Talk:Elfcon

message: I had a hard time researching this on the internet. The main source seems to be Lisa Star's page, which is obviously POV. There are also the Tolklang archives, but these are not indexed by search engines. I also couldn't find out anything about the original "Elfcons", except the years for III and IV. Please add information if you know more! dab 16:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: original version

message: I have changed the article text, taking note of the above comments. It is by no means a definitive version yet, even if it was up to me to decide this. A few remarks:
*at least recongize that it belongs in a separate entry, as the term "Elfconner" as Lisa Star uses it has _nothing_ to do with ELFcon. - I thought about this. I think the text makes it clear that there is no direct connection. The term "Elfconners" has stuck, probably because of lack of an official name for the group. I now understand that this is because some of the materials were shown around on Elfcons. At least since Wired used the term, without quotes, I suppose it can be considered common usage.
*Lisa herself participated (by phone) in an ELFcon, and yet she clearly does not include herself in the term. - Well, she does have the honesty to say: "Current Elfcon members are Chris Gilson, Carl Hostetter, Arden Smith, Bill Welden and Pat Wynne (which is why they are referred to as Elfconners, a name coined by Pat Wynne). Other participants at various times included me (Lisa Star), Nancy Martsch, Leonid Korablev, Corwyn Benedikt, Paul Nolan Hyde, Tom Loback, Jorge Quinonez, and possibly others, but we have all dropped out."
*Christopher Tolkien provided me and my four colleagues: I don't exactly understand. In the original posts, there seem only four people involved. Lisa Star lists five: " (Chris Gilson, Carl Hostetter, Arden Smith, Pat Wynne and now Bill Welden)", suggesting Bill Welden was not involved from the beginning. While it is perfectly understandable that the Tolkien Estate wants a clearly defined body to edit the papers, the key question is of course, who restricts the size of this body, and why were not more people involved in the work during the past decade, especially if it is so very tiresome, and especially since many competent linguists have taken an interest in Tolkien during that time. I don't think the accusations imply laziness on the part of the Elfconners, but rather the "cabalist" tendency to reject the community that would be competent to provide help. 
*Why do you have more authority over this entry than I do?  - I don't. This article will only survive by the consensus of the Wikipedia community.
dab 12:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your clarifications. From your first edits, and from the structure of google hits, I have deduced that the "ELFcons" are no longer continued. I understand that the huge interest in Tolkien probably made your privilege a curse as well as a blessing. We do not need to qualify here, luckily, the malice or childishness of particular developments. I am content if there are no factual errors left (or at least none unattributed to an author, with a qualified contradiction by another author). As to the "legal opinion", I must say that I share your impression that the argument is rather shaky. It would have to be tested in court of course. It surprises me, on the other hand, that you have any interest in the legality of the use of Tengwar etc. by others, because it would seem that this is unrelated to your editorship and at best a case for the Tolkien Estate's lawyers. dab 14:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I removed the summary of the Wired article, which I think was just confused (the summary, that is—I don't dare make any claims about the article). We can let the quote speak for itself, and the full text of the article is linked at the bottom of the page. Aranel ("Sarah") 21:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of the article in the light of CFH's comments

message: ok, I think the article is getting into good shape, thanks, everybody. However, I have concerns about a few of the recent edits: Carl's remarks have been very helpful to get the facts right. But now I fear, because he is doubtlessly better informed than any of us, we are in danger of forgetting that this is really a controversy. Just like when I started this article, Carls side was under-represented because I had no direct statement from him, I feel it will now be over-represented because he was able to give feedback. I can only shudder to think what would happen if e.g. Lisa Star would start posting on this talk page: She would probably claim half of Carl's statements were false or distorted, the discussion would dscend into a flamewar, and the article would be b*ggered.
* "the four team members maintain that" is more NPOV than  "the four team members explain that". We have no means of checking the facts, and they are possibly disputed. I think "maintain" does not imply untruthfulness but is a simple way of reporting what they said.
