Talk:David Salo

message: "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 It is very likely that a complete and completely faithful grammar cannot be written, even with the unpublished material from Tolkien's notes, which probably isn't consistent.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involved in the so-called "Elfconner's Debate" in the 1990s, though this controversy dealt with access to Tolkien's unpublished manuscripts (Salo and others felt that the group working with Tolkien's estate were being less than forthcoming with the manuscripts in their possession)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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Greetings! I'm looking through the article, and I see a number of issues with it.
#The only obvious reliable sources listed are two newspaper articles and an amazon.com book review. 
#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? 
#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.
#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  or send to AfD the article? Regards, —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Concerns about the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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."  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)
replies: text:  That's a good suggestion. I'll make the change, if no one beats me to it. cfh 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Carcharoth. cfh 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews of the book Gateway to Sindarin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why do we have ? Carcharoth 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yay! cfh 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:COI]]

message: The following text was in the article:
::In 1998 he founded the Elfling mailing list for Tolkienist language enthusiasts.
No source supported it. Today, an IP editor attempted to add two co-founders' names to the article. I removed it for lack of support. Looking closer, I've removed the claim entirely, as I see no evidence presented that Salo—alone or with Kloczko and Fauskanger—founded the list. I'll keep looking, though. Does anybody have a source? The IP has presented the first posting archived on Google from the list, but that doesn't appear to be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. I found the Elfling FAQ , and in section 0.2, it says "The founder of Elfling, Dorothea Salo…" Apparently, neither David Salo nor the other two individuals are credited by Elfling as its creator. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've therefore rewritten that passage as the above link clearly does mention D. Salo as the "List manager" and connects him to the entire project. De728631 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elfling mailing list 

message: :
After two-thirds of it was released?  Could the date be vandalism long missed? —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003