User talk:Saizai/Kēlen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Removed prod, because:
- there is going to be a minitalk during the Language Creation Conference in July, which means there will soon be a source that is unambiguously third party (right now there are a lot of web hits, but they are mostly self-published, or borderline so)
- usage by alien species is not nonsense in a fictional setting.
arj 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
I retagged for notability, because I'm concerned the talk at the conference is still self-published. I see no evidence that there was any editorial oversight as required by WP:RS. - Aagtbdfoua 02:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Sylvia was specifically requested to give a talk about Kelen by the conference organizers because her conlang had attracted a lot of attention in the conlang community for its unusual structure combined with its degree of completeness. I'm not sure if that counts as "editorial oversight", though. --Jim Henry 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm the main conference organizer for LCC1&LCC2. I specifically invited Sylvia to come to give a talk about Kelen, because (like Jim said above) I considered it to be notable, interesting, fairly well known about within the conlanging community but not sufficiently known the details of. (I.e. how Kelen uses "relationals" to do things that verbs do normally.) Given that Sylvia was giving the talk, she is *original* source for the material she was discussing, and she was not discussing any material that was factually controversial, I do not believe that the concept of "editorial oversight" is meaningful here. For talks in which the speaker was *not* already the predominant expert or the original source on the subject, both I and rest of the Board of Directors of the Language Creation Society (10 people total) reviewed and approved material beforehand, consulting with known experts on the subject as needed. There were no issues whatsoever with any of the speakers in that regard.
-
- I believe that WP:RS is grossly mistaken when applied in this manner, as the person whose conlang it is, IS the absolute most reliable source for describing that conlang. Having a journalist write about it, from their understanding gained from interviews with the conlanger and a relatively fast-and-dirty bootstrapping in linguistics, and having an editor review that, can only detract from the reliability of the source, unless the matter at hand is something factual that they can research, such as the person's academic background, credentials, and the like. For that, I would support editorial review type RSing (though let's be honest, that checking doesn't actually happen much), or (better) simply a link to some substantiating source. For something about what the language is like, when the *original source* of that information is available more directly, it's patently ludicrous to claim that a journalist & editor would be *more* reliable.