*"highlighting that the group had also threatened legal steps, on behalf of the Tolkien Estate, to prevent other editors from publishing works about Tolkien's languages: " — Aranel, I admit that this was not very lucid. It should however be expanded rather than removed, since the  quote is referring to an aspect previously unmentioned in the article, namely the alleged "copyright-policing" even outside matters of the "Elfcon" material.
*Hostetter also insists that he has never claimed that works allowed under fair use should not be published. that's easlily said, but it seems to me the whole thing revolves around different ideas of "fair use" and judging from posts I have seen by "anti-Elfconners", it would now be their turn to say that we are "regurgitating Hostetter". After all, Lisa Star went and had her "legal opinion" (valid or not) drawn up, apparently because somebody was trying to prohibit her use of JRRT's alphabets, which would have been fatal to her journal.
*The question of whether the pace of publication has been unreasonably slow is essentially unanswerable, especially because only the editorial team has direct knowledge of the difficulty of the material. — I don't think this is preferable to my version. It was often repeated that nobody is accusing the "team" that they had to make a living besides editing Tolkien, and I think that nobody expects a much faster pace, considering four people work on it parttime. The editing is excruciatingly slow considering what could have been acheived if people both competent and willing to contribute would have been allowed to edit: here is the core of the disagreement, the Elfconners say they were not allowed, because it's CT's decision. The anti-Elfconners say that CT is being used as a strawman, and with a bona-fide effort, the team could have been expanded further. It is this point that cannot be decided without an official statement from CT, where he either says that he is indeed to blame, or that he was indeed used as a strawman. It is clear that now, after so much hostility, the "anti-Elfconners" cannot work together with the Elfconners, simply for reasons of human interaction. There is, however, a whole stock of Tolkien experts at large that has not been involved in the dispute (Flieger, Shippey etc.) -- people who are probably very wary of approaching the subject, because they want to avoid being pulled into either camp. Note that this is my personal extrapolation, I have no first-hand knowledge about this.
*especially because only the editorial team has direct knowledge of the difficulty of the material. — it's undisputed that some of the material is difficult indeed. At least the part that has been published can be assessed, allowing a judgement if 10 years is slow or not. But again, this is not the point, because nobody can blame the editors that they had to do it in their spare time.
dab 09:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I'm planning to ask David Salo to have a look at the article and give some feedback as well.  He's a friend of mine too (in the online sense, at least), and I feel that he can be trusted to be just as willing to contribute constructively as Carl has been.  I'll try to write to him soon.  (Of course, it's naturally an open question if he'll have time for this sort of thing.)--Steuard 16:13, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) 
-----
[I'm not sure where my subsequent comments should go in this structure, so feel free to move this about as appropriate. CFH]
1) Regarding the copyright status of the unpublished documents, my point (inadequately expressed) was not that they would not fall out of copyright -- as indeed they will, eventually -- but that one should not give the impression that just because they fall out of copyright means that any and every use of them will be permitted. This is so because _access_ to the physical documents is, according to standard archive policies, granted only upon agreement by the reader not to publish their contents without the permission of the archive and/or any relevant Estate. So that, it is not as though after X years anybody who wants to will be able to visit the archives, copy or transcribe the documents, and then publish them -- unless, that is, the archive policies themselves change. A subtle point, perhaps, but not insignificant.
