Wikipedia

Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 1

< Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Csernica in topic Translation assistance
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Biography

>Tolkien and Edith had four children: John Francis Reuel (November 17, 1917),

My copy of _A Biography_ by Humphrey Carpenter says that it is November 16. Is ther any correction or other source of birthday? --RedDragon 03:59, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

bibliography

I have added to the bibliography, drawing on de:Tolkien. It is now organized in 'academic works', 'prose', 'poetry' and 'posthumous publication'. I think this is an improvement over a strict chronological list, mixing academia and fiction (which is still the case in the poshumous section, though. but these are not publications by Tolkien, anyway, and they often consist of a substantial portion of editor's comments). The poetry sections aims at listing all poems by date of composition (although in cases with very involved histories, eg. Lay of Leithan, this is impossible). Ideally, for each poem should be added where it was published, e.g. Bilbo's last song, composed 1966, published 1978 in The Road Goes Ever On (2nd edition), 1974 (poster) and 1990. Dbachmann 12:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

the heading "Fiction and poetry" should maybe become "non-academic", since it also contains autobiography.

How about turning also "In Journal Articles" into its own article? It is rather long and most people won't be able
to easily find those articles. They are also probably heavily edited and commented, being published in a linguist
journal, so they are not any more purely JRRTs work, in a way they are also academic works by someone else
(I'm guessing and drawing from my poor memory here, I've only once seen copies of VT, years ago.)
Jhi 06:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Greetings to all Tolkienists from the Quenyaland (Finland).

I have been lately editing the J.R.R.Tolkien entry a bit but now I ran into a moral dilemma. I find the mention about Esperanto in the main section:

Tolkien had some familiarity with the artificial language, Esperanto, which he learned at 17 years of age. Though he did not claim to be an Esperantist, he was quoted as promoting its use.

to be rather out-of-place, and especially the second sentence rather jarring and non-neutral. While mentioning Esperanto is not completely irrelevant (it is an artificial language, and Tolkien did know it), I do find its placement (and especially the second sentence) rather odd.

My inclination would be either to remove both sentences, or to start a complete new section talking about Tolkien's fascination with languages, and there possibly his knowledge of Esperanto (but still not his promotion of it) could be mentioned.

Comments? -- Jhi

Something (quotes below) towards a political beliefs section, perhaps? Can we get the exact quote, and ensure it's not out of context? I might have a look in bookshops/the library today and see what I can find; after that, I could do a decent 'political' section, I think.. -- Sam

In an enlightening letter written to his son, Christopher, in 1943, Tolkien vented his frustration with government and the industrial age, "My political opinions lean more and more to anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power stations." [1]
Here's one especially interesting quote from Tolkien: "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to `unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word state (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 63) [2]


I think that a political section is quite in order, because Tolkien's political beliefs are very important to the interpretation of his fictional work. He vehemently denied any allegory of current events, but the political significance is evident. -Smack 01:23 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Read Shippey's book before trying to assume too much politicial allegory. Middle-earth is complicated enough that one could do a Nostradamus and see patterns to fit one's desired conception. If there's a political theme, it's arises out of the modernity vs tradition conflict. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and we should be quoting published interpretations (citing the publications of course), not making up our own stuff. (BTW, as a magical realm Lothlórien hardly needs an economy. If we can have wizards, dragons, and seeing stones, why are we getting picky about science?) Stan 02:32 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well I'm sure that some of Tolkien's politics influenced his stories. He did not like factories much and he did love trees, and Ted Sandyman's brick mill was a bit of a rallying cry against industry. Also his dislike of French food and sauces is illustrated in Bilbo's similar likes and dislikes. Vincent 06:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed this stupid statement: "One characteristic of Tolkien's fictional work that appeals to readers is its simplicity, which tends to preserve the noble and the evil while eschewing the complex and the uninspiring. Middle-earth has government, but no bureaucracy; agriculture and craftsmanship, but no economics; life cycles, but no sex; deities, but scarcely any religion; and magic, but no science. It is also highly unrealistic; for instance, Tolkien makes no attempt to explain how the forested and un-agricultural kingdom of Lothlórien was able to sustain itself in the middle of hostile territory."

It really annoyed me, especially as it's not true. Alun Ephraim 15:01, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Alan, did you also remove the line about "the father of high fantasy"? This change goes too far, I think -- the statement may have needed softening but there is good reason to indicate the lasting influence and ground-breaking nature of the work. Jgm 15:06, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
just picture JRRT's reaction if someone had called him "father of high fantasy" to his face. enough said :)


I also rephrased the stupid opposition "While his works are popular bla bla, scholars say they are heavily derived etc."; you don't need to be a scholar to know the dwarves' names are from the Edda, and if you do know this, your enjoyment is likely to increase rather than decrease. Dbachmann 12:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just added a link to http://www.lotrlibrary.com It's a good site for information on the Tolkien's works that fits well on the list

Prequel?

I'm not sure The Hobit is a prequel. As far as I'm aware (and Merriam Webster backs me up on this) a prequel is a work where the events preceed those of an earlier work. Hence, The Hobit can only a prequel if he wrote it after The Lord of the rings, which he didn't.

Dan

Moreover, the word "prequel" wasn't even coined (to my knowledge - what does M-W say about that, I wonder?) at the time any of this was written and thus probably shouldn't be used to describe the work. I seem to recall that JRRT himself characterized the relationship between these stories in the introductions to one of the later editions of The Hobbit (but of course I do not have a copy available to check), one solution might be to use that terminology. Jgm 18:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree - LotR is a sequel (or better "follow-on"), but Hobbit is not a prequel. Why are there reversion wars going on here? Stan 08:09, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

its totally a seperate work, written (and i think) published before LOTR. it does preceed LOTR, but preceed and prequel mean totally different things Selphie 16:00, GMT

Ah! But in fact JRRT rewrote key portions of the Hobbit (Riddles in the Dark) to have it match the facts in LOTR. Better still, JRRT has Bilbo apologize to Oin during the Council of Elrond: "If others have heard the account told differently before... I was only trying to claim the ring as my very own". This way, JRRT justifies his own re-writing of the Hobbit. Now, can the re-written version be called a prequel? Vincent 06:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Prequel" is not a real word. At least not one JRRT would have considered using. Tolkien started to write a sequel to the Hobbit because he was asked to, and the LotR just grew from there, somehow (as he says in Letters somewhere) -- dab 06:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I fully agree, and prequel is an ugly word anyway. I only recently learned that the version of the Hobbit I read was the later one. I was at first very disappointed and a little disillusioned; I felt cheated that Tolkien didn't make LOTR compatible with the Hobbit UNTIL I realized how clever Tolkien's ploy was. I'm quite sure it was intentional, a pet theory you understand, but can it proved? Did Tolkien explicitly write or say that Bilbo's apology was in a way, his? Or at least a justification? After all both the Hobbit and the Red Book are presented as Bilbo's own work which Tolkien 'translated' from the Westron. The original Hobbit would have been a translation of Bilbo's original public version. Vincent 08:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, this should be in The Hobbit. I'll go make some edits. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 08:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some info was there, but I've rewritten and added it. Please check The Hobbit#Alternative_Version. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 08:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the technical term I've heard for this (when the sequel to a book so far outshines it that it is seen as an introduction to a larger epic) is a "prelude"; not that many people call it that. ---Ricimer

Was J. R. R. Tolkien really a Christian?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My youth pastor of my church challenged me with this question...Was J. R. R. Tolkien really a Christian or did he just say he was?? i find it very hard to see whether he is or not. As a Christian i do not want to judge him in anyway and do not want anyone who reads this to think that. Reading the book Lord of the Rings really surprised me. Even though it has some Christian meaning to it....it still has lots of fighting...which i think is wrong. i would like to read others input on this. please add a comment on this subject and that would be very helpful!!

