Talk:István Kecskés

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

Here are the links to the other plenaries that 125.120.155.21 talked about: http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak4/anglistentag2010/ Dienstag 

09.30 – 10.30	Plenarvortrag

Istvan Kecskes (Albany, New York) "Socio-cognitive approach to communication and pragmatics"

http://conference.clancorpus.net/ (click on “Programme”) http://www.celta.paris-sorbonne.fr/CELTA-colloques/MIC-Sorbonne 2010/MIC2010/MIC2010-CallPapers.html (The Sorbonne conference is partly dedicated to Kecskes’ socio-cognitive approach).

Please note that the organizer of the conference has contributed to Intercultural Pragmatics, the journal the Kecskes edits. ( Hélène WLODARCZYK (2008) en collaboration avec André Wlodarczyk, “Agents, Roles and Other Things We Talk About : Associative Semantics and Meta-Informative Centering Theory”, Intercultural Pragmatics5-3(2008), Forum, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin – New-York, 345-365.) The two of them have a symbiotic relationship where they give each other speaking engagements. Then they go home and tell people who will listen that they were given a speaking engagement all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. Wlodarczyk scheduled five conferences or speakers in the spring of 2010 ( see http://www.celta.paris-sorbonne.fr/seminaire/seminaire-CELTA.html ). Two of them are her husband and the fifth is Kecskes and his relative Tunde Papp who are advertised as coming from the "Etat Unis." I shared my thoughts on far away speakers at minor events on Ned Addison's talk page. BTW, CELTA has no English wikipedia page and its French page is a stub.Bobbee.girl (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information on the socio-cognitive approach and Kecskes’ latest publications should be restored. I will do that. However, I will not put my name here because I am sure Bobbeegirl would harass me just as s/he has been harassing Kecskes. --169.226.154.26 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You do not seem to understand how wikipedia works. Let me suggest you review the process. I put my thoughts on conference speaking below and some additional thoughts on the talk Nedaddison page.Bobbee.girl (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Nedaddisson, what is the purpose of these lines you added? If you wish, you could put in labels to make the discussion categories clearer, but it is difficult to see their purpose. You offered no explanation.65.110.133.84 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Ned Danison writing) Dear 65.110.133.84, sorry, I thought the lines helped show at a glance what different individuals wrote. Labels are a good idea. Perhaps you can do that. I hereby bow out of any further involvement. If anyone wants to contact me or continue the discussion, email me at ned@neddanison.com.Neddanison (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the second paragraph necessary? It discusses a theory called "the Dynamic Model of Meaning (DMM)" however it gives no context for the ideas in the theory. It does not discuss the impact of the theory. According to google scholar the theory is not widely cited and does not seem to be significant. Clearly this article, especially in its original form, looked as if it were written as a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery by a minor academic intent on exaggerating his own importance. This is a misuse of wikipedia. Can we remove the paragraph altogether? If we did it would make this article more in line with those of comparable college teachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.103.30.138 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like if no one can provide any context or evidence of the theory being significant then maybe it should be removed. It does seem extraneous and unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.133.110 (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has given a reason against, and this biography clearly did look self-written and bloated in its original form, I am removing the section on the DMM theory. It does look as if the theory is not important in itself and a full list of publications by this person have been included so people can look it up themselves should they wish. In fact, I think an argument could be made that the very fact that the essay was allowed to stand as originally written for so long speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbee.girl (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Nedaddisson, you cannot simply restore wikipedia pages to a previous version without discussion to flatter your friends. This is a misuse of wikipedia and a violation of the rules. If you do it again, you will be reported and you may be disciplined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbee.girl (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Neddaddison, please do not add these innappropriate links. Again, you may be reported and perhaps will be blocked if you do so. Please look at other wikipedia pages devoted to academics of comparable standing for a suitable model of what to put and not put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbee.girl (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]









I join this discussion reluctantly for fear my Wikipedia collaborators might use ad hominem against me, as it has been used against Kecskes. I have no personal interest here beyond defending Kecskes' biography against vindictive attacks; I would hope others would do the same for me. Now my name (Ned Danison) and thus my reputation are involved (I do nothing on the Internet anonymously), so I should clarify my actions.

Bobbee.girl is right, I restored the biography to an earlier edit without regard to this discussion page; I shouldn't have done that. I didn't know a discussion had been started. Beginning around 6/24/10, this biography was repeatedly -- unfairly and inaccurately -- "edited" to include personal attacks and allegations from an apparently vindictive motive. I took a friendly interest in restoring the biography as an associate of I. Kecskes. The anonymous editor seemed determined to continue the maliciousness, so several times I restored the text quickly without checking to see that a discussion had started.