2) You write: "The editing is excruciatingly slow considering what could have been acheived if people both competent and willing to contribute would have been allowed to edit". This attitude is further reflected in the current form of the article, which states: "The question of whether the editorial team could have been expanded to include other scholars, leading to a quicker pace of publication, is unanswerable". Both these statements are biased, in that they rely on prior judgement on two assumed positions for which you have provided no evidence: a) that adding more editors to the mix would indeed increase the rate of publication; and b) that the most important aim of editing Tolkien's linguistic papers is to get the out _quickly_. I disagree fundamentally with both assumptions, and I do so from a position of knowing exactly what the nature of the papers is, and what needs to be done to present them _properly_, on the terms set by the very nature of the documents and their contents, and of Tolkien's own purposes. The first assumption is essentially the Mythical Man Month: _if_ the purpose of the work were simply to _transcribe_ each page of manuscript in turn and "get it out there", this assumption _might_ have some validity (though even there, it ignores the very real factor of the difficulty of interpreting Tolkien's handwriting, which can be ameliorated only through long study and familiarity with his hand -- so that piling on more and more people with little or no familiarity with Tolkien's handwriting would certainly not speed things along) -- but Christopher Tolkien's purpose in having us edit his father's papers is most emphatically _not_ simply to make transcriptions of the material available to everyone, any more than that was his purpose for the literary papers in _The History of Middle-earth_. What Christopher Tolkien wants is for the material to be _edited_, and presented _properly_. What this means is, essentially: careful consideration, editing and presentation of each text and stage of his father's linguistic invention, within the context of the whole, and relating each part to it preceding, and wider, context. And that means a cumulative, chronological, and contextual presentation. Indeed many later parts can only be fully understood in comparison with earlier parts. Dividing up the papers into arbitrary chunks and farming each chunk out for transcription is _not_ going to help achieve Christopher Tolkien's purpose in making the papers available to us.
 
3) You write: "I deplore that the TE should have such a rigid stance on these papers". Then you deplore Tolkien's own wishes in the matter, who created the Tolkien Estate and assigned Christopher Tolkien as literary executor, with (_inter alia_) precisely the purpose of making proper use of his papers. I find it astonishing, not that people question Christopher Tolkien's choices or preferences, or even Tolkien's own, but that they feel that their own desires and the choices they _think_ they would have made if they were in Christopher Tolkien's position of editorial and fiduciary obligation, are _necessarily_ and _inherently_ superior, when they have little or no knowledge of Tolkien's own wishes, the nature of the documents and their contents, and how they all fit together.
4) These facts feed into the tepid response made in the article after the implication that Tolkien's manuscripts are like that Dead Sea Scrolls and that we have "abused there privileged access to unpublished material to enhance their own prestige". The article states only that "For the people in possession of the material, on the other hand, it is a simple fact that the material is privately owned and that nobody has any inherent claim to access it," which while plainly a fact does not go far enough. Christopher Tolkien has _reasons_ for wanting the material to be properly edited before publication, not merely transcribed; indeed the documents and their contents themselves demand this, by their very nature. The privately owned nature of these documents addresses not the concern it follows, but only the infantile belief that one is entitled to something simply because one wants it; it utterly fails to address the underlying assumption that the _best_ way to present the material is by rapid transcription, and the further assumption that anyone who disagrees with this opinion can only be doing so "to enhance their own prestige".
5) You write: "it seems to me the whole thing revolves around different ideas of "fair use"." You seem to be forgetting that my comment, from which the article statement that "Hostetter also insists that he has never claimed that works allowed under fair use should not be published" is derived, was made in response to the charge presented in the original version of this article that I was trying to block _all other works on Tolkien's languages_ from being published. This made no allowance for a distinction between Fair Use and un-Fair Use: the charge was that I was trying to prevent other scholars from publishing, which as I have already discussed is libelous and absurd on its face. Now, if you wish to branch out into a discussion of what I consider to be or not be Fair Use (such as the derivative nature of dictionaries of Tolkien's languages, my position on which I've already alluded to above), that's fine. But surely in the interest of accuracy, a blatantly false charge like was originally presented should no be allowed to stand uncontested.
6) You make repeated reference to "the "Elfcon" material". I would have hoped that by now I've established that there is no relation between the material at issue and ELFcon. Confusing the two issues is _not_ helpful, and in fact is misleading. Let's keep them straight.
7) I object to the repeated use of the misnomer "Elfconners" to refer to me and my fellow editors. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, you should at least put scare-quotes around the term, where you feel you must use it, in accordance with the Neutral Point of View policy of the Wikipedia.
