Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien

Pronunciation

The first syllable of the name "Tolkien" has not the vowel of "toe", but the vowel of "pot" according to J. R. R. Tolkien's own phonetic transcription published on an illustration in The Return of the Shadow: The History of The Lord of the Rings, Part One. [Edited by] Christopher Tolkien. London: Unwin Hyman, [25 August] 1988. Pp. [iii]-xii, 497 pp., [1] plate. (The History of Middle-earth; 6) ISBN 0-04-440162-0. Therefore, I suggest the transcription be changed from current /ˈtəʊlkiːn/ to /ˈtɒlkiːn/. The current pronunciation references to a website that does not indicate any further references, so I think that Tolkien's own account on his name's pronunciation should be preferred. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ 12:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

There are several non-free images in this article whose use is not justified by WP:NFCC. Some of them have been recently changed to having non-free unsure tags, but the publication dates listed (despite their creation dates) make them non-free. Unless there is evidence that these were in fact published before 1923 (which strikes me as unlikely, considering he wasn't well known then), I will be nominating these for deletion. Specifically, these fail WP:NFCC8 because they do not contribute significantly to the article (readers don't need to see young Tolkien or standing-by-the-tree Tolkien to understand the article). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for any copyright law other than U.S. but presumably there are treaties in place. You are a dumbass. Publication date has exactly nothing to do with copyright. The image creation date is the only thing that matters. "Specifically", YOU fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.174 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that not only are you incorrect in your extreme interpretation of NFCC policy, but you are also incorrect in you evaluation of the importance of these images to a rounded presentation of the life and work of J.R.R. Tolkien. For instance, Tolkien was a great lover of trees, and the fact that that particular photograph shows him next to his favorite tree is irreplaceable. Description by itself can't do justice to the way Tolkien's hand rests on the trunk, or his expression, or the way he stands. We can see – and feel – an awful lot from that photograph, which is essential to the article. Similar reasons can be given for the other images, and their contribution to the article in dealing with the various phases of Tolkien's life, but I won't rehearse them here, instead I will bring them to any IfD you initiate. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Stalking ed here. I can't see which images you are talking about. A biography of a notable subject requires depiction of the subject at different stages in his or her life. Those images (specifically the standing by the tree one) provide irreplaceable illustration of the subject and that more than meets NFCC 8. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: I've watchlisted all of the images in this article, so in case an IfD (Image for Deletion) on one of them is initiated, and by an oversight a notice isn't placed on this talk page, or on the talk page of the uploader of the images, I will attempt to make those notifications myself. I would then encourage everyone here to attend those IfDs and make your views known there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just another note: Calliopejen1 has raised NFCC violations as an issue to resolve in the current FA review for this article. -- Avenue (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of Death

It says in the article that he died in 1971, yet one of the pictures was taken in 1973? 24.182.202.133 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the article consistently gives his year of death as 1973. -—RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wagner

See Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences#Wagner:

An article used to support the weight of his influence actually posits the opposite. http://tolkienonline.de/etep/1ring5.html That has been corrected with proper representation. IMO it's all overblown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.194.8 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone should correct this (I'm new, can't do it myself yet):

Two of the characteristics possessed by the One Ring, its inherent malevolence and corrupting power upon minds and wills, were not present in the mythical sources but have a central role in Wagner's opera.

Yet the link says:

Wagner's Ring is about the power of love juxtaposed against the love of power. It has also been described as the rape of the purity of Nature in the pursuit of power. Whatever power the Ring has, any evil associated with it comes from without, or from the curses. Unlike Sauron's Ring, it does not have or possess the evil power of its maker. ... [Wagner's] Ring is not inherently evil. But whoever takes the Ring takes it subject to its curses.

Darth Predator (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronoun: please clarify

In the section about Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, this article states:

Tolkien and Lewis might have grown closer during their days at Headington, but this was prevented by Lewis' marriage to Joy Davidman. Tolkien felt that Lewis expected his friends to pay court to her, even though as a bachelor in the thirties, he had often ignored the fact that his friends had wives to go home to.