He was a devout Roman Catholic. Read his biography (by Humphrey Carpenter), read his letters, read almost anything published about him; you will find his religious beliefs made clear. (And if you think fighting is automatically wrong, read Mark 11:15 :-) —MIRV (talk) 01:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is the bible not full of wars, sacrifices and fights? A large number of very different people call themselves "christian&quot; and I don't see why we shouldn't allow Tolkien to call himself that if that was what he did. Besides, being a christian doesn't mean that you have to only write things about christianity. MikeCapone
for all practical purposes, everyone who calls himself a christian is a christian. it's not like you have to pass an exam or something, and last time I checked, Tolkien had not been excommunicated by the pope, so he may fairly be called a catholic, too Dbachmann 12:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In his last recorded interview, he presents himself as a devout Roman Catholic, apart from Mirv's comments about his works, letters... Pfortuny 16:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


"Even though it has some Christian meaning to it....it still has lots of fighting...which i think is wrong."

Read the classic (and popular) Chinese story of the Monkey King/Journey to the West. It is neck deep in Buddhist philosophy, in my opinion. Now, Buddhists are known to be generally pacifists but Monkey King has lots more violence than LOTR (mainly because its longer). I don't think that because Tolkien wrote lots of violence in LOTR he's not a good Christian.

Or read the Bible. There's a bit of fighting in that, as well. - Nunh-huh 20:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that this entry (like many others) could benefit from some sort of well-defined policy on how to choose and sort external links. For example, a link was recently added at the very top of the list to the page "Tolkien's World". That seems like a perfectly fine site, but it doesn't contain all that much information (I don't know that it says much more on any topic than the Wikipedia itself, much less some of the other great links that were already here).

On the one hand, adding new links and new information is a good thing, and I'd hate to have battles over whether any given site "deserved" to be listed, and where. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia entry, not an index of every Tolkien site on the web: there's a real value in presenting only the most "useful" information. With that in mind, I moved the "Tolkien's World" link down from the top of the list to what seemed like a more reasonable place.

The thing is, if I were writing this entry on my own, I probably wouldn't include it at all. That's not to say it's a bad site! It just doesn't rise to my idea of "extremely useful". For that matter, I feel like there are probably better places for quite a few links that are currently on the list. If it were up to me, I'd probably keep less than ten of the current links as part of this main entry. (I already rearranged the list of links substantially some time ago, and nobody complained bitterly at the time, but it would be nice to have a more distributed way of monitoring such things.)

So what's the best way to handle these issues? Is there any sort of established Wikipedia protocol? (I can't imagine that this is the first time the issue has come up.) And in particular, what should we do here (and in the other Tolkien entries)? --Steuard 20:14, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think you handled it well the times you made your modifications. I don't see a need for a debate over a standard policy that covers all articles, and unless there is disagreement over edits to this article's list of links, then a policy by which to resolve such issues is not needed. - Bevo 20:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's no standard. Easy test is to pretend to be a random reader, who's just been partly sated by reading all of WP's detail, and wants more - does the external link provide additional material for you the reader? Could be more in-depth explanation, source texts, pictures, etc. If the site has negligible content not already in WP, strike it, it won't help our readers. Stan 21:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Also, choose text that describes the external link from that point of view. One additional value that an external resource can have is to persist as a resource that can be checked periodically for updated content (even if after the update, the article contains the essential information in the link, it facilitates later updates to retain it in the list embedded in the article) - Bevo 21:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
there are far too many links. Like the (general WP) tendency to stuff all into the main article, we have here a tendency to include links that would be much more at home in other articles:
dab 11:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name style

Is there any reason why Tolkien's name is typed in as "J. R. R. Tolkien" with those clunky and bookish spaces in between the initials? This isn't proper MLA style for online text (or even printed work anymore, if I'm correct). And just look at it -- ridiculous and awkward. So I've been changing names to "J.R.R. Tolkien" whenever I find it, but I'd like to establish this as the accepted style for wikipedia. -- User:Alcarillo

It's a controversial issue discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions~. Spaces are used in Tolkien's books Ausir 16:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's currently better to use a standard style across Wikipedia: if we need to fix it later, we can do this programmatically, as with the display of dates. It's easier to do this if the style is consistent in the source text. -- The Anome 16:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick replies. Spaces may be used in print because it's often easier on the eye. However, in an online environment, this doesn't work, even when not using a monospace type. That's why the traditional two spaces before a new sentence isn't used here either. BTW, I cast my vote to remove the spaces. And if you hunt around, you will find online styles from various universities that don't use spaces; here's one [APA style guide]. Alcarillo 18:11 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Two spaces instead of the normal one after each period won’t work in HTML anyway, as any series of spaces, tabs, and linefeeds is merged into just one space. Anárion 13:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[If spaces are easier on the eyes in print, how can they not be when online??] Since it's a wikipedia-wide issue, I think we can archive this section somewhere ("no spaces" is fine, especially since it gives a hint to parsers that it's not a sentence-ending full stop. But until there is a consense, editing to and fro is pointless) Dbachmann 15:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This should actually probably be "J. R. R. Tolkien" with thin spaces rather than either "J. R. R." with full spaces or "J.R.R." with no spaces. This is the convention used in print – note that following whatever style guides you might prefer is not entirely appropriate here. We're not writing manuscripts for typographers to prettify. taion 05:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Emphasis