As for the specific objections in this discussion:

- How "significant" must a theory be in order to be included in Wikipedia? The fact that "the Dynamic Model of Meaning" is the work of Kecskes, by which he may be known, and this is Kecskes' biography, seems reason enough to simply let it stand. "The context for the ideas in the theory" is included in the original text: it is the contention in Pragmatics and Communication over the issue of intention (relevance) vs. attention (salience). Kecskes' work is an attempt to reconcile these. Perhaps an editor familiar with the field could make this context a little more accessible to the layperson. Bobbie.girl's reasoning that it should be removed because it seems to him/her like "a piece of self-aggrandizing puffery by a minor academic intent on exaggerating his own importance" seems to me ad hominem.

I will step away from the entry for now. It appears that a few people (two?) want to take Kecskes down a peg, and I don't want to step in it. The entry as it stands (7/25/10) seems fair enough, but more discussion is needed as to why the above-mentioned things should not be included. Neddanison (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are indications that the original version of this biography was written by Istvan Kecskes himself. Therefore inclusion of this theory could potentially violate the wikipedia policy on publishing original research. (Using wikipedia to promote one's original research on a subject is not allowed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.133.84 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Kecskes has invented several theories (with accompanying neologisms) this does not mena they are important theories or important contributions. Not every idea by every person deserves space on wikipedia. For an example of how wikipedia approaches theories of importance see "relativity" or "evolution." For an example of a minor theory by a minor theorizer (who like Kecskes has a fondness for neologisms) you might see the page "Time cube." Also please note Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbee.girl (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publication list and speaking engagement issues[edit]

---The Publication List--- "Kecskes’ major publications include five books"--this is clumsily written and vague. (Who defines 'major' publications? Major contributions to what? Are all of these books important? If so to whom? And what are the other "major publications" that are not mentioned? Does this man admit to any minor contributions?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.6.17 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to include such a lengthy list of publications?Bobbee.girl (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- "Kecskes' major publications" refers to the longer works Kecskes has had published, in contrast to his shorter or "minor" ones. Perhaps the unsigned discussant has a point insofar as the language could be refined, say, to "Kecskes' longer works" or something like that. But again, the discussant engages in ad hominem.

- As for the list of publications, why should it be longer or shorter? We have here a biography of a person whose career is marked by written work. The external links (which have been removed) seem relevant, too, since each shows a connection of the subject to professionally-identifying activities.

Kecskes' claim to significance is as a college professor and editor of an academic journal. Looking quickly at samples of wikipedia biographies of other professors at the University at Albany, the first five in alphabetical order

( * Ronald A. Bosco 

   * Joseph C. Burke
   * Louise Burkhart
   * Don Byrd
   * Lydia Davis)

Four do not include any publications and the fifth includes "selected publications." Therefore this articles publications list is longer than that of comparable people. It seems reasonable to cut it. People who wish that information can find it by following the link to his university page. [As for his career as an editor at "Intercultural Pragamatics" most comparable linguistics journals lack a wikipedia page, much less a biography for their editor. This does not seem sufficient reason to include a full length of publicaitons.)65.110.133.84 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering reducing the number of listed publications so that this biography will be closer in form to that of Kecskes' peers. This original biography appears to have been written and edited by Kecskes and his associates. Therefore portions of it appear bloated. I'd like to edit down to something more appropriate. Does anyone have any thoughts on why the publications on the publication list are important? Are some more important than others? Do any need to be included? If so which ones? Today is August 25, I may start removing publications from the publication list in two weeks. Thanks.10:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbee.girl (talk • contribs)

I just checked who this guy is. I found on the Linguist List that Kecskes will be a plenary or keynote speaker at four (!!!) upcoming linguistics conferences in three months (!!): Anglistenverban (Saarbrucken, Sept. 19-22), Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Plymouth, Nov. 11-13), Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics (Madrid, Nov. 15-17), CELTA Symposium, Paris, Sorbonne (Nov. 18-19). http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/SoCCE/CRNS/SCL2010/ Maybe Kecskes' theory deserves some attention. At least his peers seem to be interested..... It' s a shame that Wikipedia administrators let Bobbee.girl control what information people can read about Kecskes. I know now who Kecskes is. But who is Bobbee.girl to judge Kecskes' work? It is very interesting that bobbee.girl controls the stub "Intercultural Pragmatics" as well. This is the journal that Kecskes edits. Is this just a remarkable coincidence? I think Wiki readers deserve better.--125.120.155.21 (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To those interested, please note that a quick check of "google scholar" ( http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=30&q=%22dynamic+model+of+meaning%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 ) indicates that the primary person who is talking about Kecskes' theory of "DMM" is Kecskes himself. Until other people start talking about it, I see no reason it should be included in this biography.Bobbee.girl (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of Keckses' friends is this? If you wish to participate one way is to answer the question. You did not answer my question. Nor has anyone at any time offered any evidence that any of Kecskes' theories are important in any way. My research has so far indicated that they are not terribly important and that Kecskes and his work are not nearly as important as the original version of this wikipedia page says. (The man seems to pad a great deal to exaggerate his own importance. Check out his heavily padded amazon.com "Mother Tongue . . ." page for instance.) Nor has anyone offered any evidence in this forum that they are important. What you have offered is an unsourced claim that he is a speaker at several conferences. How many of the other speakers at these conferences have wikipedia pages with a full list of publications?

You sourced one conference and one conference only. Here's a list of speakers.: 

   *  Bruno Galantucci
     Haskins Lab Yale. Talk on experiments on group communication.



   * Robert Kozma
     Memphis University. Talk on cognitive neurodynamics.

   * Margarita Mazo
     Ohio University Columbus. Talk on music anthropology, cognitive ethno-musicology.

   * Joanna Bryson
     Bath University. Talk on agent modelling of social interaction.

  * Moshe Bar
     Harvard University. Talk on neuroscience of emotions and cognition.

   * Matthew Schlesinger
     Southern Illinois University. Talk on developmental psychology and computational modeling.

   * Istvan Kecskes
     State University of New York, Albany. Talk on pragmatics, cognitive-language interaction, cultural impact on language use.

   * David Snow
     UC-Irvine. Talk on frame analysis, social scaffolding, sociology .

   * Alessandro Vinciarelli
     Glasgow University, UK. Talk on social signal processing and SSPNet program.

   * David Sallach
     Chicago University, USA. Talk on social agent modelling.

   * J. Fernando Fontanari
     University of São Paulo at São Carlos, Brazil. Talk on multi-agent culture modeling, influence on groups.

   * Domenico Parisi
     National Research Council, Italy. Talk on geographical factors in cultural evolution.

   * Simon Garrod
     Glasgow University, UK. Talk on dynamic alignment in groups.

   * Leonid Perlovsky
     Harvard University and AFRL, USA. Talk: Emotionality of languages and eEvolution of cultures.
     (Note that Perlovsky is just a visiting scholar at Harvard and is not a member of the faculty)
    
   * John Scott

Let's see which of these people have wikipedia pages. About four of them do. (Some, such as David Snow, link to a different person of the same name.) Most of them do not have wikipedia pages. Of these peers who have pages none of them have a wikipedia page as long (or as flattering) as the original Kecskes page. None of them, not a single one of these peers, has a wikipedia page that includes all of their publications. I still intend to cut down the publication list unless someone gives me a good reason not to. Bobbee.girl (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As I've made clear in this discussion page, I think the publication list is too long. I've argued that Kecskes' peers do not have such a lengthy list of publications and defined peers in three different ways. (fellow U. Albany faculty, editors of comparable journals and co-presenters at a recent conference.) However, I just discovered that the previous publication list was mislabeled and all along was actually a partial list of publications. For instance, the following was not included:

A book entitled, "Effects of the Second Language on the First" (Second Language Acquisition) [Paperback] Vivian Cook (Editor)

  1. Paperback: 280 pages
  2. Publisher: Multilingual Matters (March 14, 2003)
  3. Language: English
  4. ISBN-10: 1853596329
  5. ISBN-13: 978-1853596322

And contains "Chapter 13. How to Demonstrate the Conceptual Effect of L2 on L1? Methods and Techniques," by Istvan Kecskes and Tunde Papp.

This was interesting because although the editor included Kecskes, he did not seem to feel that Keckses' longitudinal study of Hungarian students proved nearly as much as earlier version of this wikipedia page shows. (i.e. Hungarian students who have learned a high level of English write more complex Hungarian sentences than those who have not, or, in other words, more educated Hungarian students write more complex sentences than less educated Hungarian students. Make of it what you will.)

So, it seems that the publication list was incomplete and mislabeled all along.Bobbee.girl (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This came from today's angry, anonymous ranter. "I think the information on the socio-cognitive approach and Kecskes’ latest publications should be restored."

What I am asking, and what I've asked all along, is what objective criteria is being used to decide which publications to include and which not to include? Quite honestly, since few of Kesckes' peers have wikipedia pages, much less pages with publications, I think this is a reasonable question to ask.Bobbee.girl (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the evidence seems to indicate that Kecskes is a minor academic who although not very popular with this students exaggerates his importance by taking on large numbers of speaking engagements at minor conferences far enough away from home that his students cannot judge the quality of these engagements. Since this is one way in which people might have heard of him it seems it should be included in this biography. Any suggestions on how this could be included in a neutral, fact-based manner using sources and citations?Bobbee.girl (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've been wondering for some time what is the significance of an otherwise minor linguistics professor who speaks at multiple conferences. A quick look at the linguist list ( http://linguistlist.org/callconf/index.cfm ) reveals there there exist an incredible number of linguistics conferences. (On 10-28-10, 489 for the period from October, 2010 onwards, with 89 for November 2010 alone.) Undoubtedly each conference has several speakers. Considering that Kecskes is completely willing to travel to attend conferences, it is not surprising that he is able to find so many speaking engagements.Bobbee.girl (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator[edit]

{{adminhelp}}

--169.226.154.26 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC) On September 4th I made a contribution to this discussion (169.226.154.26). Bobbeegirl, however, deleted the firts part of my text. How could s/he do something like this? Bobbeegirl already controls not only information about Kecskes but also contributions to the discussion as well. This has gone too far. Administrators should stop him. Here is the full text again. I wonder if Bobbeeegirl will try to remove it again.[reply]

I have always thought that Wiki is about information and facts, and is not for angry students or associates who want to take a revenge on their former professor. I cannot think of another reason why Bobbeegirl is so obsessed with Kecskes’ article. His unfounded accusations and malicious language have shown unbelievable hatred towards this person. If somebody wrote something positive about Kecskes, Bobbeegirl attacked right away: “And which one of Keckses' friends is this?” S/he is so angry that misspells the name, makes mistakes even in the text that s/he has revised several times (“…which he he edits…”). For the record, I am not Kecskes’ friend, and I do not know him. But I know his research because I used it in my own work.


Just to comment, it's probably best to leave this issue and this person alone, but for the record, this comment came from an e-mail address at the University at Albany which is where Kecskes works. I'll just let that and the fact that neutral parties removed twice have removed anonymous inserts from Kecskes' biography speak for themselves. There is something really sad about this situation.Bobbee.girl (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bobbeegirl should know that it takes years (3-5) for a theory to become known in the linguistic community. If a paper is published in 2008 the first references will not come in earlier than 2-3 years. It is remarkable that Kecskes’ paper on his socio-cognitive approach (“dueling contexts”) published in 2008 has already 11 (+ 2 self) citations. Bobbeegirl deleted Kecskes’ latest publications. S/he also deleted the link that profiles Kecskes as an “outstanding faculty”: http://www.albany.edu/news/profile_9404.php Bobbeegirl should know that Kecskes has authored more than 100 books and papers (see his website). The word “publications” does not always mean full list of publications. It may mean samples, selected publications, etc. Bobbeegirl should also know that the Linguist List is evidence. It has all conference announcements. Just for the record: to be invited to give a plenary at the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research is a real honor for a linguist. Here are the links to the other plenaries that 125.120.155.21 talked about: http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak4/anglistentag2010/ Dienstag

09.30 – 10.30 Plenarvortrag Istvan Kecskes (Albany, New York) "Socio-cognitive approach to communication and pragmatics"

http://conference.clancorpus.net/ (click on “Programme”)

http://www.celta.paris-sorbonne.fr/CELTA-colloques/MIC-Sorbonne 2010/MIC2010/MIC2010-CallPapers.html (The Sorbonne conference is partly dedicated to Kecskes’ socio-cognitive approach). I think the information on the socio-cognitive approach and Kecskes’ latest publications should be restored. I will do that. However, I will not put my name here because I am sure Bobbeegirl would harass me just as s/he has been harassing Kecskes.--169.226.154.26 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kecskes deserves a short, fair, accurate article which is informative. The present text is such. --169.226.154.26 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact Bobbee.girl via her talk page. Removing another editor's comment from a talk page is usually not acceptable. There are sometimes justifiable exceptions but I do not think this is one of them. however, I should also say that I do agree with Bobbee.girl that the comment was a "hostile rant", and I advise the anonymous editor who posted it to think carefully about how their comment will strike other people before clicking on "Save page". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 1) I will be more careful about deleting comments in the future. 2) Please be aware that there is some circumstantial evidence that 169.226.154.26 and 125.120.155.21 may be sock puppets operated by Istvan Kecskes himself.Bobbee.girl (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:István_Kecskés&oldid=1198918219"