Who is the person referred to by the underlined "he" and "his"? Grammatically, and from context, both Lewis and Tolkien are possible antecedents. The friendship began roughly in 1927, when Tolkien was 34-ish and Lewis was 28-ish. So they were friends in their thirties, although Tolkien was not a bachelor in his thirties, so I suppose this must be Lewis. But we shouldn't have sentences that are not comprehensible without a timeline of the two lives.

In interest of NPOV, it might also be good to clarify whether Lewis in his thirties ignored his friends' marital status (objective fact), or whether Tolkien claimed that Lewis had done this (allegation). Either of these requires a citation, of course. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It refers to Lewis. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Manual of Style : Quotations: "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins."

I have moved single-sentence quotations to their parent paragraphs, with quotation marks to distinguish them. However, it is clear that WP policy is for blockquotes of over four lines. I am fine with only putting quotes of three sentences and less back in the main paragraph. Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien's Religion

I believe his religion should be placed by his brief biography on the side panel. His religion was very important to him, and not recognize that I believe is unfair. His religious ideas were very prominent in his books. Also, in all other Wikipedia articles they have the persons religion right next to their brief biography. Why not Tolkien's? --Mantyxc (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some solid arguments against adding a religion field to Template:Infobox Writer, and there has not been consensus to override them. (So far, I have been opposed to such an addition.) For example, see here. Pi zero (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien himself mentions how big of a role religion played in his works. Without his faith, Tolkien would never have written the Lord of the Rings. I also believe his religion should be placed by his brief biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.255.101 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Prussian origin of Tolkien name?

The German Wikipedia article on Tolkien gives the origin of the name as referring to the East Prussian (now Polish) village variously called Tolkynen/Tolksdorf/Tołkiny, a word apparently of Old Prussian (Baltic) rather than German or Polish origin. This would relegate "tollkühn" to no more than a folk etymology that Tolkien personally liked. Somehow this sounds rather more probable to me, as German surnames are far more commonly derived from (former) places of residence than from personality traits.

If you have any more information on this, please discuss and/or change the article to reflect this. Sources are given in the German article (the first two footnotes). -- 92.229.172.12 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There may also be some leads here. -- Avenue (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Lithuanian "tulkas"? Interesting coincidence, if it is one. Anyway, I've added the information to the article now, including the two sources, which unfortunately are German off-line books. -- 92.230.2.104 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Inklings

Does anyone know about the relationship Tolkien had to the Inklings, the literary group that included C. S. Lewis and Owen Barfield among others? I am trying to update the Owen Barfield page, and if anyone can include information about Barfield in particular -- and link it to the Owen Barfield page -- it would be much appreciated.

--Dlb012 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien was one of the leading members of the group. He may have been among the original members but I cannot think of a reliable source of information about the group's founding (available online) that would confirm as much. My own books are a bit disorganized. The Inklings were the group to whom Tolkien read part of The Lord of the Rings and other works he composed in the late 1930s and early 1940s.Michael Martinez (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, the founding (as such) was centred around Lewis and his brother. When Barfield first attended, I don't know, though I have Carpenter's Inklings book and recall references to Barfield in the Tolkien secondary literature. I'm a bit late here, but if anyone still needs the information, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on the books

Does it say anywhere on who holds the copyright on the books? Is it his children, wife, or anyone else? Is it a big corp? Logictheo (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, copyright is held by Tolkien's estate. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed,Tolkien Enterprises. Misortie (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien Enterprises holds only film and merchandising rights. Ed Fitzgerald is correct that the copyrights for Tolkien's written works are the property of the Tolkien Estate. Deor (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

According to Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, this is the FA most in need of cleanup. Hopefully, editors will get on it right away, or the article should be submitted to WP:FAR for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Harrogate plaque?

