Talk:Geoffrey K. Pullum

Biography: Musicians / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Linguistics High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move the article?

Pullum seems to be consistent in calling himself "Geoffrey K. Pullum" on serious occasions; otherwise, he's "Geoff Pullum". I haven't seen "Geoffrey Pullum". Note William H. Whyte, William H. White, William A. White, William C. White, etc.: should this be renamed to "Geoffrey K. Pullum"? -- Hoary (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources besides Pullum

The article seems mostly based on Pullum's own material. Second-party sources are needed. I quote from the WP guidelines:

"Self-published" "sources as sources on themselves": WP:SELFPUB Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

(Pullman's positions and publications (particularly publishers and titles) would seem to establish notability, imho.) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a reference from Pullman's publisher, which is an improvement. However, "when the spirit moves" another editor, it would be good to add references from sources less closely associated with the Pullman: For example, scholarly reviews often contain comments about academics. Scholarly reviews of Pullman's books should have independent and reliable material. (This is not an emergency, imho.) Thanks~, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically such reviews don't contain much stuff about the life of the author, but if I find something useful I'll add it to the article. ― A._di_M.^{3nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 10:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Does Pullum still post on the blogs Language Log and Lingua Franca? On http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/lf-posts.html his last post is from 2018. On https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/?p=2 the last post is also from 2018. – Gebu (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

scientific objects

Pullum argues against the view, broadly held in linguistics, that languages are scientific objects of study.

Can an object be scientific? I'd reword it to are proper objects for scientific study. Comments? —Tamfang (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]