Talk:David Salo

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

"Melroch's" comments removed during reversion commented on here:

"This criticism is largely unfounded since Salo does say in the preface to his book that he is extrapolating and interpolating and sometimes relying on educated guesswork when information in Tolkien's writing is lacking, and that he marks those as such, and that he does not mean his book to be the authority and be-all and end-all on the subject. It is very likely that a complete and completely faithful grammar cannot be written, even with the unpublished material from Tolkien's notes, which probably isn't consistent. As for the charge of conflating Noldorin and Sindarin evidence it largely stems from the the fact that commentators without linguistic training fail to appreciate the principles and methods of comparative philology which Salo applies to these very similar versions of Tolkien's 'Celtic-like' language, the phonological differences between which are not only quantitatively slight, but also qualitatively very principled, consistent and straightforward."

Melroch's statement here in fact utterly fails to address the criticisms he claims to be dismissing. No amount of interpolating or extrapolating excuses Salo from failing to distinguish between his inventions and the actually attested data _while at the same time claiming to have indicated all such instances_. In fact, the _vast_ majority of cases where he has invented his own data (forms, translations, etc.) are _not_ marked as such _in any way_, and worse are often presented in such a way as to give the false impression that they are attested. If "Melroch" actually bothered to read the criticism of Salo's work cited in this article, he would see that the critics and criticisms cited all focus on this essential fact of Salo's book, a fact that "Melroch" neither justifies nor even addresses with his dismissive assertions. Therefore, this paragraph is both utterly beside the point of the criticims, and further constitutes an ad hominem attack against Salo's critics: namely, that anyone who faults Salo's approach simply doesn't understand comparative linguistics, a claim that is absurd on its face, conisdering the work of the critics so smeared.

"Salo, Hostetter, and various other scholars and linguists working on Tolkien were involved in the so-called "Elfconner's Debate" in the 1990s, though this controversy dealt with access to Tolkien's unpublished manuscripts (Salo and others felt that the group working with Tolkien's estate were being less than forthcoming with the manuscripts in their possession) rather than criticisms of Salo's extrapolation of unattested Sindarin forms in his published works and in the movies. Feelings of mutual distrust and antagonism remain, which certainly affect Hostetter's assessment of Salo's work. Much of the confrontaition is also caused by the perception that the structural-linguistic approach to the study of Tolkien's invented languages which Salo represents is incompatible with the literary history approach of Hostetter and his group."

Another ad hominem fallacy. Rather than engage the actual criticisms of Salo's work, "Melroch" seeks to summarily dismiss them with claims of personal animosity. Whether someone likes or dislikes Salo has nothing to do with the numerous verifiable claims about the inaccuracies and fabrications in his work: any reader can check these themselves against what Tolkien actually wrote. Also unfounded is the claim of a "literary history" approach of the editors of Tolkien's linguistic writings, and the claim that Salo is employing "structural-linguistic" approaches. Making stuff up and passing it off as attested is _not_ a "structural-linguistic" nor a "comparative philological" approach; nor is insisting on accurately conisdering and presenting what Tolkien actually wrote when claiming to describe Tolkien's languages "literary history": the latter is called scholarship, in contrast with the former.

cfh 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locked unil things calm down

Mr Hostetter, please do not write about other Wikipedia contributors in the article. If you want to make suggestions to Melroch, use this talk page. Once you have both stopped reacting like children and come up with something that's suitable for an encyclopedia article, the page will be unprotected and you can add it. I cut off the criticism section where I did because it mentions that there are critics and critics of critics, but goes no further. Things started getting worse and worse after there. I am neutral in this debate as I have no idea what either of you are on about, so I hope neither side will take offence at my actions. — Nicholas (reply) @ 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, precisely why I haven't been touching this article with a ten foot pole... I know exactly what they are on about and indeed know several of the participants in the ongoing saga. For what its worth I endorse the protection... things were getting out of hand and it'd be better to discuss ways that all viewpoints can be included. --CBDunkerson 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME?! Why is it OK for "Melroch" to write about ME in this article, then? He's the one who started addressing me through the article, and he was the one who insisted on putting it BACK INTO the article, repeatedly, after I moved it to this talk page! I note that I didn't start the "Assessment of work" section, after all. I just tweaked it a bit. "Melroch" is the one who couldn't abide an accurate report of the criticism, and felt he had to attack the critics in the article.