Carl
----
*I agree we should put quotes around "Elfcon" when not referring to the convention. The simple fact is that when I say "Elfcon" or "Elfconner" today, most people will immediately think of the "dispute" and not of the 1994 convention. "Elfconner" is a convenient term for "the group in possession of the material referred to above".
*I do not think I deserve to 'have' something because I want it (nor do I think that a text can be 'had' once it is accessible to everybody). I have myself no particularly strong interest to see these papers, because, as you say, I could probably not even read them. I am entitled to deplore whatever I like, as long as my subjective view does not transpire in the article. The bias you detect in the text is not my personal opinion but my attempt to represent people who have not had the chance to contribute to this discussion page.
*The "Dead Sea Scrolls" comparison is attributed to your critics and gives an idea of their stance. It is not a bias of the article itself.
*I appreciate what you do for Tolkien scholarship. Without you, I would probably never have seen some of the texts you have edited. I cannot judge your claim to speak on behalf of CT, and would like to be spared the judgement. The discussion about how fairly you are representing his views has gone on for years, and it would be hopeless for me to form a valid opinion.
regards, dab 15:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: consolidation

message: I've added a link to a 2002 article by Mike Glyer, in which he responds to the charges made in the Wired article. I'd ask the author of this page to read the article and consider incorporating its point of view into the reporting.
:thanks, I hadn't seen it. Since Carl Hostetter (=you?) gave direct feedback to to this article, I think the "Elfcon" POV is already suitably represented, but I inserted mention of Glyer's article as a qualification of the Wired one. 
:Personally, I dont think that "Salo's fears have been cleverly slanted to disregard the real issue: does his manuscript include material he needs the estate's permission to publish?" is entirely to the point, because the emphasis was on "*informal* copyright police", i.e. I don't know if Salo ever raised similar complaints against Estate lawyers who are actually employed to protect JRRT's stuff. I am glad, however, that we now have a "pro Elfconners" link. In my original version, as is still visible on the top of this page, I was disconcerted because I had only found "anti Elfonner" sites on the internet. cheers, dab 13:45, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wired article

message: I've (Carl Hostetter, Aelfwine) removed the following section from the "Debate":
"In the course of the conflict, their critics have been accused of having their own private agendas, although before the rise of personal hostilities their impatience was likely due to their simple desire to see and study Tolkien's writings as soon as possible, edited or not. The question of whether the editorial team could have been expanded to include other scholars, and whether this would have led to a quicker pace of publication, is unanswerable, precisely because of the unavailability of the material, at least as long as Christopher Tolkien does not comment on the issue."
for these reasons: 1) The "agenda" in question IS the personal hostility of the "critics"; so while _personal_ there is nothing "private" about it -- just look at what they write -- nor does the (putative, speculative, and unsupported by reference to any statement) motive for this hostility in any way excuse or have bearing on the nature and mode of furtherance of this agenda. 2) The "question of whether" etc. is "unanswerable" in the same way that the question of what would have happened had the South won the American Civil War: you can't rewind history and replay it under different conditions. Further, the question _has_ been answered by those of us -- and ALL of us -- who DO have access to Tolkien's papers, including at least implicitly by Christopher Tolkien himself -- after all, he could remove any or all of us from the editorship of his father's papers at any time if he were dissatisfied with the results and progress, and he has not. The fact that this answer is not accepted by our critics does not mean that the answer is not accurate. 3) Who says that the "desire to see" etc. is "simple"? This is POV -- it could just as easily be due to jealousy or to personal animosity predating the (venomous) publication of the "impatience". 4) The materials are NOT _completely_ "unavailable": SOME independent judgment of the nature and difficulty of its preparation and publication CAN be made by anyone who wants (seriously and without prejudgment or agenda) to consider the material that has already been published.
cfh 01:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: I have given the reasoning behind my comments. If you disagree with that reasoning, then address it on those terms, not by vague general accusations. Further, my "changes" have all been extenstively "reviewed" -- have you read the discussion to which you've appended these comments? And finally, what "defense of POV language" are you referring to? In _fact_, I'm specifically _questioning_ what I see as POV language in the section I've highlighted above.
cfh 04:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anonymous" comments 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.237.136 (talk • contribs) 
:What part(s) exactly do you believe to be unverifiable? Personally, I can easily verify all but the last paragraph, which is essentially a statement of personal opinions about what the future holds. 