The blue plaque table had the following unsourced entry: "96 Valley Drive, Harrogate". If anyone can provided a source for this, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This may not exactly be a reliable source, but I've found a couple of photos on Flickr that shed some light on this.[1][2] The plaque's at 93 Valley Road, in fact, and it's not blue but brown. The hotel is listed here, although their website address doesn't seem to be valid. -- Avenue (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at the last entry in the table (Sandfield Road) as well. This was added fairly recently and looked odd to me at the time, but I know nothing about blue plaques—is there a distiction between "official" blue plaques and other plaques that various parties may have affixed to sites? If one follows the link in the ref, one finds that the plaque in question is rectangular and looks as if it might be homemade; it certainly doesn't resemble the ones that are circular and blue, as pictured in the article. (The paragraph above the table needs to be edited as well. Among other things, it still refers to the Harrogate plaque, which has been removed from the table.) Deor (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up now by Avenue (thanks!). Not sure if listing all commemorative plaques is the way to go (there are others), but these ones are reliably sourced, so that's OK. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statements reviewed (from FAR page)

Copied this from Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. R. Tolkien, as it was suggested that this level of detail would be better on the article talk page: [3].

"Articles with unsourced statements (Oct 2007, Mar 2008, May 2008, Jan 2009), Tolkien articles with unsourced statements, Wikipedia articles needing clarification (Feb 2009)"

• January 2009: "He lived there in the shadow of Perrott's Folly and the Victorian tower of Edgbaston Waterworks, which may have influenced the images of the dark towers within his works."
  • Multiple sources mention this. Am trying to find the best one, and to use the best wording here to indicate that it is (as most of these things are) merely speculation, if persistent and persuasive. If speculation persists in the literature (to the extent that it is used in tourist guides and has become part of the "legend"), can it still be included, with wording to that effect, or is it original research to say that? Might be moot, as I think I can even find sources that confirm that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Robert Blackham's The Roots of Tolkien's Middle-earth describes these two towers (and another one) in great detail, but is non-committal, saying only "the two towers are locally believed to be Minas Morgul and Minas Tirith". Presumably the local tourist websites aren't acceptable sources for this (see the articles on the towers themselves). Will keep looking. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The best sources I can find here are [4] and [5]. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• January 2009: "Another strong influence was the romantic medievalist paintings of Edward Burne-Jones and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood; the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery has a large and world-renowned collection of works and had put it on free public display from around 1908."
  • Used this source - hope that is OK. Does the bit about the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery having a collection on free display from 1908 need sourcing? Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• May 2008: "Tolkien also may have felt jealous about a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage."
  • This looks dubious to me. I've seen speculation about Edith's attitude towards Lewis, but not the reverse. Will have to check this. 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oops. Misread this entirely. I thought it was talking about Tolkien's attitude towards his own wife, but I see it is about Tolkien's attitude towards Lewis's wife. Ugh. I've just checked this in Carpenter's biography, and the whole passage:

    "Tolkien felt that Lewis expected his friends to pay court to her, even though as a bachelor in the thirties, Lewis had often ignored the fact that his friends had wives to go home to. Tolkien also may have felt jealous about a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage." - from the Wikipedia article J. R. R. Tolkien, 09/03/2009

    is a very close paraphrase of Carpenter's biography (page 237). It needs rewriting. The passage from Carpenter is as follows:

    "...he and Lewis might conceivably have preserved something of their old friendship had not Tolkien been puzzled and even angered by Lewis's marriage to Joy Davidman [...] Some of his feelings may be explained by the fact that she had been divorced from her first husband before she married Lewis, some by resentment that of Lewis's expectation that his friends should pay court to his new wife - whereas in the thirties Lewis, very much the bachelor, had liked to ignore the fact that his friends had wives to go home to. But there was more to it than that. It was almost as if Tolkien felt betrayed by the marriage, resented the intrusion of a woman into his friendship with Lewis - just as Edith had resented Lewis's intrusion into her marriage. Ironically it was Edith who became friends with Joy Davidman." - J. R. R. Tolkien - a biography (Carpenter, 1977)

    This adequately sources what was being said here, but the question now is finding suitable wording without plagiarising or engaging in inappropriate close paraphrasing. I'll try and do that at some point. The whole article will need going over with a fine toothcomb for similar instances where the text may need rewriting. Carcharoth (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Done as much as I can here. Am now checking over the whole article using my copy of Carpenter's biography. The redone sentences are as follows:

      "Tolkien felt that Lewis expected his friends to visit and socialise with both him and his wife, even though as a bachelor in the thirties when the Inklings had met, Lewis had often ignored the fact that his friends, including Tolkien, had wives to go home to. In his biography of Tolkien, Carpenter suggests that Tolkien may have felt betrayed by the marriage and resented a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage."

