikely and thus writing the article worthwhile, you could go to List of constructed languages, add the language to to the list with double brackets around its name, click the link and edit the new article. --Jim Henry (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan reference: "Hetzron 1990"?

 * For example, Modern Hebrew was modeled on Biblical Hebrew rather than engineered from scratch, and has undergone considerable changes since the state of Israel was founded in 1948 (Hetzron 1990:693).

Who is Hetzron and what is the title of his or her article, book, or whatever? --Jim Henry (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proslova, Slovo, & Slovio
Any interest in including these universally understood slavic languages? I wouldn't want to put the energy into it if it would be controversial, but they are conspicuous by their abscence.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure they're famous/influential/etc. enough to merit discussion in this main article; maybe in International auxiliary language? What sources can you cite for their importance, notability and what-have-you? --Jim Henry (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, for one there is this source: Tilman Berger: Vom Erfinden Slavischer Sprachen. I don't think any of these languages would merit an article on its own (hell, even Slovio was deleted), but an article about auxiliary Slavic languages (or constructed Slavic languages) would certainly be in order. The sad thing is only that the deletion army will probably point out that since none of the languages discusssed is significant enough for an article, the whole article should go as well. Therefore I'm afraid writing it would be a waste of time. A few lines in international auxiliary language might work, though. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good start - a few well-cited lines can grow gradually into a new article on the group, and possibly from that into individual articles if they grow in notability. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another series based language
in the Macross universe, where does the Zentraedi language place in all this? It might be of use to the article too. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It might make more sense to add a brief mention of it to Artistic language rather than the main "Constructed language" article. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Eurolengo and Mondlango?

 * The success of Esperanto did not stop others from trying to construct new auxiliary languages, such as Leslie Jones' Eurolengo, which mixes elements of English and Spanish, or He Yafu's Mondlango, which introduces more English roots instead of Latin ones.

Are Eurolengo and Mondlango two of the most notable post-Interlingua auxlangs? I don't think so. Probably we should pick a different couple of examples to mention in this context where we're saying that Interlingua wasn't the last auxlang to come along. But as obscure as Eurolengo and Mondlango are, I'm having a hard time coming up with others that are significantly more notable (although I can think of many that are roughly equally notable, i.e. not very; worth mentioning in International auxiliary language, maybe, but not here). --Jim Henry (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what WP (in English) has against Mondlango. This language has a group of follower which may not be big, but which is not less than many (most?) other constructed languages. And there are many WP pages devoted to other constructed languages as this page can show. Despite a vote for Keep, the Mondlango page has been deleted. I wish someone expert with WP (which I'm not) can restore it.Cazaux (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Programming languages: where are they in this article?
I would like to draw your attention that computer language article has as its first links a link to this article. Is it worth mentioning in this article that programming languages which are a fusion of natural languages, mathematics, computer science and strict logic came into being in 19-20th centuries and are constructed/artificial languages designed and polished by humans? Maybe computer/programming languages belong to the engelang group? Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 * The problem is with the link from Computer language, not with the content of this article. Programming languages are simply a completely different kind of thing from constructed human languages.  I would even argue that the word "language" is not used in the same sense in both contexts.  They aren't engelangs, even, although they have slightly more resemblance to engelangs than to other kinds of conlangs; engelangs are intended to be spoken, and in general to be capable of expressing anything humans might want to talk about, whereas programming languages are intended to be parsed by a compiler, and even the most general-purpose of them are far more limited in scope than the typical conlang. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Idea: explicitly delimit what this article is about (e.g., NOT about Programming languages)
The penultimate (2nd-to-last) sentence of Constructed_language (at least, in a certain recent version -- the version with "oldid=547619262") says: [first quote]: "This article deals with 'planned' or 'constructed' languages designed for human/human-like communication." Now, apparently that means that this article does not deal with Programming languages (such as, e.g. Fortran, C, Bash, and Python). (right?) As explained in the article about Programming languages, apparently Constructed languages lack [second quote:] "the precise and complete semantic definition that a programming language has." There you have it! (right?)

I suggest that right near (e.g., immediately after) the above quoted sentence, (see the "[first quote]" -- the  " above) might be a good place to state explicitly -- since it seems to be true -- that Programming languages are outside the scope of this article."(right?) Any comments, before I make that EDIT?

By the way, the problem with the erstwhile link from the lede of the "computer language" article has been remedied, apparently. That article ("computer language") is now [since 10-October-2008] a re-direct to the article about Programming languages, and now it has only ONE hyperlink to this article, and that link occurs way down in the section on "Design and implementation"; -- and it is present there only as part of an explanation about how/why "constructed languages" are different from Programming languages. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A Costructed Language made in 1820's
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZW8qAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akj09 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * This universal language of James Ruggles (1829) is possibly not major enough to mention in this article; maybe in the history section of International auxiliary languages? It's briefly mentioned in Arika Okrent's book and in Donald Boozer's traveling conlang history exhibit. --Jim Henry (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also in this University of Chicago Magazine article by Arika Okrent. --Jim Henry (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Vuk
Why is Vuk Karadzic not mentioned? His is probably the only constructed language to survive and even flourish. 192.219.239.154 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Wasn't his contribution a spelling reform? It's not like he actually invented a new language, just came up with spelling conventions for an existing vernacular AIUI. — Gwalla | Talk 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * You are indeed correct: Vuk Karadzic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Atlantean Language Article Proposed for Deletion
Atlantean is the Klingon-maker's second most popular language (at least it made it into the movie and received some explanation in media), and conlangs in widely-distributed books or movies is rare (The Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Trek 2).