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I haven't taken it upon myself to change this hallowed page without prior discussion; I'm sure various taboos are in effect. But in the opening paragraphs, shouldn't Tolkien's authorship of LOTR come first, and his academic career second? Whatever Tolkien himself would have preferred, he would never have become a household name on the strength of his academic record, and the only reason he's in Wikipedia at all is because of the LOTR and Middle-Earth, not because of his Oxford lectures or his translatation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. If there is general agreement, I'd like to arrange the intro accordingly. Vincent 06:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed open for improvement. Personally, I don't like Outside academia, many people have come to know Tolkien as the author of The Lord of the Rings -- it sounds chatty, like a family program, not like an article. dab 06:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and have boldly made the change. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 07:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wot?!? Without waiting for a wiki consensus? (Sorry for the sarcasm, I've recently been involved in a couple of edit wars.)Vincent 08:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's easier to make the change: if anyone really disagrees it can always be reverted, and a discussion then started on talk. Serious disagreements seldom arise fortunately, and if they do they can usually easily be resolved. The "trick" is to assume good faith. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 08:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Were you went, I followed and acted boldly. Swapped the Fiction and Academic listings in the bibliography. Vincent 04:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, and to emphasis Tolkien's academic career a little more (as it was important to him), would it perhaps be better to change the first sentence of the article to read "J.R.R. Tolkien is primarily known as the author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings" and to add "...and spent most of his later life in academia" to the first sentence of the second paragraph. Also, adding "Beginning in the 1930s,..." as the opening clause of the last sentence in that paragraph would make the paragraph flow a bit better in my opinion; as it is right now the sentences sound a bit monotonous, since they all begin the same basic way: he attended, he worked, he was, he belonged.
Edonovan 03:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That's just a detail, of course, but I am not sure this was well done: it separates the literary works from the posthumous publications (which are of course -mostly- fictitious). Well, the bibliography could be arranged in several ways, and there's probably not a single best way.... (btw, the list of poems I included here would maybe be better exported to eg. Poems by J. R. R. Tolkien, since they are not strictly part of the bibliography. dab 12:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the list should be split more clearly... [[User:Anárion|АПА́ДІОП]] 12:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I thought of that, but I reasoned it was OK to have the posthumous works placed after since only what was published in JRRT's lifetime was published to his liking. The rest was pieced together by Christopher Tolkien, and we can only speculate on whether or not Tolkien would have approved. Of course if "Leaf by Niggle" (my favourite of all of Tolkien's works) is any indication, he probably no longer cares... Vincent 05:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category

Right now, J.R.R. Tolkien is listed in the categories "Middle-earth", "Fantasy writers", "British writers", "British Army officers" and "Residents of Birmingham, England". How do you feel about a new category, "J.R.R. Tolkien", specifically dedicated to Tolkien? Aecis 01:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the intention. Just to have him listed in a smaller number of categories? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not really, that would just be a side effect. I personally feel that Tolkien deserves a category of his own, and I also think that creating a specific category for Tolkien (with relevant subcategories) would create a clearer structure of the enormous amount of articles on Wikipedia concerning him and his works. Aecis 15:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The idea being that "Category:Middle-earth" would be a sub-category? And then there could be another sub-category for material that is not actually related to Middle-earth? My primary concern with a "Tolkien" category is that it would seem almost by definition to include only the only article... --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 17:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
clearly, a category "Tolkien" beside a category "Middle-Earth" would be over the top. Look at all the lists-of-all-things-Tolkien at Template:middle-earth... I think there is only so much systematization that still makes sense.... dab 18:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The category could contain such subcategories as (just to give examples, not actual proposals) Middle Earth (as mentioned), Lord of the Rings etc. etc. The variety of categories is almost infinite, considering the enormous amount of articles on Wikipedia concerning Tolkien Aecis 16:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What would go in a Lord of the Rings sub-category that isn't already contained in Category:Middle-earth? The distinction between articles relating to LotR and Tolkien's other works is not always clear. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that articles such as The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King fit better in a Lord of the Rings-category than in a category of Middle Earth books-category. I also think that the articles covered by the Middle Earth-category are best covered by a J.R.R. Tolkien-category, for the sake of clarity. (Middle Earth could also be a subcategory of J.R.R. Tolkien, dealing with the lands, cities, bays and other geographical features of Middle Earth.) Aecis 17:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It sounds like you are basically advocating a switch from the current use of the term "Middle-earth" to designate articles referring to Tolkien's world. We've been using "Middle-earth" for some time now, and the meaning is clear - it does refer to the continent, but it has long been used as a generic designation for Tolkien's inventions. Aricles relating to Middle-earth do fit better in Category:Middle-earth. There are very few that would fit better in a Category:J. R. R. Tolkien. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is how the category listing stood: Category:1892 births Category:1973 deaths Category:British Army officers Category:British writers Category:Christian writers Category:Fantasy writers Category:Middle-earth Category:Residents of Birmingham, England

This is getting ridiculous. I removed the first two (because the information content is small) and resorted the others in a more reasonable order of priority. Tolkien could just as easily also be listed in Category:Linguists (and, hey, what about Category:Roman Catholics?). Is there any way we can get these down to a more reasonable number? Maybe produce some additional combination sub-categories? Category:Christian fantasy writers? Category:Birmingham writers? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


what is the point of all those categories again? I suppose it is for people to find articles by browsing categories, not to find categories by browsing articles. Therefore, an article may be listed in any number of categories as long as they are appropriate. We just need to find a way to prevent too great a number of categories from cluttering up the article, but thats a problem of layout, not of encyclopedia structure... dab 20:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Categorisation_of_people: "Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterise this person". This is not set in stone, but it's a convention.

From m:Help:Category: "Each page is typically in at least one category. It may be in more, but it may be wise not to put a page in a category and also in a more general category." Is the fact that Tolkien was a British officer significant? Possibly - his war experiences definitely influenced his writing. Is it really all that important that he lived in Birmingham? Unless you're from Birmingham, you probably don't list that as something that everyone should know about him. It also seems to me that if an article is in, say, three different "writers" categories, there ought to be a way to use sub-categories to eliminate something. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really defending the over-categorization. I'm just saying it does no harm. At the moment, we have the following (consider for each category if a link to Tolkien would be helpful for someone browsing the category):

  • Fantasy writers
needed.
  • Christian writers
needed.
  • British writers, British academics, Residents of Birmingham, England, British Army officers
at least one of these is needed to put him in the super-category "brits". But do we need all? All academics are writers, I suppose. The officers and Birmingham may both be helpful for people browsing for "what other people I know are from Birmingham / were in the army".
  • Middle-earth
I don't know. Tolkien is not a creature of Middle earth, and nobody browsing the ME category will be helped much by a link to Tolkien.

dab 17:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

derivative works

Artists who have found inspiration in Tolkien's works include... — This list could go on forever (eventually including everybody who put his drawing of Gandalf on an internet archive), without any direct relevance to Tolkien's person. I think we should restrict it to artists who were known to Tolkien and had his approval (Baynes, Swann,...) - dab 15:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alan Lee and John Howe as well, as they are currently the best known Tolkien illustrators... Ausir 16:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes, and any notable ones beside. But, imho, under some middle-earth heading, Middle-Earth Illustrators, Artists inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien or something. This article is supposed to be about the author himself. His work may not be clearly separable from his person, but people inspired by his work (and not having met him personally) are at least two steps removed (or, let me put it this way: "Tolkien Illustrators" rarely illustrate Tolkien himself ;). dab 17:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not against cutting the list of artists from the JRRT main page - but it looks like what we had was now just cut away and thrown away :-( (with the exception of Baynes and Swann)

Jhi 21:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. Found the Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien.

Jhi 21:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

that's right; but I'm not too sure about my present version yet. Mostly, I fear I'm citing Letters too extensively. Feel free to improve it. My point was that the section should reflect Tolkien's stance towards derivative works. dab 08:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The picture

I know the picture with the pipe (actually, the 2nd one, not the one included in this article) is the best known picture of Tolkien ever, but what is its copyright status? Given the Wikipedia copyright policy, wouldn't it be better to replace it with a public domain 1916 picture of JRRT (Tolkien 1916.jpg)? Ausir 17:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ru:Толкин, Джон Рональд Руэл has a whole collection of images. If they are fair use there, they are fair use here, too (it's on the same server...). We shouldn't be too intimidated by possibilities of Copyright violation. The pictures can always be removed if a Copyright holder turns up (and we'll always have the 1916 picture to hold on too in that case). dab 14:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. There should be more pictures of Tolkien here, like the famous "pipe photo". But the other ones on the Russian entry look nice.

