Talk:An Introduction to Elvish: Difference between revisions
From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 30 November 2011 by Morgan
No edit summary |
m (Clarification) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Without having access to the book, I've kept what I suspect would be non-controversial claims (that is, "facts") about the Proto-Eldarin articles in the book. Sage, why do you think we need to have specialized, unreferenced linguistic information here, which a general reader will not understand? TG is not a place to discuss or review contents of something (for that, there are forums, blogs, home pages, etc) - our goal should be to summarize facts and trustworthy (or otherwise valuable) opinions. --[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | :Without having access to the book, I've kept what I suspect would be non-controversial claims (that is, "facts") about the Proto-Eldarin articles in the book. Sage, why do you think we need to have specialized, unreferenced linguistic information here, which a general reader will not understand? TG is not a place to discuss or review contents of something (for that, there are forums, blogs, home pages, etc) - our goal should be to summarize facts and trustworthy (or otherwise valuable) opinions. --[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
:In other words, in order to keep anything of those faults/corrections of the Proto-eldarin theories you restored (which I've removed now again), we would need something like "Linguist/Author X has remarked that ....<nowiki><ref>[...]</ref></nowiki>", otherwise the information provided is at best original research.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:45, 30 November 2011
I restored the section on early proto-Eldarin theories. IMO the examples are an encyclopedic note on how the pre-Etymologies scholarship envisioned comparative linguistics. If something is wrong with the essay-like tone and the lack of references let's work to fix it.
I don't know how way off from TG's mentality and rules I am getting, but I understand that TG isnt exactly following Wikipedia's strict rules. Sage 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Without having access to the book, I've kept what I suspect would be non-controversial claims (that is, "facts") about the Proto-Eldarin articles in the book. Sage, why do you think we need to have specialized, unreferenced linguistic information here, which a general reader will not understand? TG is not a place to discuss or review contents of something (for that, there are forums, blogs, home pages, etc) - our goal should be to summarize facts and trustworthy (or otherwise valuable) opinions. --Morgan 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, in order to keep anything of those faults/corrections of the Proto-eldarin theories you restored (which I've removed now again), we would need something like "Linguist/Author X has remarked that ....<ref>[...]</ref>", otherwise the information provided is at best original research.--Morgan 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