I would just as well leave Wikipedia to its own devices after so many of my friends in Academia have been spurned by it, but could someone say something on Atlantean's behalf? Or at least explain to me the explanation behind this latest mischief on Wikipedia's behalf?~ Wikipedia page discussion Atlantean deletion

Blissglyphs (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 * No, I won't! It obviously will survive. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Unish
I found out that there's a conlang called Unish made by Korean linguists. We don't have enough sources to make a separate page on Unish. Komitsuki (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Constructed languages nominated for deletion
Portal:Constructed languages has been nominated for deletion, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Constructed languages. — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-standard use of IPA symbols
Hello,

Is it legally or morally permissible to use an IPA symbol to represent a sound other than the one assigned to it. For example. I want to use ọ (o with a dot below it) to represent the oi diphthong in a conlang? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Prsaucer1958, and thanks for your message. I'm not sure of the answer to this, and I think you might get a better response at the languages reference desk, as this page is only for discussing the contents of the article, rather than general linguistics questions. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 08:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Conlang flag
Revisiting here after a long absence, I find the accurate, footnoted description of the flag that used to be here has been replaced by an inaccurate, undocumented description. I've been trying to understand what happened.

Back when, the image caption correctly stated that the flag is a symbol of the conlanging community, developed by the membership of the CONLANG mailing list, and a bit about its design (like, the significance of the Tower of Babel). I remember one or two footnotes documenting its origin and the symbolism in the design. At some point somebody had tagged part of it as needing a citation, which made no sense to me since there was already a footnote on the caption that included what had been tagged as needing a citation, but that got cleared up. Apparently, though, since I was last here, somebody removed the image entirely, on the grounds that a flag made up by a mailing list is non-notable (as if notability were required for each fact in an article, rather than for the topic of the article as a whole), and then somebody else added the flag with the inaccurate statement that it's the flag of the LCS.

It seems to me that the removal of the correctly-captioned image was incorrect. However, since it was removed once, I thought I should check here before tinkering with it at all. Do we need to gather some sort of evidence somewhere that the flag is a commonly used symbol of the community, in order to protect it from being removed again once the image caption is corrected? --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. I'd also like to add that the CONLANG mailing list is not unnotable at all; in fact, it has been the central meeting place for conlangers from all over the world for about two decades now! It there is any institution that has the right to develop a "conlang flag" at all, it is this very mailing list. I'm kind of surprised that it is now mentioned as the flag of the Language Creation Society. The truth is that the flag had already caught before the LCS ever existed. Many conlangers (including myself) use this flag on their pages, and when the LCS was established, it was not more than logical that they would follow suit by adopting it, too.
 * I still remember how this flag came into being, which was indeed quite a nice piece of community work. Several people, including myself, made projects, all of which were thoroughly discussed - colours, symbols, rules for good flag design, etc. The ultimate result was based on all these suggestions and discussions, and this is also how I became one of the five people credited for the design. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External Link Removal
User:TheZelos (and others), don't remove useful links (such as the one for wikia's larger conlang wiki). Darkgamma (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are considarably better ones that are far better without refering to corrupt sites TheZelos (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thesauro
Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔκρυψεν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.228.149 (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Early Constructed Languages
"Kabbalistic grammatical speculation was directed at recovering the original language spoken by Adam and Eve in Paradise, lost in the confusion of tongues."

This contributes little if anything and is unsourced. May I delete it? Kortoso (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't we need a criticism section?
If constructed languages have no genuine problems, and no perceived problems, why aren't we all rushing to learn them? If they do have genuine or perceived problems, why don't we have a Criticism section? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking criticism sections should be avoided unless they add actual encyclopedic value. Even then, they must adhere to Wikipedia standards on neutrality and be supported by reliable, third-party sources. With these points in mind, what do you propose to include in a criticism section? TechBear  | Talk | Contributions 14:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Present some literature that critiques conlangs and then we'll see how we'll work it in.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one thing. Another thing is that constructed languages are a rather broad field. Look at international auxiliary language and you'll find a criticism section. In the case of Esperanto there's even a separate article about it. However, constructed languages also include fictional languages, stealth languages, just to name a few, and criticism of auxlangs can hardly be applied to those. Take Klingon language or Dothraki language as a example. The fact that we aren't all rushing to learn them is of no importance here, since being learned by anybody is not their purpose. The fact that some people are learning them anyway is, in fact, nothing but a side effect. Criticism of Klingon could for example be: that language is way too human for an alien language, Japanese is more exotic, or: why should actors be forced to speak some alien language if the audience would have understood them better if they spoke English anyway. But that sort of criticism wouldn't apply to Esperanto, for example. My point being: a criticism section in this particular article should apply to constructed languages in general, criticism of individual languages or specific groups of languages is better off elsewhere. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mondlango
Why Mondlango page has been deleted? It is not less notable than many other constructed languages. Could someone restore it?Cazaux (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 * No. The article was based on spam.  But you're free to nominate other non-notable conlangs for deletion.  — kwami (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

move?
I think this article should be moved to the plural. Anyone else? Gringo300 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar articles prefer the singular, afaics (there's almost certainly a guideline about that somewhere). Earlier today I was looking at Secundative language.  So imho the title of this article is fine as-is.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "glossopoeia"

 * The term glossopoeia, coined by J. R. R. Tolkien, is also used to mean language construction, particularly construction of artistic languages.[3]

On the CONLANG list recently there has been a discussion about the origin of the term; a couple of people have searched certain of Tolkien's works ("A Secret Vice" and the published Letters) for "glossopoeia" and not found it, and a consensus seems to be emerging that the term wasn't coined (or rather, first used in that sense, as it has a more mundane sense in classical Greek) by Tolkien. Can anyone cite a use of the term by Tolkien? The earliest cite anyone has found so far is from 1983, in the zine Mythos: Seeking Truth Through Story, coined (or reinvented with a new sense) by amateur Tolkien scholar Steve Deyo, probably by analogy with Tolkien's term "mythopoeia". --Jim Henry (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Steve Deyo has written me an email confirming that he coined this term in that article. --Jim Henry (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Constructed language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.absolutewrite.com/novels/suzette_haden_elgin.htm
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C4Pf-lezOvAJ:journal.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.php+site:journal.media-culture.org.au+constructed+language&hl=en with https://web.archive.org/web/20050616085932/http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.php on http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constructed language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614035040/http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=28831 to http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=28831
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321094315/http://www.homunculus.com/babel/ to http://www.homunculus.com/babel/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120822080103/http://www.onb.ac.at/ev/esperanto_museum.htm to http://www.onb.ac.at/ev/esperanto_museum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in intro section
There is a sentence that contradicts itself regarding speakers of Interlingua (problem areas bolded):