:cfh
:: Since you seem to be joking, it must make it all right if you can give this personal (POV) verification.  Prehaps this equates to "reliable, published sources".  But since dab seems to have no problems in letting this breach slip through the many cracks that is Wikipedia, who are we to correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.237.136 (talk • contribs) 
::: I am most certainly not joking. You raised the issue of verifiability. I want to know what precisely you think unverifiable. (I also want to know how you determine what is or is not a "reliable" source, esp. when the source in question obviously can have no actual knowledge behind their conjectures, but that is a topic for another time.)
::: Actually, I will broach the subject now after all. You will note that the original version of this article was based, as dab acknowledges right up there on the top of this page, on a _single_ source, sc. Lisa Star's page. He also correctly if grossly understatedly notes that that source is POV (to say the least). Add to this the fact that Lisa Star _obviously_ cannot know most of what she asserts regarding my group's position and motives, and I have to turn the question back on you: how can you think that this article belonged on Wikipedia at all, under the "reliability" clause and the other guiding principles you cite? My contributions to this article give it what factual and balanced nature it now has; in its original form, it was little or nothing more than a re-airing of grievances by obviously self-interested, resentment-filled parties who can in fact have no direct knowledge of the things they charge my group with. I invite you to go read the guidelines you yourself link to, and compare them with what this article _was_, and further compare that with what it now is.
::: cfh
:::: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources."
:::: However since dab allows your edits then who are we to object?  You might want to double check the aims of Wikipedia rather than use it to stop people calling you an "Elfconner" and giving your critics a POV label ("self-interested, resentment-filled").  I am merely pointing it out here in the discussion board for the public record.  What the author does is ultimately his call but his allowing a POV hack to edit this article is open for all interested parties to see.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.237.136 (talk • contribs) 
::::: When you're ready to answer my questions instead of simply repeating yourself, we can continue this discussion. Until then, have fun venting your spleen. (I see from your IP address that you're not exactly a neutral party yourself, anyways.) Caio! cfh
The evidence here shows that you are more interested in using your POV as verifiability.  Hence this "discussion".  I find it with great irony that you fail to see any problems with this.  I guess this is why we have the word hubris?  
But I'm not going to bother with editing the article rather I will leave it to the author since you have shown youself via your contribs list (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Aelfwine) as a hack who has a lot of time to engage in endless POV reverts. If dab wants these against his article....fine.  It wouldn't be the first article that Wikipedia has problems with.  Bon Sewer :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.237.136 (talk • contribs) 
what has this got to do with me (why do you keep mentioning me), and what do you want, in the first place? If there is something wrong with the article, try to improve it or make a suggestion, don't just bitch about it. dab (ᛏ) 09:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability seems to be forgotten in this article 

message: It's misleading to say that the case was 'dismissed' in this circumstance, implying that Perry somehow 'won.'  Procedurally, if a lawsuit is settled it is always dismissed pro forma, to get it off the docket and provide closure.  In this case the matter was settled, in what really amounted to a complete surrender on Perry's part- all the Estate *ever* wanted was to review his manuscript, which Perry for some reason stubbornly refused to do. Solicitr (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be so, but your changes now need a source only as the supplied reference actually contracticts your edits particular when the BBC states in the 2nd para The Tolkien Trust, run by the author's son Christopher, had earlier filed a lawsuit against Michael W Perry and his Inkling Books over the publication. US district judge Barbara Rothstein dismissed the case in January.  Since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research your edits will probable require revision.  Shot info (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mike Perry Affair

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elfcon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051219013119/http://web.comhem.se/~u86023928/omentielva/ to http://web.comhem.se/~u86023928/omentielva/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified