Talk:David Salo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


"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 It is very likely that a complete and completely faithful grammar cannot be written, even with the unpublished material from Tolkien's notes, which probably isn't consistent.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)

Contents

[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)

[edit] Concerns about the article

Greetings! I'm looking through the article, and I see a number of issues with it.

  1. The only obvious reliable sources listed are two newspaper articles and an amazon.com book review.
  2. The article is a biography of a living person, which means there are strict hurdles about the inclusion of information about the subject. E.g. where is it published that he is still a graduate student?
  3. He's published one book on a Tolkien-based language. Does this meet notability criteria? His minor movie work doesn't seem to push him over that level.
  4. His article has yet to be assessed for the Tolkien Wikiproject. This tells me the article is peripheral enough there that it hasn't warranted the attention to get assessed, so it's a side item to the project—i.e. more signs of non-notability.

Can somebody make a case for the article being notable, or shall I just {{prod}} or send to AfD the article? Regards, —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I personally think the article is notable enough given his influence within the Tolkien Linguistic community and his involvement in the production of the languages used within the three Jackson movies. However I do agree that the information shown in articlespace does need verification. Hopefully other editors can provide it. Short of that, then prehaps AfD should be persued. Shot info 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews of the book Gateway to Sindarin

I note that the reviews of Gateway to Sindarin found at the lambengolmor Yahoo group , the Elvish site hosted by the physics department at Duke University, and on Amazon have been returned. I maintain that the inclusion of these links runs counter to WP:V, in particular WP:SPS. I'm afraid I find the edit summary accompanying the restoration a touch mysterious. If WP:V does not apply to all, then shouldn't those to which it does apply be removed? Through which reliable sources did the reviews in question receive peer reviews? I welcome discussion. Victoriagirl 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They were restored under the summary that WP:V doesn't apply to them. I'll grant that, but WP:EL does. Links directly to amazon.com or any vendor of a product are to be avoided, and customer reviews are not a compelling reason to override. The next three or four reviews were all at a Yahoo Group--again, links to be avoided. The final link was to a personal website. I don't think any of them pass muster under WP:EL. That's why I deleted them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Under WP:EL there is a section titled "What should be linked"; under this, point 4 reads: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." So in fact WP:EL _encourages_ linking to book reviews.cfh 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't dispute that. Or, I wouldn't if it were a review in the New York Times. Where I question the validity of the review is that it's one step up from being posted on Usenet. Accordingly, it's under "Links normally to be avoided," #11: "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for Amazon, but the other links are not to "social networking sites". See my next comment. cfh 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Lambengolmor list, where three of the linked reviews were published, is a moderated, scholarly discussion group for Tolkienian linguistics. Everything posted there must pass muster with two reviewers. And as just pointed out, WP:EL encourages linking to book reviewscfh 17:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, WP:SPS allows that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- do you wish to maintain that Patrick Wynne, Thorsten Renk, and I (Carl Hostetter) do not have such standing? cfh 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"This group exists to serve those interested in the scholarly study and discussion of the invented languages of J.R.R. Tolkien. This list is strictly moderated. All posts must be concerned with Tolkien's invented languages, and must provide evidence and publication citations for all assertions. The moderators reserve the right to edit any posts for length, clarity, and relevance to the list's purpose." [1] I'll concede that...well, it's at least as reliable as Wikipedia. :) A better link title might indicate that the review was at the moderated list in question, so that all future editors know why the link is on the list. As I said, without explanation, Yahoo Groups links invite deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion. I'll make the change, if no one beats me to it. cfh 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a cite to the Tolkien Studies review of the book. Carcharoth 12:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We've got another attempt at removing the linked reviews going on by an anonymous editor 212.32.112.152. Despite the facts that a) we've been through all this before, right here; and b) the links have been there for a very long time. Obviously, if I keep undoing this person's removal, someone will claim revert war. So, can someone else please help me out here? Or can we get a moderator to resolve the matter? cfh 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth. cfh 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Given the length time that this article has stood without references, should we go to a AfD? Will leave this here for a week or so before I apply the tags. Shot info 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The tag says it's been unreferenced since last September. If the experts on this topic haven't been able to supply proper sourcing in all that time, this may satisfy deletion policy:

"All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed."

It may also indicate insufficient notability. --Old Raw 17:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What specific facts claimed in the article are you doubting? That's what WP:RS / WP:V is about, remember - we need all facts claimed to be verifiable (but not necessarily verified). So please be specific about what you think is an insufficiently supported assertion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The little [citation needed]? Note to mention the reliance on words to avoid. FWIW, WP:V is quite clear and says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Shot info
All the 'citation needed' bits have now been cleaned up. If more is needed, please add more tags and references should be possible to find. Carcharoth 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. I personally didn't want to just slap fact tags everywhere but rather help target an editor with better information (ie/ you) to where I personally feels the article is failing. Again, this is just my opinion, other input from editors will be welcome. Shot info 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

The policy on sources and external links in articles about living people:

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

The posters of lambengolmor may well be learned in the area of Elvish, and the list is certainly moderated. But we're still talking about a mailing list, not an academic journal or professional literary review. It's dubious to include the Yahoo posts as external links for the purposes of providing information about David Salo's work, and the policy on BLP is pretty unforgiving of that which is dubious ("removed immediately and without discussion").

We don't use moderated mailing lists as published sources of info about the work of professional academics, even when everyone on the list has a doctorate on the relevant field; we use published papers instead. The study of Elvish may not be subject to the same level of rigour or examination as more august disciplines; but that doesn't mean we ought to be less vigilant about the sources added to an external links section. 212.32.112.152 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you believed your policy, you would remove most if not all external links on this page, instead of only these critical reviews. Further, you haven't shown that the linked moderated list and site are "questionable sources" or "sources of dubious value" (you simply assert that linking to them is dubious). What is either questionable or dubious about them? You also neglect to notice that we've been through all this before, right on this talk page. Is the current judgment of one anonymous user now to trump all the previous discussion of this matter and the long inclusion of the links to these critical and scholarly peer-reviews on this page? cfh 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My contention, Mr Hostetter, is that individual postings on a mailing list constitute self-published material.
And I had read the talk page. That, and the article history, suggested there hadn't been sufficient examination of the links.
And besides, there were obvious COI issues over your insistence of seeing that an unpublished review of yours be included in the external links (thereby being tacitly "endorsed" by Wikpedia). It's not as if your long standing issues with Mr Salo aren't a matter of public record.[2] 212.32.112.152 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Removing it entirely is not appropriate either. I hope the edits I've made to address this are satisfactory. Thanks for the newspaper article link. I used that in the article. Carcharoth 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The way they were being used, removal was appropriate. As they are now being used (primary sources to attest there has been criticism from certain quarters), they're better placed—not as ideal as a published secondary source to the same effect, but in the absence of such, the current situtaion will suffice. 212.32.112.152 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The linked reviews are critical purely on matters of verifiable fact (e.g., comparison of Salo's citation of forms with the forms actually published, and of his presenting unattested forms as though they were attested), and are thoroughly cross-referenced to Salo's work and to the published corpus of Tolkien's languages. Whatever you (or Salo) imagine my "issues" with him to be, that doesn't change the factual nature of these criticisms of Salo's scholarship. Appealing to personalities in order to squelch factual critical reviews is ad hominem. Furthermore: could you please provide a link to a Wikipedia definition of "published" and/or "unpublished"? I'm curious to find the apparent contention here that web-based publication does not count as publication in Wikipedia. cfh 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I thank you too for the article link. That puts the supposed "issue" starkly, and factually. cfh 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem? Ah, I see that's your catchphrase. But as you've requested links useful to your editing this article, I'll provide them here:
Thanks for the links. Now would you please show a) how any of these support the definition of "unpublished" you use, and b) how any of these policies argue against including links to critical scholarly reviews of a work, in a discussion of assessments of that work?cfh 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I've mentioned how BLP applies to self-published material. After all, you are the lambengolmor group owner, are you not? 212.32.112.152 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That would only apply to CFH's own posts to that mailing list if he moderated them. In my view, moderating your own posts to a mailing list is equivalent to self-publishing (only one person involved in the review process). I'm assuming someone else moderates his posts, but maybe not. In any case, this would not apply to the posts by other people to that mailing list. Carcharoth 17:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As anyone can verify from looking at the full source of the messages in question, my review was moderated by Patrick Wynne, not by myself.cfh 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Didn't see that. You are, of