"Conlang speakers are rare. For example, the Hungarian census of 2001 found 4570 speakers of Esperanto, 10 of Romanid, two each of Interlingua and Ido and one each of Idiom Neutral and Mundolinco.[4] The Russian census of 2010 found 992 speakers of Esperanto, nine of Ido, one of Edo and no speakers of Slovio or Interlingua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.66.123 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Where is the contradiction? The first census is about Hungary, the second one about Russia. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  13:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A Priori vs. A Posteriori Section Is a Disaster
The section must be changed or removed, as it goes beyond being useless, and wanders into the territory of misinformation. The terms are defined quite clearly, but then given subgroupings that are not subordinate, but rather are different classifications. It would be as if saying "Sports can be divided into games that use a ball and those that don't. Of those that use a ball, there are men's sports and women's sports. Of those that don't, there are team sports and individual sports." I am going to attempt a rewrite of the section, but I suspect pushback simply because the changes will be drastic.

In short, while the main definition is correct, the following needs to be stated:

 * 1) Whether or not a language is artistic has nothing to do with it being a priori or a posteriori.
 * 2) The terms "controlled", "naturalistic", and "schematic", as used in the article, define auxlangs, not a posteriori languages.
 * 3) Many of the examples have been incorrectly categorized, leading to absolute confusion as to the terms themselves.

If my edit isn't liked, it would be fine if someone else rewrote it, so long as the above three elements are captured, and the definition is retained. DavidJPeterson (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript
We currently have an illustration from the Voynich manuscript, but it is not mentioned in the text, and the caption does not clarify its relevance (or potential relevance) to the present article.

It should either be removed entirely, or discussed (briefly).--Nø (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How is the article not titled "Conlang"?
Why is COMMONNAME ignored for this article? I am not part of the Conlang community, but no conlanger I've ever met ever referred to it as "Constructed language". Actually no one ever refers to it as "Constructed language" besides to quickly introduce the concept of "Conlang" via its etymology. I am pretty sure there must be two statistical two groups, those that don't know/care/immediately forget about conlangs, and those that call conlangs "conlangs" and even just vaguely think about conlangs sometimes. The Venn diagram of people that ever were interested at one point about conlangs AND of people that call colangs "Constructed language" probably looks like a contact binary between an amazingly spherical supergiant star and a brown dwarf, tickling each other's outermost layer on an area the size of the NYC metro area. CodemWiki (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian census figures
This sentence "Conlang speakers are rare. For example, the Hungarian census of 2011 found 8,397 speakers of Esperanto, and the census of 2001 found 10 of Romanid, two each of Interlingua and Ido and one each of Idiom Neutral and Mundolinco" is imho problematic for several reasons...

 * 1) there is no indication whether Hungary is a country with average, above-average or below-average Esperantist activity.
 * 2) the term "speaker" if it is not meant to imply native speaker (of which there are actually a few hundred to a few thousand in the case of Esperanto) can mean all sorts of things. If they did not at least try to establish an – essentially arbitrary – cutoff (e.g. a level according to the CEFRL), the data is entirely useless.  As Wikipedia does not cite the cutoff, it becomes much less useful data
 * 3) the data is probably derived from self-reporting. People can over- or underestimate their language proficiency in surveys – social desirability may skew the results.
 * 4) Esperanto has been subject of official repression in many countries historically – this may cause people to deny their knowledge of the language, especially in countries with democratic backsliding as Hungary and Russia in 2010.
 * 5) Hungary – and for that matter Russia – is not representative for the world, but citing this census implies it is. There are few (native) speakers of Mandarin or Hindi/Urdu in Hungary – and yet those are some of the most spoken languages globally.

In conclusion: If the data were reliable, it would still be meaningless. And even if it were meaningful, there is a question to be asked whether the statement should be included in the opening paragraphs of the article based on an argument as faulty as numbers from a dozen year old census in a small semi-autocracy. 2001:A62:1487:D302:8DDC:22FC:8838:6A5 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Constructed language


text:
Talk:Anomalous phenomenon

Recent changes
I added quite a bit to the article in a recent edit. Sorry if this bothers anyone. I felt the article was seriously lacking in any real information about anomalies and appeared to be more just a list of "See also". I feel the new version more accurately describes anomalous phenomena as the proverbial glitch in the matrix without it being "all about" the paranormal. Cheers. --Nealparr 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * These recent additions to content make a strong, positive difference in the quality of this article, which is much appreciated! Cynthia Sue Larson 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Since the authorship of wiki articles is collaborative, it's sometimes hard to find kudos. I appreciate the appreciation. --Nealparr 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Someone has suggested a merge with paranormal. Although there are differences I do wonder if they are enough to justify two entries so I am not bothered either way - I'll go with the majority decision. If this is kept separate then this section needs rewriting as per my suggestions above - I'm prepared to expad on it in my sandbox and then we can all edit it up into a form we are happy with. (Emperor 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

 * I've done a bit of consulation on this and have changed my vote from undecided to keep -anomalous phenomena is analgous to Forteana (and I wouldn't object to a move to that entry - we currently have Paranormal and a Forteana categories so this would clarify matters) and deals with the damned data. In most cases facts that don't comfortably fit in with the current worldview. So we can calss ice falls, ball lightning, etc., etc. in this category but ghosts under paranormal. If kept though it needs to be completely redone to make sure the focus of the entry is clear as I suspect it has suffered "creep" with more examples being dropped in which has made it appear to be similar to the Paranormal whereas there are worthy distinctions between them. As mentioned I'll be happy to start an example in my sandbox which we can kick around and agree upon first (Emperor 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