BUT I second Conrad's applause of your decision to lock the article. That much you have right.

cfh 00:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Carl. Chances are that Nicholas didn't read every version of the back and forth edits on the page - just noted the existence of the edit war and protected it. Indeed, he apparently didn't notice the 'user comments' in the text of the article until after he had protected it. It may be unavoidable that there is going to be some mention of you in this article given your history in the field and with David, but obviously it should be kept to the relevant issues. --CBDunkerson 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood, and I suspect as much as well. But still, caution should be exercised, and some due dilegence exercised, before singling out one person for criticism in matters such as these. But hey, que sera sera. cfh 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief... I fixed this article with a lot of good criticism, pro and con, of Salo's work, and thought no more of it. I came back over here to get a reference for something unrelated... and I find my work spoiled by people who both like and dislike Salo (NPOV, should it make a difference?), and back to the mess it was in before. Oh well, that's a wiki for you, like it says, if you don't want your work ruthlessly edited, best not to submit it. For what it's worth I don't know anyone in the debate, and just thought the article should be more balanced, give an idea of Salo's work within the larger field of the languages, pro and con. My mistake, I can see that things are a lot uglier than I innocently assumed. I'll eventually come back in and revert to my version, unless someone NOT personally involved can show me how my version was too harsh/not harsh enough. But to be honest, I probably can't be bothered, it looks like people with a personal investment in this page are involved in editing it: sure sign that the best thing to do is just go read something else. Which is what I'll do. Have fun - I'll watch from the sidelines!Morgaledth 00:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Morgaledth. As I tried to point out -- though it seems to have fallen on deaf ears -- the purpose of what you wrote was to provide an accurate summary of the response to Salo's work. That is inherently NPOV. Alas, some cannot abide any criticism of Salo, and will abide no boundaries of accuracy, neutrality, or appropriateness in order to smear his critics. cfh 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Reviews"

I wonder if the most recent "review" is worthy of addition. If so, prehaps http://www.theonering.net/rumour_mill/rpg/viewer/readingroom/41DC1CE20001EEE9.html or http://www.theonering.net/rumour_mill/rpg/viewer/readingroom/41DCF6A60001EF10.html can be added as well??? Shot info 09:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I added this review because a) it was written by someone who actually read the book, and b) it actually discusses and assesses details of the book; and c) it represents yet another informed reviewer who is disturbed by the methodological flaws in Salo's book, further balancing the claim that I (Carl Hostetter) fault Salo's book just because I don't like him.

As for the other reviews, the first is something like a review of the book, though very brief and with no detail; still, fair game, I guess, if you consider that stating that "it's got a huge glossary and lots of history" amounts to a link-worthy review of the book. The second says nothing about the book, only about Salo, which doesn't seem like a review of his work to me.

cfh 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I don't think that the latest review isn't really link worthy, particularly in the light of your comments above after all a) "Ostadan" actually doesn't claim to own it (I assume that you are referring to the subject line "I bought it" which actually is the previous post) b) they are rather brief and seem to be just a quick summation of other reviews c) "informed reviewer" is a rather long stretch.

Based on this, it would appear that we have written more about the link, rather than what it actually says. Hence I have deleted it unless other editors feel that it deserves inclusion. Shot info 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Ostadan" (who, BTW, has written rather extensively on Tolkien's languages for "TheOneRing.net", and so is indeed informed, as I said) "owns" the book; I said he had _read_ it. This is shown by (_inter alia_) the specific detail of his nothing that Salo cites Humphrey Carpenter in his bibliography -- something not mentioned elsewhere, that I can see. Also by the fact that everything he says about the book is accurate. As to the question of length, well, I just have to wonder why you originally thought it would be appropriate to link to the other, much shorter "reviews" then? (Also, it's longer than any of the Amazon reviews linked to.) cfh 01:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, I was using the other articles as a referal of why this rather brief review is added. You will have to note that I didn't add them as they are not link-worthy, much like the link that you have added. It is worth noting that Carl Hostetter adds a link that mentions Carl Hostetter. More cynically minded people would (_inter alia_) draw some conclusions there ;-). But I'll let the link stand only as I don't wish to engage in your desire for an edit war! Shot info 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

O, and we are discussing link worthiness, and for one link, you get some "bang for your buck" with the Amazon link. Also unlike your claim that it's longer than any of the amazon reviews, you might want to double check that (it's about three times the length of 4, about the same as 3 and about half as 2). Shot info 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)