course, quite right. Carcharoth 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Given the fact that this is a BLP and of relatively low notability, why is the threshold for SPS' relaxed? If the individual is notable, surely the reliable sources would be a bit better than personal websites [7], [11], and Yahoo Groups [5], [8], [9] & [10]. I think regardless of the "quality" of the references they are by definition unreliable sources. If the reference was more notible, they would be published in a superior location (ie/ [1], [2], [3] etc.). Shot info 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What has notability got to do with reliable sources? I really don't get the argument that to be notable someone has to have been published or noted in mainstream publications. Obscure topics do exist, but that doesn't mean they are of low notability. Source 3 is a peer-reviewed journal, but due to the small size of the field (though it does seem to be slowly expanding) it is no different in essence to the various Tolkien linguistic mailing lists. All are small, obscure publications, but are still respected within the field of Tolkien studies. You do get a degree of self-validation, but that is difficult to avoid in small fields. Also, read Yahoo Groups. They are not all open discussion forums. Some are moderated lists populated mainly by experts in the field. That is what you have here. If the mailing list was hosted by a university instead, would that make it more respectable in your opinion? I think you are focussing on the host (Yahoo) rather than the access level (moderated). you get the same people who post to the Lambengolmor mailing list publishing in Tolkien Studies. Why does the location of where they publish suddenly make them less reliable? Also, I think people put too much trust in mainstream journalism. A journalist working for the New York Times, or another major newspaper, will (a) be using sources like the ones you are questioning (because they have the experience to judge that sort of thing); and (b) may still end up getting things wrong. Why not source things straight to the experts in the field? Carcharoth 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't notability = more information in third party sources. Less notability = less information. Notability is notability, and your argument that obscure is not "low notability" is a odd use of the very word "notability". Now regardless of what Yahoo says about itself, lets see what Wikipedia says about Self Published Sources, hmmm, not good for Yahoo Groups regardless of the "moderation". As for more or less reliable sources, that why we have WP:RS to help us. Simply put, here in a WP:BLP one has to errr on the side of caution, and you would like to have self published personal websites and self published "moderated" mailing lists as "reliable sources"? Somehow it would appear that Wikipedia policy disagrees with you on this matter. Simply put, SPS calls them SPS, RS calls them unreliable, BLP tells us not to use them. Their inclusion in the face of policy smacks of WP:ILIKEIT... Shot info 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
SPS also says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Which applies to all the reviewers cited. And WP:RS says "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight," which describes the Lambengolmor list. Attempts to remove these reviews in the face of these policies smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. cfh 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My reading of the above is that CFH has rebutted all your arguments except the BLP one. My reading of the BLP issue is that if you remove the negative reviews you are contravening WP:NPOV. BLP is not, and never has been, an excuse to remove critical reviews. Carcharoth 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Missed this one. So again you believe that a SPS and a poor source should be included for NPOV? If the criticism is notable...why isn't it notable? Why is a "published" in a mailing list? The book in question is published by a university press. So why hasn't the criticism. I note that their are three people on the mailing list (ie "Lambengolmor"). One is here (Aelfwine) and is notable enough to have his own article. But the other two? And information published on a personal website? Look it isn't the criticism...it never is about the criticism. It's about the sources. All the mailing list sources and personal websites should be removed and resourced, not just the criticisms. If editors believe this is "inaccurate" then too bad, it's about verifiable reliable sources, not "facts". The threshold of reliable sources in the context of a BLP is higher, not lower. It's not about the criticism, but the quality of your sources. Moral is, go get better sources, you as an admin should know these basic policies of Wikipedia. Shot info 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CFH has kindly pointed out that I don't consider Lambengolmor to be a self-published source. It is a moderated mailing list. It would be better if the material was published in a journal or publication (online or printed), but it is not verboten to source things to moderated mailing lists. And since when does criticism have to be notable? Surely the topic of the article has to be notable, not the criticism? And it is the article as a whole that has to be notable, not each individual aspect of it. Carcharoth 03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A mailing list is still a mailing list, regardless of it's moderation, it is still self-published, the references are shown from the various mailing lists (Elfling included) show clearly that a mail by a particular editor was submitted from that editors email address. Regardless of the exact process as described to us by a member of that mailing list, it doesn't meet WP:RS. I don't believe (but feel free to correct me) that I am not arguing that the criticism needs to be notable. I am arguing that the entire article is not notable (at the AfD and above and below). The fact that the "criticism" and other information needs to be sourced from poor sources just reinforces this fact about the article and it is a comment made by other editors both here and at AfD. Shot info 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"Shot info", you are being disingenuous. "Carcharoth" obviously does NOT consider these things to be SPS or poor sources. And if you don't know why Patrick Wynne is notable in Tolkienian linguistics, then you don't know Tolkienian linguistics well enough to judge this field or the discussion of it or the reliability of sources. Period.cfh 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this is Wikipedia, and we are all editors, any editor can judge anything he/she chooses to. Simply put, your sources are considered by Wikipedia as bunk. Rather than arguing about it, go find better sources or get your criticism published somewhere that Wikipedia calls a reliable source. Shot info 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this is Wikipedia, and we are all editors, any editor can judge anything he/she chooses to. Simply put, you are outnumbered in the assessment of the values of these sources. You don't get to dictate whether something is or is not "bunk". You can change, and you can persuade, but we can change back and we don't have to agree with you. Rather than arguing about it, why don't you read those sources that even YOU consider "published", and see that I have published my criticism in both printed and web-based peer-reviewed publications? Educate yourself if you hope to have your opinions respected by others.cfh 02:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, there seems to be an echo in the house. I can see that some editors consider low quality references to be suitable for a WP:BLP. You will also note that I am discussing (it's what we do here in Talk Pages), otherwise I would have just deleted the poor sources and applied the appriopriate tag (as editors are entitled to per WP:BLP). Never fear, you aren't the first SPS to defend their SPS as a reliable source and I doubt you will be the last. BTW, I strongly encourage you to assume some good faith in other editors and to comment on the article, not the editors. And since you have published your criticism in the printed media, by all means add it. Shot info 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's already referenced. If you bothered to read the sources you demand the article be limited to -- and there aren't many that meet your test -- you'd know that. It's pretty easy to just decide that "web publication" = "low quality", but it is also very lazy. Furthermore, I am not the only person defending these links, so you can personalize it as much as you like, but the fact remains that you are outnumbered in your assessment and shifting, scattershot attempts at excluding these sources.cfh 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it is already referenced, I was just curious to see how you would react. But if you take some care and review my edits, you will note that I am calling for all Yahoo Group and SPS references to be removed. Not just your's, or those on your moderated list, or just criticisms in general. If you feel that there are problems with WP:RS I suggest that you take it up on the talk page on that policy. Otherwise your arguement is rather moot. Shot info 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do we have {{cite mailing list}}? Carcharoth 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dunno?. I wonder why we have WP:IAR? I personally believe it's the WP:CABAL at work. BTW, I'm not going to respond to further messages from Aelfwine until he decides to chill out a bit. Shot info 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yay! cfh 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Let me quote a great Wikipedian: "I strongly encourage you to assume some good faith in other editors and to comment on the article, not the editors." Who was that... oh yes, YOU, "Shot info", just four paragraphs above! cfh 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, _I_ see, "Shot info", you are deliberately wasting people's time by knowingly making falsely implicatory statements, to see how people react. Well OK then. Since nothing in SPS or any other WP policy excludes "all Yahoo Group references", I suggest that YOU take that up on the policy talk pages.cfh 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I note that in Dec. 2006 "Shot info" was arguing FOR the inclusion of a link to Amazon.com reviews (see above) -- about as SPS as you can get! Methinks "Shot info" has a somewhat different criterion for inclusion and exclusion of sources in mind than those he actually cites.cfh 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I am entitled to have my opinion change, and my understanding of core Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V. You can of course point out that I have not reincluded it, again on the basis of those very policies. But this is experience showing through here. Shot info 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What's more, there are only three active print journals devoted to Tolkienian linguistics, two of which are now devoted to publishing primary material from the Tolkien archives, and one of which has only had one issued published and only appears every two years. So pretty much any informed discussion of Salo's work, or of any other aspect of Tolkienian linguistics, its conducted online, and most of that is in one or the other of a handful of mailing lists and a few prominent personal web sites. So if you're going to exclude those as sources, you'll pretty much eliminate any references to Tolkienian linguistics at all from Wikipedia. cfh 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Which implies how low the notability threshold is in this regard. Most of this information fails the threshold for inclusion into Wikipedia yet here we are. You will note that I am arguing that this article be deleted, because of this lack of notability. If the overall hobby fails notability, then so be it. Shot info 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the notability to Wikipedia of the topic of this article as a whole, or even of Tolkienian linguistics as a whole, I have no opinion one way or the other. My only concern is that if this article (or any other concerning Tolkienian linguistics) is retained, it be an accurate discussion of the topic.cfh 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of academic areas as small or obscure as Tolkien linguistics that are covered in Wikipedia. And non-notability and obscurity are not the same thing. you can have a small topic area with acknowledged expert and scholarly work taking place, but only 4 or 5 researchers working in the area. The work might never make the front pages of the newspapers. It might only ever be published in low-circulation journals read by those interested in the topic. But if a sourced, balanced and well-written article can be written, then Wikipedia and its readers benefit from that. Of relevance here is the concept of persistent notability. The field of Tolkien linguistics has been around for 50 years. It is not massively expanding in size, but it is not going away either. Doesn't that tell you something? Carcharoth 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is Wikipedia, if the subject is notable...the sources tell us it is notable. Given that this is also a BLP, this definately tells us that our sources should be of a higher quality than perhaps of the general subject of matters Tolkien (ie/ "Tolkien linguistics" inter alia) after all, the article is about David Salo, not Tolkien Linguistics. Again it appears that you are pushing for a lowering of "realible" as demanded by WP:RS. I disagree. If the subject is notable...he is notable. If editors need to rely on, SPS' and mailing lists and other such dubious sources (low-circulation journals...), then perhaps the notability of the subject is somewhat on the not notable side. Shot info 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you know the circulation of the journals in question? What are the figures? What number do you consider to be "low" circulation?cfh 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't know. Carcharoth made the point, I was just using it. But either way, it is largely irrelevant for the context of David Salo a biography of a living person that demands a higher quality of source rather than mailing lists and self published criticisms. To reiterate, feel free to find better sources. Shot info 03:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"Shot info", you can keep _saying_ that these are "self published criticisms", but that doesn't make it so. With the exception of Thorsten Renk's review, they are all, peer-reviewed, third-party-edited-and-approved criticisms.cfh 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Shot info, I agree that the article should be about David Salo's Tolkien linguistic work, and not about Salo's other work. He is more notable for the Tolkien work than the other work. You sound like you are arguing that the articles in Category:Tolkien linguistic studies should be merged into one single article. Some do need to be merged, but the amount of material is such that any such merging will eventually result in articles splitting out to make the topic more navigable and readable and linkable. Think of it less as a bio, and more as a look at an area of Tolkien linguistic studies. Carcharoth 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm arguing for a clear endorsement of WP:BLP applied to this article. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps there should be a "Tolkien linguistic studies and criticism and...." article. It is not really germane to the discuss in question which is, are these particular mailing lists and personal websites (and other instances of SPS) appropriate for a WP:BLP. I (and others above and also in the AfD) would suggest in the negative. I am not advocating for a removal of criticisms (as other criticism by Aelfwine (pointed out above) is published in what Wikipedia calls an RS not being removed), just those which happen to be poor sources, along with all the other poor sources. If that means a shortening of the article, so be it. If you would like, I can make some article edits and show you what I mean. You can then revert if you would like? Shot info 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to edit. This is a wiki! :-) I'm just happy that I've found some nice sources for Sun and Moon (Middle-earth)! Seriously, I'm thinking that three negative reviews from that mailing list might be overdoing it. Since CFH's "50 years" article is already referenced, and the Bellet review is not completely critical, how about just the Wynne review? This is more a question of balance, as I still believe that all three are informative reviews from a reliable source (making a judgment call here, rather than sticking rigidly to definitions of what is and isn't reliable), but including all three is a bit of overkill. Alternatively, if the other reviews are all negative, how about the Bellet review, which says some nice things as well? Along with wording like "several critical reviews were published on the Lambengolmor mailing list", to make it clear that there is more in the background. Carcharoth 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me make a few edits and you will see what I am trying to say. If you don't like, of course you can revert :-) Shot info 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not going to revert yet either. Could you leave a note at the AfD pointing out the two different versions. If that's not a cause for a relist, I don't know what is! It could really confuse people. Carcharoth 06:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice that the (sole) article now linked against the sentence about criticism of Salo's scholarship does not address Salo's scholarship at all. The sole issue mentioned there is one of copyright. The problems with Salo's scholarship go far beyond that.cfh 13:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
True enough. It's almost as if independent sources don't consider your scholastic differences with Salo worth covering. --212.32.112.152 13:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you do realise that if the article is deleted, all this discussion gets lost as well? Silly, isn't it? Carcharoth 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Such is the nature of MediaWiki :-) Shot info 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no point in deleting the article: why should David Salo show up as a redlink, when it could also be a redirect to Tolkienian linguistics? If you conclude this fails the notability threshold for a biography article, just blank it and turn it into a redirect, no AfD necessary. dab (𒁳) 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI

I find it questionable that Mr. Hostetter should push the elaboration of criticism of Salo's work based on his own publications. CFH has published his view in Tolkien Studies. He should leave it to others to represent his views for the purposes of this article. Anything else will necessarily suggest a tinge of a personal vendetta. Leftover hostility from the copyright disputes 10 years ago don't go towards dispelling this impression. dab (𒁳) 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that you accuse me of pushing "my own publications", at the same time that others have worked hard to ensure that the criticisms of others are not linked to or represented, and that you yourself deliberately remove reference to the criticisms by people other than myself. So let me be clear: I want the criticisms of other people referenced and represented (in fact, I wouldn't care one whit if my own works were removed from citation here entirely, so long as the article accurately reflects the nature of the criticisms of Salo's work that have been made): I was not the one who systematically worked to remove those other references.cfh 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, whatever "impression" you refer to is best dispelled by actually reading the criticisms referred to. I would be fully content to have those criticisms reviewed and represented here by any impartial but competent (in at least scholarly method) reviewer, as you suggest would be best. I would be happy to provide you with copies of my own articles on the matter, as well as those of the other critics mentioned, if you'd like to do what you urge.cfh 18:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
All of this contingent, of course, on the retention of any discussion of "the estimation of Salo's work" at all (which I didn't start, btw), which clearly invites editorialization (witness the long-and-still unsourced claims regarding the reception of Salo's work that start the section). I don't actually understand why that was put here in the first place. Is it common for Wikipedia author pages to include such "estimations"? But given that the topic is broached at all, it needs to be accurate, and balanced, and that means it must accurately note and represent the serious criticisms made of his work.cfh 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)