      Will now go and update the FARC page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• January 2009: "...and received the insignia of the [CBE] Order at Buckingham Palace on 28 March 1972."
  • Not sure what is being queried here. If it is the date, that is trivial to source (it is in 'Letters'). If it is the use of the word "insignia", I think that is standard phrasing. I've sourced this in the article to Letters number 334, where the editorial note says "Tolkien received the CBE at Buckingham Palace on 28 March 1972. [...]". Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• March 2008: "Use of religious references was frequently a subject of disagreement between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, whose work is often overtly allegorical."
  • I've reworded this to better match the source I've cited. -- Avenue (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• ME-fact, October 2007: "However, guided by an intense hatred of their past work, Tolkien expressly forbade that The Walt Disney Company should ever become involved in any future productions."
  • I thought this one would be easy to deal with, but the "Disney veto" is actually in Letter 13 from 1937, and refers to The Hobbit, while the article text is part of a section on the LotR film proposals being vetted by Tolkien in 1958 (the proposals by Zimmerman). It is entirely possible thought that Tolkien said something specific in the 1950s as well, so I will keep looking here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Here are a couple of somewhat relevant links: [6], [7]. Neither confirms the unsourced claim in our article. I think that section works better without it anyway, so I've deleted it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Clarifyme, February 2009: "Characters in The Lord of the Rings such as Frodo, Treebeard, and Elrond make noticeably Boethian remarks. <!-- what/how are noticeably Boethian remarks? Example? -->"
  • This has been finished off nicely by JerryFriedman (thanks!) -- Avenue (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I've looked through for HTML comments (like the Boethian one above), and found the following that flag up potential concerns (some are just explanatory notes that maybe should be explicit, but leaving those for now):

• Many<!-- Many what ?? -->have commented on a number of potential parallels between the Middle-earth saga and events in Tolkien's lifetime.
• Found one "unformatted citations and cite needed tags in the article" comment. Fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Four bot-generated titles are present. Presumably FAC standards require bot-generated titles to be manually checked? Should a future version of the 'cleanup list' look for and list the "bot-generated" tags for FA articles?

I'm going to carry on working through these as I find sources for them (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have worked on the points raised above. I have updated the featured article review (please see here). I will now address the final point above and note that at the FAR. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien reading day

According to this blog and these websites March 25th is "Tolkien reading day." Couldn't find very reputable sources on that one though. Worthy of inclusion? If not, at least I brought it to the tolkien-geeks' attention =) --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 07:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

I object to the removal of the fair use images. The article passed FAC with these, and rightly so. The US have fair use laws, and there is no reason for us not to make use of them. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument would be: where do you stop? There is a good argument for minimising, not maximising, fair-use. I would be quite happy only having one or two fair-use pictures, and linking to websites that have the rest. As for the article passing FAC with the pictures - standards have changed. The other point is that attention needs to be paid to the requests for citations. The images are not the only area of the article that is being reviewed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses fair use images. Fair use has a strict definition in US law. If an article fails to pass FAC because of its use of FU imagery, the problem lies with FAC, not with the article. If en-wiki was to decide to stop using FU images, this would be a huge new direction taken by the project and would require a widly publicized discussion and a community-wide consensus. As long as this doesn't happen, FAC should bloody well accept that articles use fair use images. Tolkien is dead. There are only so many photographs of him. There is no way there can be a free replacement of such images as there are. This is a textbook case of justified fair use. --dab (𒁳) 06:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's not beautiful, but this is the only depiction of Tolkien that I've found under a Creative Commons Attribution license so far. Use it if you like it. I kind of don't, but thought I should mention it due to the FAC/licensing discussion. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly derived from the 1972 Billet Potter photo, i.e. it's a derivative work. The artist needs permission from the holder of the copyright to the original photo before they can release it under a CC license, and no evidence has been presented that they have permission. We would have to rely on a fair use defense to use this too. This was discussed in the current FA review. -- Avenue (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