 * It used to be merged with paranormal (around a year ago) and it was an organizational mess. People looking for paranormal information had to wade through tons of non-paranormal stuff and vice versa. There was a reason they separated it. If things were merged again, it would just end up having to be un-merged at some point in the future, so why bother? If merged into paranormal, I would definitely like to see a lot of reduction in content. Especially in links and examples. Less is more.--Nealparr 13:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree - anomalous phenomena includes strange finds (like out of place objects), fringe science and other unexplained events. The Paranormal might be one suggested solution to anomalous phenomena but equally it could be that it is down to fakery or things that have yet to be included within maintream science. So this definitely needs trimming down. I'd be happy to mock up something in my sandbox to help move things forward. (Emperor 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Paranormal and this article are not the same thing
Although Paranormal (used to) redirects to this article, the two are not the same thing. There can be a genuine anomalous phenomenon that isn't paranormal. And things deemed paranormal are not necessarily a phenomenon. Bubba73 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Right. Ball lightning, for instance, is very well attested, but not easy to explain. If it is really lightning, i.e., the movement of a large number of electrons from one charged body to another body with an different potential, then a ball of lightning would presumably be a large number of electrons that clump together, that cohere, and that persist in that state for seconds or minutes. However, electrons in all known circumstances repel each other rather than cohering, so one would expect that a "ball" of electrons would immediately disperse were it not held together by some external force.

 * Why isn't ball lightning mentioned in this article? P0M 07:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This was my thought. Instead of listing inexplicable phenomena known to exist this article seems to only list phenomena whose existence is doubted.

There should be a discussion of some of the 'Black Boxes' in scientific theories. "Where is the dark matter?" "How can an animal evolve extra chromosomes?" "What use is gender?" "How can gravity move faster than light?" "How could altruism evolve?".

As well, the history of how some inexplicable phenomena were explained would be useful: Biologists couldn't explain how bumblebees could fly. Physicists couldn't explain how light moved through a vacuum. Chemists couldn't explain why elements could exist in a number of different weights.

A clarification of the history of scientific mysteries would be a lot more useful in looking at a difference between fringe science and pseudo-science than a list of non-verified paranormal claims.

David Cheater 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My first sorting attempt (pro merging argument) was argued by the inclusive definitions the definitions of the articles. It was like: "Paranormal includes all Pseudoscience includes all Anomalous phenomenon" (but thats wrong, generally speaking, and was based on ya too narrow definition for pseudoscience). The problem is that the articles lack in exclusive "what they are not" definitions and if those are valid. Discussion goes to | Wikiproject_Paranormal sorting and definition --Ollj 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous commnets
You have out of body experiences and near death experiences listed seperately to mental phenomena, I can't see why, OBE's, if they existed, would clearly be mental phenomena in the sense of the category.

Perhaps anomalous phenomena is a misnomer. The advocates assert that natural explanations in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. are inadmissable. In their stead, theories which run counter to conventional science are asserted with little evidence.

IMHO, the above is unclear, but could and should be re-moved to the main page after it's expanded. I can't tell whether it's a meta-comment (about the choice of the name of the article) or a comment about, e.g., parapsychologists. Who are the "advocates" here (what do they advocate for)? Also "theories" about what, and who is asserting them? In short, is this what you mean?--

Some skeptics hold that anomalous phenomena is a misnomer, because this implies that there are real phenomena under study. Those who believe there are real phenomena to study--parapsychologists, for example--are said to assert that natural explanations of alleged "paranormal" phenomena cannot be explained in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. Instead of these natural explanations, the parapsychologists (and others) advance theories that, skeptics maintain, run counter to conventional science and are supported by little evidence.

If that's what you mean, there must be a simpler way to say it. :-)

Was not Quantum Physics, and even The Chaos Theory, during initial postulation rejected by mainstream scientists as a sort of "pseudoscience?" It would seem to me that a discussion on Anomalous Phenomena and pseudoscience, any articles that expand upon these, might not be complete without inclusion of fields previously included in these categories, but is no longer labeled such. -Invictus

''I wouldn't say so. Quantum physics met with a lot of resistance, but because the theory itself is unusual - the effects it explains were well-known at the time. Chaos theory is mathematics, so the question was whether the theory applied to the real world. In this case, it's not clear that there are effects or a theory to work with.''

I'd say so, if what you say is true. What better person to make the change than you? --LS :-)

Apparently, either there are phenomena, or there is merely coincidence. A large enough body of regularly observed coincidence (as the case of "Audie Murphy," or the family relative whom each of us has who can always tell you when the phone is about to ring) will be finally expressed by the casual observer as a discrete phenomenon. If we are to take the position that there are no anomalous phenomena, then we should replace the page with "coincincidences, misperceptions and frauds." Otherwise "phenomena" is as good a tag as anything.
 * I believe the reference should be to Bridey Murphy, and not Audie Murphy, the WWII hero. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Let us take for example the practice of johrei, as practiced by the Johrei Fellowship, AKA Church of World Messianity. Here a practicioner, according to the tenets of the faith, wears a Chinese character in a pouch about his neck which serves to help attract a universal divine light. In an effort to alleviate the suffering of an afflicted person, he assumes a meditative mindset and holds his hand near the affected portion of that person's body, palm-facing, and "channels divine light" toward the area. Persons so ministered to frequently go through episodes of coughing or shivering, speak of warmth, tingling in the area, etc., and walk away (subjectively, at least) improved.

Skeptics will say "hogwash" or "placebo effect" or "fraud" (never mind that there is no financial incentive to perpetrate such a fraud) or whatever. But there will be a body of people who say - "This is a part of my life experience." That much, at least, I think qualifies the obervation as a "phenomenon." Certainly, there is no scientific physical explanation for what these people experience. That would probably qualify it as "anomalous." So, perhaps the page, category, or whatever is aptly named.
 * Shouldn't there be a page for the above? lysdexia 23:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And there are, to be sure, any number of claimed experiences or observations for which there is no reliable evidence that they ever even happened. Do these rise to the level of "phenomena?" Perhaps not. To be on the safe side, our discussions of phenomena might do well to start out with things for which there is at least some credible corroboration that at least some event really occurred.

