Talk:Criticism of Neo-Eldarin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles. | |||||||||||||
|
Assessment
|
||||||||||||||
[edit] Assertions: facts or opinions?
NOTE: On May 28, the initial author of the Neo-Eldarin page moved this "Cristicism" section to a separate page, noting: Various rewrites; article is over-long; I made "Criticism of Neo-Eldarin" a separate article.. However he also removed the "neutrality disputed" flag that other had placed on that page... It however turns out that not all the comments made on the discussion page were taken into account in the rewriting and moving here of this page. I have to say that I find the process of spawning a new page, only partially rewritten, neverthless removing the "neutrality disputed" flag without commenting the cristicisms several contributors made on the initial page quite dubious.
I am therefore setting the "neutrality disputed" flag back again in the article repeating below what I had initially written. Although some minor points may have been addressed in the rewriting, the most of it (esp. the lack of clear facts and references, and the unclear characterization of the "tenants" of the presumed controversy) still applies:
As currently written (May 26, 2006), the section entitled "Criticism and controversy" has, in my humble opinion, a quite serious problem regarding its point of view. Whether disputed or not (as non-neutral per previous comments above), it mostly asserts opinions without any references of evidence. This is embarassing for at least two reasons: (a) an encyclopedia, as stated in Wikipedia's core rules, should be concerned with facts rather than mere opinions, and (b) a section about controversy should especially link the (controversial) facts to their sources.
Just to quote a few points where the problem is prominently appearing:
"Tolkienian linguists whose approach to Tolkien's languages is primarily academic do not necessarily object to "updating" and "editing" the material..."
Who are these Tolkienian linguists? Are we referring here to some precise definition of group(s) with publication(s) where such an approach has been formalized, or is this just a bold assertion of opinion that some supposedly Tolkienian linguist MAY possibly think as expressed here (but not always?)
"Neo-Eldarin supporters may respond that such efforts..."
They MAY? What does this mean? Who are these Neo-Eldarin supporters and have they actually stated somewhere that they DO respond the abovementioned way? As in the previous point, we are presented a controversy where actually the oponents of different approaches are not well defined, and likewise have no clear position.
"Even if they decide to ignore certain manuscripts altogether (because the ideas expressed appear to them incompatible with a normalized grammar), this does not imply any spiteful "rejection" of these ideas as inherently inferior."
Is this a statement of value? Then who here is judging that "this does not imply such an such"?
"In the 1990s, terms like "mature" and "immature" were to some extent applied to Tolkien's manuscripts, "immature" referring primarily to pre-LotR material."
Where have these terms ("mature" and "immature") been used and by whom?
"Critics have also expressed concern that heavy-handed editing..."
Again who are these Critics and where such statement were made? This presentation of the controversy seriously lacks references.
"Nevertheless, some claim that even for scholarly and academic purposes,..."
Same problem as in previous point. "Some claim" looks as an unattested assertions rather than a clear fact with verifiable evidences.
"Comparisons have been made with the Silmarillion,..."
Who and where? (Again)
"People supporting a Neo-Eldarin standard may therefore argue that even... Critics may reject the analogy, feeling that editing a book is something quite different..."
They both MAY do this or this - As previously stated, I don't feel this formulation is clear enough. They MAY, but DO they?
"Also, Christopher Tolkien later expressed doubts about whether producing a unified Silmarillion was the right thing to do; he came to regret some of his editing decisions."
Seriously, such a statement and judgement REQUIRES a reference. Perhaps the author of this sentence is implicitely thinking to CJRT's notes following the commentary of the Wanderings of Húrin in The War of the Jewels? Perhaps he has other sources in mind, unknown to me (and other readers)? Anyhow, this rather looks as an interpretation of CJRT's opinions, rather than a factual quote.
"(Tolkien) never got around to publishing such a work, but if he had, it would presumably have presented "definite" versions of the languages."
Er... "If he had"? But he hasn't, so the above is necessarily an opinion, not a fact, isn't it?
... And so on for almost all this rather ambiguous section, where we are presented a controversy without any solid ground to judge it, understand it and balance its point of view. I'd encourage the initial author to fix these points, so that other can contribute and comment on precise facts. Dongann 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
I've added external links to my two chief articles that present my actual views on "Neo-Elvish", in the hopes that they will be used to balance and improve the presentation of the criticisms of "Neo-Elvish" on Wikipedia and around the web, and particularly improve discussions of my own views, which I barely recognize in the the attitudes and claims ascribed to me in most discussions of the matter. cfh 15:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