to the best of my knowledge, there are no PD or GFDL photographs of Tolkien (other than the out-of-copyright pictures of Tolkien as a young man prior to WWI, and even those are dubious because they remained unpublished until the 1970s). Sure, if he was alive today, people would queue with digital cameras at book signings and lectures and we would be swamped with low quality snapshots. But not back in the day. We are reduced to using non-free photographs in this article, which is not a problem because Wikipedia allows fair use as a matter of course in such cases. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the uses still need to be minimised. In this case, I believe using one photo as the lead image, and using the JRRT monogram as well (i.e. a total of two non-free images for one article), is a reasonable compromise. You have to draw the line somewhere. For the other images, direct people to where they can see them (on the internet or in books). Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can see no reason why someone still needs Tolkien to be portrayed as an old-old-old man, while there's a brilliant and free photo of him in 1916? He is not necessary should be portrayed only in his sixties-seventies.Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

tolkien photo

i've just stumbled upon this photo of tolkien, beautifully conveying his spirit.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/20080211/tolkien.jpg

Twipley (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FARC cleanup

Over at the FARC, the following comment has been made:

"Cleanup still needed: this article is not yet ready to be kept; there is still extensive need for cleanup in the citations. There are raw URLs, unformatted citations, and incorrect bolding, just on a quick glance. I haven't looked deeper, other than doing a bit of quick MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)"

Can people here please help out with tidying the article up? I'm away for the weekend, so ask around if there are any questions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Article has now been kept. Many thanks to all who helped out with tidying things up. Continuing improvements and maintenance still needed to avoid a trip back to featured article review in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Specialization at Oxford

I've undone the reversion of an edit by the anon 76.69.61.66, which changed "Ancient Greek" to "English" in the discussion of T.'s education at Oxford. I don't have at hand a copy of Carpenter's biography, which no doubt discusses the matter in detail, but The Ring of Words says, "After initially continuing with classics, he subsequently changed to the School of English Language and Literature, and took options in comparative philology and Old Norse." Therefore, "English philology" does seem the better description of his area of specialization. Deor (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did check before I reverted that the version of he article that was featured said "Greek" philology. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Writings

This section seems to contain a certain amount of confusion and redundancy (for instance, there are "The Silmarillion" subsections both under "Publications" and under "Posthumous publications", and "On Fairy-Stories" is included in a list of otherwise fictional works). Anyone object to my taking a stab at rearranging some of this material? Deor (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LOTR movie pics

Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is arguably the biggest Adaptation of Tolkien's work, and we need a thumbnail picture of the trilogy in that para. How about the cover image? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential influences

I think perhaps some research should be done to determine if E. Nesbit's The Enchanted Castle was an influence, as it did contain an invisibility ring with other mysterious powers (and when one wore it one could see things not perceptible to others). I should also note that the ring was the center of all the magic, they say in the book. E. Nesbit was British, and a popular children's author at the time Tolkien was a child—so it is quite possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.157 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The ring also had other peculiar features. For instance, it made one fearless of the things wished for (at times it was a wishing ring), unless they touched the wearer, in which case the wearer would become extremely afraid of them (this also applied to the things not perceptible to others, which were constant no matter what the ring's current powers were). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.157 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

++re Potential Influences=

The motif of a magic ring is an ancient one which occurs in legends like the Germanic 'Nibelungenlied' and the Wagner operas derived from it, which Tolkien certainly knew well, and probably Nesbit too. I would imagine they were both expressing this influence, rather than one being influenced by another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahgbr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'Imaginary' World?

- - I would take issue with the statement that Arda and Middle Earth are imaginary worlds. This is quite a common misconception. In fact if you read through the early work of Tolkien as presented in the 'History of Middle Earth' collated by his son Christopher, it is fairly clear that Tolkien intends MIddle Earth to be understood as *this* world, but at some distant time in the past, before the last Ice Age, and 'Arda' as the same universe we inhabit now, rather than some parallel one. Unfortunately I can't give the references in the books off-hand, as I don't actually own copies, and anyway they are vast in scale! But anyone interested in this subject should be able to find them if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahgbr (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All the geography, culture, and history are invented. I'd say it's an imaginary world set in the past of our world.