Elfcon, Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, Carl F. Hostetter

I added a list of snippets published in journals to the bibliography. I then tried to find out more about how this material was published. I have summarised what I found out in the article Elfcon. Since it involves a serious controversy, I would like others to look it over and try to make the account as unbiased as possible. And, in case you find the article acceptable, to put it on your watchlist to guard against biased changes: C. F. Hostetter (128.183.221.44) has removed the entire account shortly after I wrote it. I have reverted the removal, since I think the account is central to understanding how unpublished writings by Tolkien are likely (or unlikely) to be published in the future. But since the subject is touchy, I would like to be on the safe side. It is true that some of the views quoted show Mr Hostetter in an unpleasant light, but this is unfortunately the state of affairs as I found it, and I tried to keep quotes containing direct personal attacks out of the article. dab 10:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To me it looks like you have tried to be fair and balanced in this, but I don't know much about the matter other than what I have learned here since it mostly happened back before I discovered that there were people other than me interested in this stuff. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll do what I can to look over this material at some point, though I'm not really an expert on the controversy myself. For the record, I very much doubt that Carl will make any seriously unacceptable changes to the relevant pages at this point, as it sounds like he's mainly interested in moving the article away from its Lisa-Star-inspired origins. I count Carl as a friend, and I think he's a good person who's trying his best to do the right thing. On the other hand, I think of David Salo as a friend, too, and I think he's a good person as well. I've always been disappointed that they're on opposite sides of this schism (but that gives me hope that it might one day be partially healed).--Steuard 14:11, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, and I tried to give the article a 'historical' touch, treating the issue as one of the past. As an anonymous editor has added, recently, the hostility is unlikely to rise to the level of the 90s again. My take on the issue is influenced by my acquaintance with ancient languages (as is, I imagine, Salo's), where the texts belong to everybody and should be edited, unannotated, as rapidly as possible, to enable academic discussion. I have no respect for Copyright laws, morally, and I think no hastiness in publication could even remotely approach the rape of Tolkien's "intellectual property" perpetrated by "licenced" derivations (not to mention "parodies"). But I accept that the laws are there, and I'm not out to change the world, so peace to CFH and the Trust, the law is on your side, end of story. dab 16:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Posthumous Publications

Could we move the list of VT articles to the Vinyar Tengwar page, please? (Probably it would make just as much sense to move the articles from other journals to their respective articles as well.) The journal publications—which are not on the same standing as the books by Christopher Tolkien—are threatening to overwhelm the rest of the article.

arguably, yes. the point is that these are all texts by Tolkien, commented by editors, and that I thought it was nice to have one place where they are all listed (since most are quite obscure, and I haven't seen all of them, myself). Because they are not all from VT, maybe we could also export them to, say, posthumously published texts by J. R. R. Tolkien or something, where the individual texts from the HoME series could be listed, as well, without remorse for wasted space? I don't know the best way to arrange it, so be bold. My final aim would be a readily available index of all texts published. dab 14:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, they're articles, so shouldn't they be in quotes, not italics? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well, they are not the article titles themselves, but rather the name of the texts edited or quoted in the articles (which is often, but not always, identical). dab 14:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think moving the academic articles to a wikiarticle of their own would be a good idea. I would like to keep the
posthumous books at the front page, however. I think the academic articles are very different from the books, in
their accessibility (both physically and technically). Also, while I think the VT (and similar) articles are fine, I think
in the general case starting to include the academic articles are a bit of a slippery slope: if we are really getting
into Tolkien academia certainly some of the Tolkien scholars like Shippey, Flieger, Bibire, etc. should get their turn
since their work illuminates and explores the writings?
Jhi 18:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


by all means! I was planning on slowly adding all information about Tolkien academia I can get hold of. Not in this article, of course. I agree that the more obscure writings, even if written by JRRT himself, can be moved elsewhere, and be linked from the bibliography. My idea was to certainly keep the posthumously published books, HoME etc, in this main article, while giving a more detailed account, maybe, in this proposed 'external' bibliography. The list on this page was of course only intended to give original publications of works by Tolkien. dab 18:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I now split off the long list of (mostly VT) articles into a new wikiarticle, Tolkien research. As usual, feel free to edit either the small stub left in the Tolkien main page, or the newly created article. The "as a writer" bit could probably use a lot of meat around its bones. I also added a link to the VT page pointing to the nes article.

Jhi 10:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mabel Suffield

I am glad for Draconiszeta's edits, they do improve the article's style. But: JRRT's mother was not born in Suffield. She was a born Suffield. I had just changed that back from another well-meaning "correction". Please check your facts.

dab 08:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


"Languages"

I support the removal of the list of languages JRRT purportedly had "varying fluency" in. The "Languages" section is the weakest we have in the article now, and somebody should rewrite it, so that someday we can get this to FA status. Links are still piling up, and what is this strange "publications" table at the bottom? We already give a detailed bibliography. Categories are also getting worse again, "People with asteroids named after them", "Polyglots" -- hello?? How about Category:People who liked to have a pint or two at the local pub after work? As far as I know, Tolkien was not a notable polyglot. He was a philologist/linguist, sure, and he could read Latin and Greek and German I suppose, but there were not many languages he was fluent in. dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Tolkien's anarchism

According to this article, Tolkien was (by his own admittance) an anarchist. I think this should be mentioned here. -- James

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word state (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!" -- The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, 1995, p. 63. (Quoted here)

See also here -- James

Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I note that in a recent edit, Michael Martinez removed the link to the "Tolkien Meta-FAQ" website that I maintain. I am very open to the suggestion that my site is not relevant in this article, but I think there are strong arguments to be made in its favor. In particular, the site is one authorized home for the widely respected "Tolkien FAQ" and "LessFAQ", which include substantial sections discussing Tolkien and his work. I'm restoring the link on that basis; if anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here.

At the same time, Mr. Martinez added a link to his own website at xenite.org. I'm sure it's a perfectly good site, but I think that the current summary could use a bit of NPOV work. But I'm not the one to fix that (or even to judge it, really): Mr. Martinez and I have in the past been on opposite sides of some rather intense debates, and I'm not sure that I'd trust either of us to be sufficiently "neutral" with respect to the other.--Steuard 18:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think you should edit the article according to your wishes. Mr. Martinez already has according to his own wishes, and if you disagree you can discuss it with him.--Wiglaf 19:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
No matter how well-intentioned I might think I was being, I suspect because of past interactions that Mr. Martinez would interpret my changes as a personal attack on him. Thus, I would prefer to leave this judgement to someone whose fairness Mr. Martinez would not have reason to question.--Steuard 20:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
If you point out the problems, I can perhaps help you.--Wiglaf 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, in speaking of the xenite.org link above I was thinking especially of the phrase "only the most respectable" (which together with his deletion of my own website's link here felt almost like it was aimed at me personally, whether he meant it that way or not). The term "highly selective" also sounds a bit like advertising to me, and in general the description of this link is considerably longer than any other link descriptions in this article. As for other changes to the article, I think that Mr. Martinez's edits here show some of the same possible POV issues that I have described in more detail at Talk:Middle-earth.--Steuard 20:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure whether I have the skills to write an NPOV version on the theories, but I will have a look at the wording of the links.--Wiglaf 21:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
FWIW I think that the "Tolkien Meta-FAQ" website is perfectly suited as an external link. I've read a good part of the content there, and in my opinion as an extra resource it is valuable and valid. I have no affiliation whatsoever to either Steuard or to Michael Martinez. I am not a seasoned Wikipedian, and so I'll wait for a few days; if nobody objects I'll put the link to the "Tolkien Meta-FAQ" back on. --JordanSamuels 12:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Response to Steuard

No matter how well-intentioned I might think I was being, I suspect because of past interactions that Mr. Martinez would interpret my changes as a personal attack on him.

Steuard, my most common complaint about your discussions in the past has always been that you have managed to make ME the subject of discussion, regardless of what is supposedly being discussed.

Why you couldn't just complain about the link description (which I have now modified to ACCURATELY reflect the nature of the page in question) is a complete mystery.

As for the Meta-FAQ, it remains to this day an unreliable source of information because of your intentional biases, mis-statements of fact, and errors of omission. I have removed it because it is clearly self-promotional of an extremely NON-NEUTRAL point of view, and therefore is not in keeping with the premise of Wikipedia.

The Xenite page is a directory of links to Web sites which represent a disparate number of points of view. They, at least, make it clear that they are only representing single points of view -- and don't pretend to represent multiple points of view.

Michael Martinez 06:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I speak for Wikipedia in general when I say, we don't want your personal animosities spill on this talk page, and much less the links section of the article. I propose in all fairness, that editors openly state their association with external sites, propose their inclusion here on talk, and let uninvolved editors decide whether they are worthy of inclusion. (I realize this is what Steuard has done, so cheers to him). I must say I have my doubts about the xenite link:
  • it is unsupported (not updated since late 2003)
  • it has ads
  • it was apparently added by its maintainer
based on this, I do not absolutely oppose its inclusion. But Michael should leave its eulogy to others. The point here, to put it bluntly, seems to be that Michael would not include Steuards page in his link collection, and therefore the dispute is between insinuating that it is "highly selective" of quality, or just "selective" based on personal preference. The solution will simply be for both Michael and Steuard refraining from editing either the xenite and the slimy.com link, and leave it to others (there are plenty of competent editors watching this page). It is, incidentially, not against WP policy to link to biased sites. The criterion is quality, and bias, especially self-declared bias, can just be noted with the link. Personally, I don't think either page is absolutely necessary to be featured, but they seem also good enough to be present (but no hyping them!). dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My response follows.

I think I speak for Wikipedia in general when I say, we don't want your personal animosities spill on this talk page, and much less the links section of the article.dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Steuard should not have brought up his personal issues in this discussion.

I must say I have my doubts about the xenite link:
  • it is unsupported (not updated since late 2003)

The heading on the page says that "most of this page has not been updated since late 2003" -- but, in fact, some parts of it have been updated within the past few weeks. The information is relatively current, as it points to sites of long-standing and good reputation.

  • it has ads

I haven't seen anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that recommends excluding links to pages with ads (although some of the ads are actually just internal network cross-promotional ads with no commercial value).

  • it was apparently added by its maintainer

Steuard also added the link to his Meta-FAQ, and you apparently had no objection to his doing that, so this should be a non-issue.

based on this, I do not absolutely oppose its inclusion. But Michael should leave its eulogy to others. The point here, to put it bluntly, seems to be that Michael would not include Steuards page in his link collection,

No, the point is that the Meta-FAQ is an intentionally misleading document. I have repeatedly asked Steuard to correct errors of fact and omission through the years and he has failed or refused to do so. The Meta-FAQ has been variously promoted through Wikipedia as a resource for Tolkien readers and "experts and beginners" alike -- which it most certainly is not.

It is a document which has a long political and personal history that is used to advocate very specific points of view, presenting opposing points of view as unfavorably as possible.

It also happens to be hosted on a site which has a long reputation for bias and verbal abuse.

The moral history of the Meta-FAQ is so questionable, I was shocked when I first noticed a link to it on Wikipedia.

With respect to the Xenite Tolkien directory, it IS highly selective -- the criteria applied for including sites in the directory include creativeness of expression, crediting sources for research, originality of content and design, and thoroughness of treatment of theses (not necessarily of subject). Some of the sites linked to in that directory take only one point of view on a subject (such as Eugene Hargrove's paper on Bombadil). But they are very well-respected sites that deserve special recognition as being something other than normal, average fan site.

The solution will simply be for both Michael and Steuard refraining from editing either the xenite and the slimy.com link, and leave it to others (there are plenty of competent editors watching this page). It is, incidentially, not against WP policy to link to biased sites.

I refer you to the "What Wikipedia is not" page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wikipedia_is_not

Item number 1 says:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

The Meta-FAQ is propaganda. Steuard will insist it is not, of course. Anyone promoting propaganda WOULD deny it, given the circumstances.

The Meta-FAQ originated as a legitimate attempt to answer questions which were not being answered in the original news group FAQs. The original FAQ writer was difficult to reach, at one time indicated a desire to update the documents registered to him, and never took action. But through the years Steuard has appointed himself as archivist and historian for the flame wars in which he has taken an active part, and he his "point of view" permeates the Meta-FAQ to the point that it excludes virtually any unbiased point of view on the major topics.

That is all I will say on the matter. My objections to the Meta-FAQ would cease immediately upon Steuard's fixing the problems with the document, but frankly, I just don't expect him to ever do that.

The criterion is quality, and bias, especially self-declared bias, can just be noted with the link. Personally, I don't think either page is absolutely necessary to be featured, but they seem also good enough to be present (but no hyping them!). dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It seemed appropriate to me to point people to a broad variety of resources, rather than to give them an apparent endorsement of a politically motivated single point of view.

Simply leaving the two links as is would be preferable to including any further descriptions of them.

But the motivations of self-promotional linking should be scrutinized more closely, as it is all too easy for people to take advantage of the community atmosphere here and use it to mislead the general reading audience.

Michael Martinez 17:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and invite all editors watching this page to evaluate these links. To counter promotional links with more promotional links is not the way to go, however. dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I think that I have already said all that is necessary or appropriate above, and as I said there, I will leave it to the community to decide how to present the links in question. (I would point out, though, that whatever my Meta-FAQ may be, it's not a "Directory"; I think that whoever originally categorized it as "informational" was on the right track.)
I only have two responses to Michael's comments above. First, regarding his comment that the Meta-FAQ is "hosted on a site which has a long reputation for bias and verbal abuse", I would point out that slimy.com is a personal domain owned by a couple of my college friends who have generously given me web space there. I don't know what "long reputation" he is referring to here, but that certainly doesn't sound like them.
Second, Michael, you say that "[your] objections to the Meta-FAQ would cease immediately upon Steuard's fixing the problems with the document". I am glad to hear that! I have asked you before, both on Usenet and via private email, to let me know what exactly those objections are, and how you would suggest fixing them (in late April 2004, for example). To date, I have gotten no response to those requests, so I honestly don't know what you object to. If you're serious about this, please do send me an email; I'll do my best to work something out.--Steuard 19:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My response follows:

I only have two responses to Michael's comments above. First, regarding his comment that the Meta-FAQ is "hosted on a site which has a long reputation for bias and verbal abuse", I would point out that slimy.com is a personal domain owned by a couple of my college friends who have generously given me web space there. I don't know what "long reputation" he is referring to here, but that certainly doesn't sound like them.

My mistake. I thought there was a copy of the Meta-FAQ on another site and should have checked again to make sure. The Meta-FAQ is NOT currently hosted on the site I had in mind, and they seem to have removed their copy or else it's not directly linked to from the front page.

Second, Michael, you say that "[your] objections to the Meta-FAQ would cease immediately upon Steuard's fixing the problems with the document". I am glad to hear that! I have asked you before, both on Usenet and via private email, to let me know what exactly those objections are, and how you would suggest fixing them (in late April 2004, for example). To date, I have gotten no response to those requests, so I honestly don't know what you object to. If you're serious about this, please do send me an email; I'll do my best to work something out.--Steuard 19:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Steuard, you're just resorting to your old lying tactic again. I have on NUMEROUS occasions made specific requests/suggestions/whatever to you, and you have ignored the vast majority of them. And every time we go through this, you pretend that I never made those requests.

I am not interested in playing that game again. If you REALLY want to bring the Meta-FAQ up to date, just go back and reread everything I have written to you in the past regarding the problems with the document.

Let me know when you have made the changes, and I will be more than happy to review them. Michael Martinez 03:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, I think the Meta-Faq (why meta, btw? a faq on the concept of faq?) is Steuard's, whatever its merits. It's up to him whether he reacts to criticism. We do have Wikipedia here, though, the perfect place to bring up your criticism (at the appropriate locations), with the ultimate aim of Wikipedia rendering all external informational Tolkien sites superfluous :) dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I call it a "Meta-FAQ" because of the structure of the site. I host copies of W.D.B. Loos's old "Tolkien FAQ" and "Tolkien LessFAQ" as well as my own actively maintained "Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ", each of which has its own internal structure. Other participants on the Tolkien newsgroups have also produced a couple of more specialized FAQs, again with their own organization (and hosted on their own sites). The point of the Meta-FAQ is to be a unified interface or index to the questions from all of them (but without answering any questions directly itself).--Steuard 15:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'd call it "hyper-faq", then ;o) dab (ᛏ) 16:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Honest to God, Michael, if I did ever know what your specific concerns were, I have forgotten them, and I have been unable to locate them on Google Groups or in my email records. I've tried. Hard. Maybe I'm just not very good at searching; I don't know. If you could even just email me one of them, you could judge my good faith in this matter by my response. (With the caveat that I'm going to be out of town for much of the next few weeks, mind you.) But Wikipedia is not the place for further detailed discussion of my site, except to the degree that the community here thinks it merits a link.--Steuard 15:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Google Groups becomes harder to search every time they update. However, the details of my concerns about the Meta-FAQ's contents are not relevant here. Sometime in the future, I will contact you once again with a list of changes. It is not a priority for me. Michael Martinez 17:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Looking at the links in general, I cannot help the impression that some cleanup is required. This article is bulky as it is, and it is about JRRT the author and philologist. Ardalambion is an excellent site, but it is pertinent to Languages of Middle-Earth, not to this article. Likewise, links pertaining to the movies belong on The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. dab (ᛏ) 10:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

My pruning may have been a bit severe, but please argue before re-inclusion of links. The internet is rife with "Tolkien sites", and our aim cannot be to give an overview of them, we should only add those which are (a) pertinent to the article (in this case the person of JRRT), and (b) add to the information already present in the article. Any site selfdescribing as a "LoTR site" (tolkienonline.com) has no place here, it should be featured on Lord of the Rings. Also, this article needs a "see also" section, referring to the main related articles (only the major ones, or it'll just be reiterating the bibliography section). dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of any links will appear to be some sort of endorsement from Wikipedia (and, by extension, Yahoo!). As someone with several years' experience in the Web promotion/search engine optimization industry, I feel Wikipedia has suddenly appeared on the radar screens of link spammers, some of whom have undoubtedly already dipped their pens into the inkwell. But the Yahoo! buyout will increase pressure on Wikipedia.

That said, if I had to recommend only a single Tolkien link for any topic, it would be the OneRing at Virbius directory. While that remains a privately operated and administered site, it is (to my knowledge) the most comprehensive directory of Tolkien resources out there. Some editorial review is implemented, but it is open to submission from a broad variety of Tolkien-related sites.

The primary Tolkien and Middle-earth articles may be best served by only linking to a resource like the Virbius directory. Michael Martinez 17:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"endorsement" in the sense of quality, not point of view. There's a difference. Sure, feel free to re-insert the link (I was only asking you to refrain from editing where you are personally involved, you are perfectly free to edit the remaining links!). My impression was that it was only dealing with Middle-Earth material, and would be better suited as an external link to Middle-Earth (c.f. the note I put to the top of the links section), but if the site is so eminent, I will not oppose its inclusion here. Ardalambion may also be suitable to be re-inserted: It is already on the Languages article, but it does have some biographical relevance (in that early stages of the languages are discussed). There is no Yahoo buyout. Sure, Yahoo may be in a position to blackmail WP, at some point in the future (but let them try!). At the moment, they have no influence whatsoever on content. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

images

I like the additional images. We were using the WWI photo so far because it is not copyrighted, but as long as the copyrighted images hang around the wikimedia servers, we may as well use them. It would be still nicer, of course, to have the original LotR covers designed by JRRT (since book covers are copyrighted anyway, there shouldn't be a difference, legally). If we're going to use copyrighted images anyway, how about this brilliant image, or this very hobbitesque one? In any case, we need some sort of attribution, at least the year the photo was taken. dab (ᛏ) 12:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find a source for the image. It's frustrating, it's plastered all over the internet, but nobody bothers to give a reference. I presume it could be from the "Tolkien family album" (1992), but I don't know. Where is he? In front of some college in Oxford? Someone must know... dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ok, here are a few images with source given, I suggest we take one of those (one of the 1961 ones?)
dab (ᛏ) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope I am not too guilty of hagiography now. Image:Jrrtolkien2-sm.jpg is brilliant, but as long as it is undated and unsourced, I think we should take it down. To replace it, I have uploaded

with disclaimers corresponding to those on Image:Jrrtolkien2-sm.jpg and Image:Tolkien 1916.jpg. dab (ᛏ) 10:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'derivative art'

ok, there could in principle be a zillion links under that heading. If we want to avoid things piling up, we need guidelines. I suggest, only major directories. Why is there a link to an interview with this movie maker? Let's say we link to sites devoted to cataloguing art derived from Tolkien's works, either music, images/movies or fanfiction etc. dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Those links were not just "piling up", they gave more information about things mentioned earlier in the article.

As a personal note, I think I have reached my limit on the constant back-and-forth editing of articles, the whole Wikipedia mindset. This is a doomed project since the articles will never stabilize. User:Jhi

It was not my intention to cause you emotional harm. Sorry! I have reverted my offense.--Wiglaf 15:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never mind my emotional harm :-) But after having spent quite a bit of time editing the JRRT article (and many others), I am really serious about the underlying problems of Wikipedia. Even with the extremely good intentions and some really professional level editing, knowledge, and interest people spend on it, I have lost faith. There will always be crackpots / academic food fights / vandals / poor editing that will ruin the best of articles. I think the recent "mass edit" by Martinez was very indicative of the problems I mean. In other words, I don't care about the JRRT article, or any other fur that matter, anymore. 80.186.161.60

Jhi, I know exactly what you mean and I know several articles like that. However, there are many other articles that treat other subjects that are not so much part of popular culture. Ignore it and write on other articles :).--Wiglaf 16:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jhi, I apologize for removing the links. I was in a "clean up" mindset, not in an aggessive one. By all means put them back. I do think WP has its problems, but you should understand that the aim is not for the articles to be "finished" at some point. It's ok for them to keep evolving even after they reach WP:FA status. They should just be kept from deteriorating, but changing to and fro is ok. Btw, I am quite happy with the article as it stands now. The only section in dire need of attention left is the "languages" one. Then we'll need to do some pruning, but with a little effort, we are not too far from WP:FAC now. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I mean, you say, WP is doomed, but look at what we have here: it is I think a very fair article on JRRT. I do not think a lot of similarly good articles with similar scope are online (there's [3], but that's also an exceptionally fair article, I guess). So, while WP may be stressful, it actually does work! dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
btw, long articles usually have a "References" and a "Further reading" section. Resources linked only because they are mentioned in the text go to the "References" section. We could try a similar approach. My concern is that if we have a link that looks motley, passers-by will keep adding links to their own sites, and the link section will be a jungle in a matter of months. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto, Christian symbolism, Atlantis, and the Bible as a source?

I remember hearing Tolkien write on the subject of Esperanto (perhaps in one of his letters), saying that it was never popular because the language lacked any underlying culture or mythos to give it a feeling of depth, a sentiment highly appropriate for him, given that in his inventing of languages he always desired to create a people who would have reason to speak them. Compared with the article A Philologist on Esperanto, I find the two positions rather unconnected, although not necessarily incompatible. This mentioned for another's reference.

In the Biography section, it is said that due to Tolkien's Christianity his works contain much Christian symbolism. I posit that his works do not actually contain Christian symbolism, but rather mythic elements inspired by, one might say, the same underlying spirit of Christianity. As he himself said in a letter (paraphrased), "The Lord of the Rings is a deeply Christian work for not being overtly so." This I already edited, and I believe my edit better reflects his writings.

In the Writing section, I have two contentions. Firstly, The Fall of Numenor is similar to Atlantis, but I read was actually derived from what might be called an Atlanean Psychosis or Complex of Tolkien, wherein his perportedly visionary mind was occasionally beset by images of a land falling under waves. This subsided after his writing of the story, whereby the expression was a release. I do not know how to incorporate this into the Wikipedia article, or whether it is pertinant. Secondly, the Bible is mentioned as a source for names. This I find ridiculous, but am hesitant to remove the claim because I am not quite certain. Would the author of this statement, made in this revision by Michael Martinez if I am not mistaken, please validate?


Oh, by the way, I knew the article was rather long, and when I made my edit Wikipedia told me so explicitly.

the "source" of the names is a difficult question (excepting the obvious cases of Eddaic and Old English names) — names that also appear in the Bible, such as "Erech" should be treated with care, and it should not be claimed Tolkien just adopted them, unless he can be shown to have explicitly stated that he did. dab (ᛏ) 08:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
btw, why did you remove the Shippey lecture, Wiglaf? I think it is a good article. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
User:Jhi hit the roof complaining about the changeability of the article and that the information was "already covered". Since you support its inclusion, I'll reinsert it.--Wiglaf 10:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"racist upbringing" in South Africa and evil orcs

Someone added this to the first paragraph: "On the other hand, Tolkien's upbringing in racist South Africa also influenced his writings. Many scholars have pointed out underlying racist, and orientalist, themes that permeate almost all of Tolkein's works. The Lord of the Rings is often cited as evidence of Tolkien's vision of a master white race conquering the so-called orientals and negroids (represented by the evil "race" of "orcs" in the Lord of the Rings)."

The first sentence doesn't make sense at all. As mentioned later on this page, Tolkien left South Africa when he was 3 years old. Further, I think this is just rubbish and someone is using this page as his soapbox. In Silmarillion, it is made clear that orcs are not humans at all but Elves that were deformed by Morgoth. Besides, orcs were mythological creatures before Tolkien was born. Should this section be removed/reverted? Blaataap 3 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Ah, I changed my mind and just went ahead and removed this rubbish. As far as I can see, nothing was discussed when adding it. Blaataap 3 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

of course! the "racism" discussion is valid, but not without citing academic sources, and certainly not in the first paragraph. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
Did you do something to the layout in your last edit? Yesterday, the Tolkien page was just a little too wide for my screen so the lower scrollbar in internet explorer popped into existance. After your edit it was gone (which is a good thing, I wanted to do it myself but I had no idea what caused it). The Lord of the Rings page also has it, most other pages do not. Blaataap 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

FA?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this is reasonably close to FA now; is anyone into going through it in detail and shaping it up for WP:FAC? dab (ᛏ) 05:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What happens after an Immortal's Death?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where can I find a definitive explaination of what happens to Maia after they are killed? Throughout Tolkien's work there are many examples of Maia losing their existence at the hands of either Elves, Ainur (Vala), and even Mortals (Gollum/Frodo), but it is never mentioned that they too travel to the Halls of Mandos as the Children of Iluvatar (The Elves) do. Dead Maiar include the following:

It depends on how these Ainur were incarnated. The "natural" state for Ainur is that to them bodies are just wrappings, "clothes": they can incarnate themselves at will, but this is not their natural form.
In the case of the "evil" Ainur, including Melkor/Morgoth, Sauron, and the Balrogs, these had become permanently incarnated either by choice or by consequence. This meant that a large part of their "essence" (for lack of a better term) had been distilled into that form, and by the destruction of it they permanently lost the power to reincarnate. Sauron survived his first "death" because he had distilled his power into the Ring, and therefore was able to draw on that to reincarnate. As long as the Ring survived, so did his spirit. The Balrogs, and Melkor, did not have that luxury: upon their "death" they were left extremely weakened (and in Melkor's case even banished from Arda). Their spirits probably survived in a powerless form, but would have dwindled ("faded") over time.
In the case of the Istari (Wizards), these had been incarnated not by their own evil will, but by decree of Eru Ilúvatar. Their nature was in fact changed (since permanent incarnation is not a natural state for Ainur), and we can probably assume that their fate was made similar to that of the other incarnates: on death they were called by Mandos, and had to venture to his halls.
Saruman died a violent death, and had previously resisted Gandalf's command to step down. Since Gandalf was acting as a direct and knowing agent of the Valar, this denial was non-trivial. Saruman would have been called to Mandos, but as he had become corrupted to the core, he would have denied this call. This would have left him to the same fate as the other fallen Ainur, namely to be left wandering as a powerless spirit, fading over time until nothing was left.
As for Gandalf, his case is different, because Eru Ilúvatar stepped in at Gandalf's death. Gandalf was physically reïncarnated but at the same time increased in knowledge and power: Gandalf the White was not of the same order as Gandalf the Grey.
Much of the above is of course speculation, as there are few definite answers that can be given. Take a look at the articles of the individual characters, as well as fëa and hröa. Jordi·✆ 00:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't be argued that the evil spirts who are "killed" really are not. In the case of Sauron Gandalf says that he is to become almost a spirit of anger fovever doomed sort of drift around but never able to manipulate the way he used to and certainly not able to take form. Melkor on the other hand though banished is fated to come back for the finally struggle for arda. Jak1985 August 29, 2005

O.E.D.Work

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the article, "Tolkien's first civilian job after World War I was at the Oxford English Dictionary (among others, he initiated the entries wasp and walrus).". However the article on the Oxford English Dictionary states that Henry Bradley "died in 1923, having done E-G, L-M, S-Sh, St, and W-We.". It also states that Tolkien was a researcher, researching etymologies of words "between Waggle to Warlock" (This sounds very anecdotal - "Warlock" indeed - how Middle-Earth!). So unless someone can correct me on this, wouldn't it be better to say Tolkien worked on the entries for the words "wasp" and "walrus" rather than initiated them? DavidFarmbrough 15:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I shall have to check my references. Rich Farmbrough 22:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the Humphrey Carpenter Biography, when Tolkien (1919-1920) worked at the dictionary the letters "U-Z" were incomplete and that Henry Bradley was supervising the completion. It also states that Tolkien was a researcher, researching etymologies of words such as "warm", "wasp", "water", "wick"(lamp) and "winter", in the first weeks that he has working, though as he was working for a year he probably worked on a lot more words. I believe he did initiate the work on these words.

Gandalf Award

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tolkien was the inaugural recipient of the Gandalf Award in 1974, presumably in recognition of The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion won it in 1978. This is not really relevant to anything but the history of obscure fantasy awards, but it seems like it should go somewhere. Should I add something about this to this article? Perhaps in a new "awards" section? If anyone else is willing to do it, go right ahead. I probably won't have time anytime soon. Golwengaud 04:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it probably shouldn't be added. Another reason for its non-relevance: the first award was 2 years after Tolkien died.

Further Reading?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The "Books about Tolkien" Section is really broad, and I think it functions to point readers in some directions if they want to find out more information about this topic (J.R.R. Tolkien). In most entries, this section is called "Further Reading," to set it off as exploratory reading, and the information is not part of the entry proper. Right now, the section seems to function as a part of the Tolkien entry. For example, in the same way Tolkien's own work is catalogued, the entry attempts to catalogue all the books about Tolkien. I am not sure if this is necessary or entirely relevant, but I do think these books would work nicely as a "Further Reading" section. --Malecasta 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

agreed. And there is a similar problem about 'See Also' as well. That part just looks random, with links to 'The Hobbit' and even 'Middle Earth'. I don't like the policy of having everything even remotely related to the article in 'See Also' section, unless they have some useful content to add to the article under the light. Middle Earth might be Tolkien's greatest invention, but that article does not provide any information about Tolkien. Greenleaf 09:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you've highlighted a great problem here. Overall, this article is really big, and "See Also" is a symptom of this problem. One thing that may help is that "See Also" is not a CATEGORY to list everying remotely related to this topic. The "See Also" should specifically provide links to topics that "add to" the article, like you say. I think, however, this article needs to be clearly about one thing so we can determine what is relevant in the "See Also" and what is not. --Malecasta 06:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Give Works by Tolkien its own Page?

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It would help to specify this entry to the person J.R.R. Tolkien, and it would shorten this topic a bit. Plus, Works by Tolkien could easily stand on its own. Comments? --Malecasta 08:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess no one would disagree about getting rid of the long list of wiki- and external links, if not for other reason, because that makes the article really ugly. May be once we do that as a 'List of Tolkien Works' style article, one can carefully prune some of extraneous details from the article proper as well. Greenleaf 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok. How many would disagree to moving Tolkien's Bibliogaphy to a different page? Or giving up all that in favor of a category, like this Category:Novels by Stephen King --Malecasta 09:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
um. what's wrong about the bibliography? Or ugly? I think it is beautiful. The German article, for example, has FA status, and basically copied its bibliography from here. Of course, all works by Tolkien have their own pages, down to individual lectures and poems and other snippets (see Category:Texts by J. R. R. Tolkien), but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed here. We already moved Poems by J. R. R. Tolkien to a subpage; the German FA lists the poems in the article body. Of course the bibliography should come at the end of the article about an author, but I don't see why it should be exported. It could be shortened, maybe, or the posthumous publications could be removed as not really published by Tolkien himself. Baad 08:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation assistance

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am currently participating in a contest at Universal Studios Florida which ends on Halloween night. One of the clues is in a foreign language which I BELIEVE may have Old Norse or Tolkien roots. In doing an Internet search I came across your name and I thought that perhaps that you might be able to assist me. The clue is in an audio file. There are two ways that you may listen to the audio file.The first is the "fun" way, which is going to the Halloween Horror Nights website and doing the following. The site itself is quite amazing.

1) Go to: http://themeparks.universalstudios.com/orlando/hhn/?__dest=hhn.OFFER_right_1

2) Click on the book in the upper right hand corner (Next to FAQ's)

3) Click on the skull in the bookcase

4) Click on the large skull at the upper right hand of map. It is here that you will hear the audio file.

The second way is to click on the link below for the file which was saved by someone else trying to make the translation. This is probably the best way to listen to the chant as you can start and stop it.

Http://www.nicksvideo.com/chant.zip

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. In the event that the audio file is not of Old Norse or Tolkien roots, do you have any idea of what language it may be in, and if so would you perhaps know someone who might be able to assist in translation? I have already confirmed that it is not in Latin.

I don't recognize it as a Tolkien language, although it's worth noting that his are primarily written and not often heard spoken. (Even if they were, there's no reason to expect them to be pronounced correctly.) Certainly none of his Elvish languages, and I don't think any of the others are well-developed enough to render a random phrase.
One clue it's not Tolkien is that they didn't bother to use his runes, the Cirth. Those inscribed on the skull plainly say "Gorewood Forest" in Elder Futhark, which is a genuine old Germanic runic alphabet. Unfortunately, those familiar with Tolkien's languages aren't necessarily familiar with Old Norse since they're not at all related. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._R._R._Tolkien/Archive_1&oldid=966883871"