I agree that conspiracy theories are not themselves anomalous phenomena; the purported conspiracies would normally allege explanations that are consistent with mainstream science. The activities may be illegal or depend on irrational behaviour, but the entire chain of events is conceivable without any departure from accepted science. Nevertheless, such theories are often proposed as explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Science and anomalous phenomena
In the section "Definition," the following graf ...

''There are also many cases in which no theory explains observations and no scientist can be found to make theories for them, since there is no proof of the observation in the first place. For instance, science has no interest in making theories where flying saucers come from, since there is no proof that these 'flying saucers' exist in the first place. The same is true for the paranormal. Until it is proven that paranormal effects truly exist, there is no need for an explanation of them.''

... doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't fit as a definition, and it doesn't seem to add any meaning to the overall article. Besides, there are plenty of scientists who study the paranormal. For instance, understanding paranormal beliefs is a key area of study for cultural anthropologists. Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going to delete this paragraph.
 * Delete it again, since science doesn't deal with proof but with founding. lysdexia 23:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

paranormal investigator
I'm going to remove this note for the time being, since there are anomalies in other fields of study (such as physics and biology), and not just the paranormal. I'd like to move the reference to the 'paranormal' section of this article, but for the time being, I can't think of a way to state it without being horribly redundant ("Someone who investigates the paranormal is called a paranormal investigator"). --InShaneee 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina
Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Wikipedians....
Any Wikipedians out there who has had paranormal experiences ?Martial Law 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Being convinced myself that they do not exist... no. --AK7 03:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There was this weird thing once, ( I was very young ). I was lying in bed and I concerntrated on the globe next to it, I could have sworn it started spinning around, but I was pretty tired at the time ( with resultant effects on perception) and it didn't really look like it moved much, so I'd hardly consider it conclusive proof of telekensis. There's been a couple of times when I've suddenly thought "Oh, such and such celebrity has died", I look it up on the internet and... whata you know, it's happened about three times. However personally I'd be far more likely to believe that this can be explained by a combination of coincidence and half heard news report. Personally I am glad I don't have psychic powers, because images flash through my head of the building burning around me, of gravity doing weird things etc whenever I am stressed, If I really was telekentic ( to a large degree) and things happened when I imagined them I'd be responsible for millions of dollars in damaged property and worse, god knows how many deaths.

Please sign your statements. Martial Law 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've experienced "unexplained vanishing objects" more than once. The most recent one was upsetting: a wooden stir-stick disappeared while I was stirring morning coffee.  The stick slipped under the opaque liquid... and then it wasn't there.  I know it sounds silly... but imagine that this happened to *you*. :)  Most "vanishing objects" reports can be attributed to perceptual faults, where you can't see a set of keys sitting on a cluttered table (yet a friend has no trouble seeing them.)  But occasionally people will report genuine disappearances... often followed by mysterious re-appearances.  --Wjbeaty 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'm always losing pens, and I don't understand why my sock's don't all match.

 * Sometimes my pockets have lots of coins in them, other times they do not. Then, once again, I find lots of coins in my pockets.  Believe it or not this has happened ever since I started carrying money in my pockets.  Too weird.  Mr Christopher 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This entry needs special treatment
I do not agree with Firestrom. All the knowledge cannot be painted either black or white. Shades of gray need a different tretment. Charlie

 * I agree with Charlie. There is certainly value for some readers in having a list of objects that are tied together by some common characteristic -- the web is full of them. This page is the most logical nexus for a wide range of phenomenae which are relatively unique; certainly people interested in anomalies benefit from an index which will lead them to other examples. Twang 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Seeing what a few of you half-wits did to my article (based in decades of experience), I found this comment today. And I just had to share it with you. Because it just fits.

I used to lend a hand to editing a few articles on wikipedia, but it was such an exercise in futility and frustration that I had to quit. When I first came across wikipedia, it struck me as a great idea, but after having contributions that I knew to be factual repeatedly removed or edited, I have to say that the concept as a whole is ridiculously flawed and unworkable. If you don't know, wikipedia is an online "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. That's right, any knucklehead viewing an article can click a link and add, remove or change whatever they'd like. You're probably already laughing, wondering how anyone could possibly take such a thing seriously, and you're right. No one should.

There is a small army of wikipedia geeks who apparently park on the site for hours a day waiting to check changes and remove obvious defacements and vandalism. But there's no way they can possibly know whether something is a legitimate change or not when dealing with 875,000 different topics.  If you become involved with a certain article, you'll soon find yourself debating minutia with a bunch of humorless idiots, hell-bent on making every article read like the same clumsy, robot-drone horror show. I understand that an "encyclopedia" should have a neutral presentation. But there's neutral, and then there's mind-numbing.

Style issues aside, when there are errors continually introduced into a topic I know quite a bit about, it makes me doubt the validity of the articles that I might want to read to actually learn something. How can I have faith in a pool of information that I know for a fact is polluted? Yes, I know you could say that about the internet as a whole, not just wikipedia. But the internet doesn't tout itself as the fount of all human knowledge.

Syonara, Wikipedia. The mediocrities won. Just like they did at Everything. 3rd time's the charm. Go ahead and delete this, halfwits. See you in the history books.

 * Wouldn't it be better to stay and work on how to improve the article? (Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism
Although there was a reversion there were actually two separate acts of vandalism (both related to "Dontay" and the reversion only fixed the more recent one. I've now turned things back to the version on the 13th and I think I've managed to carry over the only extra bit of legitimate information that had been added - the link to the Czech version. Worth keeping an eye on this entry for further foolishness though. (Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

A Spring Clean?
I'm not really that happy with the entry - it seems slightly unfocused.
 * I've added in some of the "classics" into the further reading but I suspect it would be a good idea to remove some of the other more specific ones (remote viewing and channeling books can go in their respetive entries).
 * Equally the "See Also" need addressing. Personally I think it should contain entries which generally expand on the topic. Examples of specific phenomena can be grouped together and accessed via the Forteana category and the most relevant can be linked to from the examples section.
 * Mainly I think the top part could be tightened up and probably bulleted (we could also move the Einstein quote to the start?). I was thinking we could go for:

Anomalous phenomena are those that lie at the fringes of acceptance. They can be:
 * Fringe science topics which may eventually be rejected or absorbed within the general consensus. Meterotites once existed in this area and cold fusion still does.
 * More paranormal topics like ghosts and UFOs. Some of these may straddle the divide between this and the above, for example cryptozoolgy.

There are numerous explanations for the latter:

 * Deliberate human activity - hoaxing or pranks
 * Physiolgical activity - temporal lobe epilepsy, general fatigue
 * Errors - misidentifications, misunderstadnings, etc.
 * As yet unidentfied natural phenomena - earthlights, etc.

The important thing in the study of anomalous phenomena is to be able to sift out the data that can be easily explained (as opposed to "explained away") to see if there is actually a case to answer.

We could put the explanations under the examples. Granted it needs a polish and kicking around a bit but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Anyone got any other ideas? (Emperor 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

 * Don't forget "Black ops". Martial Law 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) :)

 * Good point - we have to get a mention of Skunk works and Disinformation in there too (Emperor 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Suitable "Further reading"
There is conflict about what books should be suggested for further reading. Is there any reason why the works of Charles Fort should not be listed? He is mentioned earlier. His very name is a synonym for Anomalous Phenomena, "Fortean". It seems bizarre not to list his books and the others that were there, as a service to the reader. --GangofOne 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Quite right - I have to say I am mystified how adding in those books to "Further Reading" can be classed as 'spam.' I have shelves of books on anomalous phenomena and if anyone wanted to get some further reading to get them into the topic then those are the very books I'd lend them (and possibly Karl Shuker's "The UneXplained" as well as the partwork of the same name). If you know of any other good general reference books on the area then add them in but 'spam'... I even made a note of what I'd done above - if people had an issue with it they could have easily dropped in here (or m talk page) and asked me to explain my actions which I'd be happy to do. (Emperor 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Examples?
Is the prehistoric/'dinosaurs are extinct' thing good? There has been a prehistoric fish, the Selacamp (sp?), found ... 69.76.192.18 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph
Used to read: ''An anomalous phenomenon is an observed event which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science). The study of spontaneous or hard-to-reproduce anomalies may be considered pseudoscience, partly because science needs phenomena to be reproducible.'' Someone seems to find that science have no need for reproducability, and someone else seems to find that the claim that, the study of non-reproducible phenomenon is pseudoscience, needs verification. Getting verification for these claims can't be that hard. Taemyr 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was a violation of WP:SYNTH
This page tied together a number of disparate ideas in an attempt to make some sort of point about "anomalies". The way that the classic black swan falsification lesson of induction was lumped together with Forteanea, anomalistics, and paranormal beliefs made the article read like the essay of a more-highly-than-average-educated paranormal investigator trying to justify his craft than an encyclopedia article. We already have articles on the fallacy of induction, anomalistics, Forteanea, and paranormal beliefs of all stripes. They do not belong lumped together in such a fashion. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * How about we actually leave the discussion open for a while before jamming in a redirect?

 * I agree this page needs work (I suggested a rewrite many moons ago - see above) but redirecting it to anomaly doesn't help anyone.

 * I have asked for further input on this so we can have a proper debate and thrash out a solution. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

 * No. We should not leave poor content on Wikipedia for any length of time. The redirect is a good move because the article is a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no difference between an anomalous phenonomenon and an anomaly. There are no sources which indicate as such. Leaving it as a redirect will encourage people to work on the articles that actually need help. Further input is always welcome. I'm concerned that you have made no arguments as to why the article should be kept at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * There is a process to such things - flagging concerns, rewrites and if you still have concerns then put it for AfD and let the community decide.
 * Now I agree this entry needs work - as you say it has lost its focus which is anomalous phenomena which is a different beast to paranormal phenomena as there need not be a paranormal explanation to this (and those are best dealt with in their own entry), just unexplained natural processes (the example of meteorites being the most commonly used). It equally needn't infringe WP:SYNTH as there are plenty of overviews of this - I suppose the most obvious recent work includes William R. Corliss's work which looks at the anomalies highlighted in scientific journals and Bob Rickard's Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena. (Emperor (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

 * You're still proposing synthesizing pseudoscience with reports on scientific journals. Unacceptable. Either we have an article on scientific anomalies or we have an article on paranormal anomalies. Combining the two is original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * So basically I'm saying it is a valid area of study (and can offer examples) and you are saying it isn't - which is why I've suggested we need a discussion on this that involves the community. As I've said - there is a process and steps you take to resolve problems like this and you have taken none of them. The only real way to resolve this is to reverse the redirect and actually open this up for discussion - I can't see why this would be seen as a bad thing. (Emperor (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

 * There's a number of sources marrying "anomalous phenomena" with "paranormal phenomena". It merits a discussion on that topic rather than redirecting to an article on scientific anomalies. As SA pointed out, they are two separate things, which is why a redirect to anomaly (an article on anomalies in science) is not necessarily appropriate when there's Google references that suggest usage in paranormal circles. What should have happened is that it should have been tagged "rewrite" and then let editors offer input. I'm not going to argue that it isn't synthesis since it is compiled from several existing Wikipedia articles. I know because I'm the one who added alot of it (particularly the falsification stuff) like years ago, lol. In my defense I was somewhat a newbie at the time. Rewrite, not redirect. Two separate topics, per SA. And, I would like to add (to SA), you did say about a year ago that you thought it was a well-written article about anomalies, so it's surprising that now you're saying it's rubbish. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Had I compiled the article recently I wouldn't have just copied and pasted from existing articles, like Falsifiability. I would have provided direct sources for the synthesis so that it's not considered original. It's not original, but SA is right, it's not sourced directly. I can probably provide sources if everyone waits a week or so. In the meantime, I don't oppose an entire rewrite either. There's no need for speedy action as in hours or even in days. I completely disagree with SA that "We should not leave poor content on Wikipedia for any length of time." Standard procedure is to tag and discuss. There's a process for speedily deletion. There's a process for redirection. There's a process for merging. In the least, a "merge" tag should have been introduced for "merging" the idea into anomaly, which I would have opposed of course because that's an article on scientific anomalies, not anomalous phenomena as paranormal terminology. But the only content that doesn't have a process for speedy deletion, but still involves speedy deletion, is WP:BLP. So discussing a rewrite is completely in order. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to listen, but right now I just can't get past the absurd contention that "anomalous phenomenon" refers only to paranormal events. Ridiculous. Redirecting! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * You need consensus for this. Doesn't look like you have it.  Agree with Nealparr about the process. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, you are being disruptive in defiance of your arbcomm restrictions. You have presented no rationale for this redirect and appear to be playing an obstructionist game. Further actions like this will be reported to WP:AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I told you- I agree with Nealparr. You seem to be the only editor who has a problem with this article, while others do not.  If others don't buy your arguments, that means you don't have consensus, not that others are disruptive.  Rather, you are being disruptive by redirecting against consensus. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * You are not presenting any further explaantion of how an anomalous phenomenon is different than an anomaly. Please explain what sources you are using that disambiguate the two. Instead of crowing about consensus, try to respond with some sources and some thought-out argumentation. As it is, you are simply being disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * No, procedural grounds per Nealparr and Emperor are quite valid. If it isn't improved in a few weeks, then we can redirect.  But just off the top of my head, you're redirecting to Anomaly, which does not contain the information of this article.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * These links, among many, are enough to establish the notability of the term.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are fairly poor quality sources. Jefffire (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * How exactly is removing categories, references, further reading, links to international versions, etc. helping the article? (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Merge with anomaly
"Anomalous phenomenon" appears to be synonymous with anomaly. Since to date all that has been proposed to the contrary has been extremely poor quality references, none of which really define it as a separate subject it is proposed that this page be merged with anomaly. . Jefffire (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree with merge. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Keep but clean-up following the plan I outlined back in April 2006 above. I'd also suggest this edit results in a gutted entry that can't possibly be used as a basis for consideration on the worth of this article. I'd suggest putting it back to my last version while the actual merge debate is ongoing, at the very least people might want to consider something like this version  as a better basis for judging this entry. Also anomaly is a disambiguation page - so this isn't actually a merge debate but a pseudo-AfD as none of the content from here would actually be merged there. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

 * Keep for now, per Emperor. Here are some more sources.  We aren't looking for good sources, just notability for the term.

]

The current deletion of most of the article needs to be reversed, so we can pare it down and build it up in a professional manner. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Two problems with this response, firstly I said that the term was synonymous with anomaly, not that it wasn't notable. For example Homeopathic medicine is notable, but there is no need for a seperate article from Homeopathy. Secondly, only the completely unverified and OR material was removed, that just happened to comprise the bulk of the article. Jefffire (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, the bulk of the article is verbatim from the falsifiablility article, which is in part about anomalies. It can be made to be WP:V very easily just by copying the sources over as well. What that has to do with anything, probably very little since it doesn't really justify a need for this page. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Anomaly is a disambig page. We could rename to Anomaly (paranormal). —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Which would then definitely be a redirect to paranormal, so why bother? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Comment I'm undecided. While anomalous phenomena is by definition synonymous with anomaly, it has a strong and notable usage among paranormal enthusiasts to describe Fortean anomalies. So I don't know if it should be directed to the anomaly article, or if there should be an article about the Forteana. I think the best solution is to redirect this article's name to Anomaly and create a new article called Anomaly (Forteana) which would be linked off the anomaly disambig page. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Good idea. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * If you can find decent references and content that's a worthy endevour. Jefffire (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Charles Fort lived almost a century ago and was a very prolific writer. In the present day there are whole societies, magazines, and books devoted to the type of anomalies he wrote about. There's the guy himself, which has a biography article, but also a "category" of folklore, legends, and whatnot collectively called "Forteana". I've always thought it a shame that the term just redirects to his bio since it's more than the man himself. Basically, there's plenty of references and content, most of it secondary sources, to write about Fortean anomalies. I can get it started as a stub this weekend if there's support for this solution. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, Neal, do write an article on Forteana. Please remember to include some skeptical commentary in there as well. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Great, if there are no objections, I'll create the article, Anomaly (Forteana) and transfer this full article (before recent blanking). Most of that material will probably go in the end, but it should be avaliable for possible sourcing. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The stuff that's just blanket copied from the falsifiability article is still blatantly OR, but it may be possible to locate sources for the "paranormal" phenomenon. Jefffire (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Technically it's not orginal research, just unsourced material. All of the information about falsifiability and anomalies is correct, it just doesn't appear in the sources provided. Example: "Popper's falsifiability thesis arises in response to the general problem of anomaly in science." But since the new article doesn't have to cover all things anomaly, and just Forteana, much of it is irrelevant and can go (probably all of it). Technically, in case people want to consider it when voting, this is a rewrite proposal instead of merge, focusing on Forteana instead of just anomalies in general. Honestly, I think somewhere down the line some of the existing material can be sourced and added to the Anomaly disambig page, because Popper's idea of falsifiability is directly related to anomalies. The objective of falsification is to identify an anomalous discovery that would falsify a statement. Example, the discovery of a black swan makes the statement "All swans are white" false. A discovery of a living dinosaur is an anomaly, or an exception to the rule that dinosaurs are extinct. But I'm satisfied working on a Forteana article. Fort went looking for anomalies like living dinosaurs. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * OK looks like a new article seems the way forward, which is fine by me. Could I make a couple of suggestions:
 * Shouldn't we just go for Forteana?
 * I'd rather we start from scratch. It was already bad back in 2006 when I suggested a major re-write and it only went downhill since then. A clean slate could just be what is needed.
 * Just a couple of thoughts. (Emperor (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

 * It's fine by me either way. But the general use of "Anomalous phenomenon" is paranormal.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are more anomalous phenomena than just "Forteana"
Therefore, I redirected the page to anomaly. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * However, I agree with Martinphi that the redirct should point to the newly started Anomaly (Forteana). Whether or not all anomalous phenomena are Forteana we also have to deal with how that link is used here and nearly all the incoming links are using the term as the equivalent of it . The best bet would be to find the few that aren't and change the into a link to anomaly - which as a disambiguation page doesn't tell anyone following the anomalous phenomena link anything. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

 * The answer is to fix the incoming links. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The redirect to the new page was per this talk page. If you can source that the phrase is used more often conventionally, then something should perhaps be done. But if the usual use is paranormal, then this is correct. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Since this is an ambiguous phrase, it is inappropriate to redirect it to a specific instance of it per the Principle of Least Astonishment. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Or we could do what other articles do, and go directly to the most common use -paranormal- while mentioning "for other uses see the disambig page." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you have any sources that indicate that this is the most common use for anomalous phenomena? The term is used frequently to mean things other than Forteana. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Google. We should follow the Principle of Least Astonishment and go directly to the article most searchers will be looking for.  We go to the usual usage, and make sure people can find the disambig page.  If you have any source which says this common sense should not be followed here, you should tell us.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * So the answer is, no, you don't have any sources. Thanks for letting us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The fact that the incoming links are using this as the equivalent to Forteana (as can clearly be seen on the Charles Fort entry for one) pretty much demonstrates the link - so following the PoLA it should go to Anomaly (Forteana). If you are concerned we can hatnote it to [Anomaly]] (as seems sensible anyway) and I'll double check the incoming links. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

 * Agree. And it's nice of you to do the grunt work (: —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well it shouldn't be a big task - I have checked them and they do nearly all refer to Forteana. However, it will need checking but I'm sure it won't be "grunt work" ;). (Emperor (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

 * I have mentioned before that this is all that needs to happen. I'm glad it got through finally. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * But you've now gone through the incoming links and removed them because they now point to a disambiguation page, effectively making the job of checking the links awfully difficult. If you were going to go through the incoming links then why not change them so they point to Anomaly (Forteana)? (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

 * So often against consensus or non-consensus. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Anomalous phenomenon


text:
Talk:Anti-globalization movement

Black Bloc
In the section about N30, there are no sources for any of the information.

Furthermore, there is an assertion that it was the Black Bloc who was responsible for every act of property violence, which is clearly untrue. I point anyone interested to the documentary "Breaking the Spell" released by CrimethInc.

"Anti-globalization" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-globalization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. C933103 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"Movimiento antiglobalización" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movimiento_antiglobalizaci%C3%B3n&redirect=no Movimiento antiglobalización] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anti-globalization movement


text:
Talk:Alyattes of Lydia

Battle
The battle referred to here isn't a named one that I'm aware of. The authors are apparently just trying to say "he fought there", and used the unusual phrase they did because there is a Battle of Halys. Byzantine history, 5th century.... -- Paul Drye

"1 stater = 168 grains of wheat"
Sure? I see no source given. I've only heard of Barley being used as measurements, as apparently the individual grains varied extremely little in size in ancient times. --BjKa (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alyattes of Lydia


text:
Ascending chain condition

In mathematics, the ascending chain condition (ACC) and descending chain condition (DCC) are finiteness properties satisfied by some algebraic structures, most importantly ideals in certain commutative rings. These conditions played an important role in the development of the structure theory of commutative rings in the works of David Hilbert, Emmy Noether, and Emil Artin. The conditions themselves can be stated in an abstract form, so that they make sense for any partially ordered set. This point of view is useful in abstract algebraic dimension theory due to Gabriel and Rentschler.

Definition
A partially ordered set (poset) P is said to satisfy the ascending chain condition (ACC) if no infinite strictly ascending sequence
 * $$a_1 < a_2 < a_3 < \cdots$$

of elements of P exists. Equivalently, every weakly ascending sequence
 * $$a_1 \leq a_2 \leq a_3 \leq \cdots,$$

of elements of P eventually stabilizes, meaning that there exists a positive integer n such that
 * $$a_n = a_{n+1} = a_{n+2} = \cdots.$$

Similarly, P is said to satisfy the descending chain condition (DCC) if there is no infinite descending chain of elements of P. Equivalently, every weakly descending sequence
 * $$a_1 \geq a_2 \geq a_3 \geq \cdots$$

of elements of P eventually stabilizes.

Comments

 * Assuming the axiom of dependent choice, the descending chain condition on (possibly infinite) poset P is equivalent to P being well-founded: every nonempty subset of P has a minimal element (also called the minimal condition or minimum condition). A totally ordered set that is well-founded is a well-ordered set.
 * Similarly, the ascending chain condition is equivalent to P being converse well-founded (again, assuming dependent choice): every nonempty subset of P has a maximal element (the maximal condition or maximum condition).
 * Every finite poset satisfies both the ascending and descending chain conditions, and thus is both well-founded and converse well-founded.

Example
Consider the ring
 * $$\mathbb{Z} = \{\dots, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, \dots\}$$

of integers. Each ideal of $$\mathbb{Z}$$ consists of all multiples of some number $$n$$. For example, the ideal
 * $$I = \{\dots, -18, -12, -6, 0, 6, 12, 18, \dots\}$$

consists of all multiples of $$6$$. Let
 * $$J = \{\dots, -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, \dots\}$$

be the ideal consisting of all multiples of $$2$$. The ideal $$I$$ is contained inside the ideal $$J$$, since every multiple of $$6$$ is also a multiple of $$2$$. In turn, the ideal $$J$$ is contained in the ideal $$\mathbb{Z}$$, since every multiple of $$2$$ is a multiple of $$1$$. However, at this point there is no larger ideal; we have "topped out" at $$\mathbb{Z}$$.

In general, if $$I_1, I_2, I_3, \dots$$ are ideals of $$\mathbb{Z}$$ such that $$I_1$$ is contained in $$I_2$$, $$I_2$$ is contained in $$I_3$$, and so on, then there is some $$n$$ for which all $$I_n = I_{n+1} = I_{n+2} = \cdots$$. That is, after some point all the ideals are equal to each other. Therefore, the ideals of $$\mathbb{Z}$$ satisfy the ascending chain condition, where ideals are ordered by set inclusion. Hence $$\mathbb{Z}$$ is a Noetherian ring.

title: Ascending chain condition