Also, though Tolkien started with the fictional idea that his stories were part of our past, hobbits still existed, he somehow came across the Red Book and translated it, etc., he didn't stick to it. In the second edition, he took out the explicit claim that he had translated the Red Book. And one can't reconstruct an "original story", even one without someone who knew that a pyrotechnic dragon sounded like an express train. How did Frodo know what the fox thought or what Gothmog the lieutenant of the Tower thought? How did Sam know what Frodo saw as the ship approached Eressëa? And of course there are various mistakes and inconsistencies.

You might be interested in one of Tolkien's comments. As is mentioned at Middle-earth, in the fifties Tolkien talked about what Age we're in now, but in 1971 he said Middle-Earth wasn't in a different era but in a different "stage of imagination". The interview is here, and the relevant part starts at about 5:40. This may not prove anything except that he knew he was writing fiction (which speculations about which age this is might lead us to doubt), but I think it has some relevance. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

pronounced

How dose the “Reuel” pronounced？Can somebody give a IPA？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.152.119.79 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien and Racism

Please do not delete this, I know it violates the rules, but regarding the section on racism, I MUST point out, as I did on the "Orcs" article ("Orcs (Middle Earth)") that, being born in 1892, of all times, and having an 1890's early childhood, and born in SOUTH AFRICA no less, had Tolkien been racist he'd have just come out and said it, unabashedly. I need to point out that another author of that generation, Lovecraft I believe (well more or less of that generation), was a racist, and he wasn't ashamed about it. Far from it he was proud of it. Coming from that generation of whites if anything the man was "ahead of his time." I use quotes because, true ethics are timeless; some time periods are just misguided by corrupt ideologies.

67.148.120.113 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

I doubt anyone will delete what you wrote.

I don't think your argument follows. You seem to be assuming that the only reason to hide one's racism is changing social views. But racism, especially the blatant kind Lovecraft believed in for much of his life, is obviously irrational and does obvious harm. Furthermore, racism contradicts one straightforward interpretation of Christianity. Thus a person with racist feelings might prefer to hide them, even if he was born at a time and in a place where others expressed them without harmful consequences. In doing so, he might be ahead of his time.

I consider the present article biased in Tolkien's favor, since it gives evidence against racism on his part but none for it. I don't know of any racism in his personal statements. The only evidence for it I know is in LotR: the frequent association of light skin with nobility and dark skin with plebeianity, and the nearly constant association of light skin with good and dark skin with evil (complicated by Tolkien's complicated attitude toward Sam, who's good but a suntanned member of the lower class). If that's going to be discussed, it might belong at The Lord of the Rings rather than here. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't making an argument, as the rules state Wikipedia is not a forum, at least I wasn't trying to anyway; I was just making a point, that given his time period Tolkien would have just come out and said "yes, I'm racist, and I hope my book inspires the white race to kick some non-white ass." Christianity or no, Tolkien's generation was full of hipocrisy, far more than now. And no, no, please lets not get into a discussion; "forums" or rather editing talks, are to make points regarding the article and correct misconceptions to help people read the article better, that is, I was making my point so that when people read the article, hopefully they will see what I'm talking about. How can I say this more efficiently? You point things out in the talk page to help people understand an article better, given as to how this is only an online encyclopedia, and a limited one at that due to the lack of credentialed contributors, it is impossible, for wikipedia to have a truly "complete" article. That is why you need talk pages, not for personal viewpoints, but to enhance the article reading for others. I TRY, but sometimes what I say comes out as soapboxing.

67.148.120.103 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Whether you call it a point with reasons behind it, or an argument, isn't important. I'm not suggesting that you were soapboxing; no doubt you're trying to improve the article, and I for one have no objection to your procedure. However, in my view your point doesn't follow from your reason. I think it was quite possible for people of Tolkien's time to fear or dislike or despise other races without being willing to say so overtly. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jerry, it will very much depend on what exactly you mean by "racism". If "racism" is the position that "races exist", every educated person between 1880 and 1930 was obviously "racist". Your implication that racism is irrational and in contradiction to Christianity suggests that you read "racism" as "racial supremacism", as in "some races are objectively better than others", which is quite a long cry from the mere "races exist". It is very often neglected that the current terms "racist" and "racism" are coinages of the 1930s, very much influenced by the rise of fascism at the time. It is anachronistic to apply them to earlier periods without qualification (are we using a post-1945 term to describe pre-1939 ideologies, or are we using "period" terminology?) Now the LotR was written during WWII, which gives it sort of a watershed position in terms of "racism". What we need to do is quote evaluations of the question by people informed on these issues, and refrain from giving screen time to naive debates of "Tolkien was racist, see LotR -- no he wasn't, see Letters", our level should be significantly above this sort of thing. Tolkien obviously had views on race, as had everyone else of his generation, but these views were in no way peculiar or removed from the norm at the time, nor were they prominent in his thinking. Thus, the tendency of singling out "Tolkien and race" as an issue tells you more about Tolkien's post-modern readership and their relation to the prewar generation than about Tolkien as a person. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right in interpreting my use of "racism" as meaning more than "believing that human races exist", though there are more possibilities than just "some races are objectively better than others", as you'll find at Dictionary.com.

Your point about the normality of Tolkien's attitudes at the time supports my suggestion that this material belongs at the LotR article, not here. I agree that we don't want those naive debates. However, as you say, many modern readers have perceptions of racism in LotR and react to them. I'm sure there's a good deal on both sides of this in sources we can take seriously, and a short, balanced account would go well at The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Reception or Reception_of_J._R._R._Tolkien#Literary_criticism—as would a similar discussion of the modern criticism that Tolkien's books reinforce sexist views of women. A difficulty with my suggestion is that one response to "LotR is racist" has been "but Tolkien wasn't racist, see Letters", which does belong here. However, I think a summary of that argument would be okay at one of the "reception" articles, maybe something like "Tolkien's defenders also argue that he was not a racist, pointing to a number of passages in his letters condemning apartheid, anti-semitism, and other forms of prejudice.<ref, ref, ref>"

Unsurprisingly, our coverage of Middle-Earth is far more complete than our coverage of real-world commentary on Tolkien. I don't have time to take on a big project now, but I hope people don't mind some suggestions on it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say that what we have now is, 'Some people say Tolkien was a racist.<reference> But he wasn't, because of this quote "" and this one "" and this one "" etc.' I don't think that's the way to do it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WW2 spy stuff

The Daily Telegraph article and others like it seem inaccurate, see Tolkien's career in espionage greatly exaggerated. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1981) states he trained for four days not three, and he did not decline but was informed his services were not needed for the present. This is supported by The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide (2006). So I used these references.

What's funny is that the "keen" scribbled beside his name may not refer to his disposition as the newspaper reported, but rather the correct or preferred pronounciation of his name (tol-keen not tol-kine or tol-ki-yen), as noted in the second website. Uthanc (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I agree with the edit and comment about parentheses by The Man in Question ( 21:11, 15 January 2010), but I feel that the problem has arisen because too much information is being provided at one time: the pronunciation of Tolkien's name and the dates of his birth and death are really separate textual elements. An alternative (and perhaps better) solution would be to present the description of pronunciation in a separate sentence – or even in a separate paragraph, in which case some of the material in the citations could be taken into the body of the text. Old Father Time (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been bold and taken a crack at it. I don't think a whole paragraph in the main text is necessary for the matter, though; leaving it in the notes seems better to me. Deor (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. Unfortunately the initial "/" has been separated from the rest of the phonetic transcription and appears on a separate line. I don't know how to fix this since the transcription is generated by software. Old Father Time (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The lines break differently in my browser, so I can't see that problem. Has the fix I've attempted corrected it for you? Deor (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. Your fix has corrected that problem, but it has also had the effect of placing the line break after "His surname is", i.e. taking "pronounced" onto the next line together with the phonetic transcription, and leaving a noticeable amount of white space after "His surname is" – perhaps not important, but it does look a bit ugly. Old Father Time (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the {{pron-en}} template generates both the word "pronounced" and the following IPA, I don't see any way around that problem while the template is used. I've therefore replaced it with a plain {{IPA}} template and added "pronounced" to the running text. I hope that fixes it for you. Deor (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. That's perfect. Old Father Time (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The emendation by Andymcgrath (12:27, 18 January 2010) cannot be correct. We now have a full stop in the middle of a sentence, and, if that is removed, we return to the situation of either having two parentheses following each other (which has already and rightly been rejected) or placing the pronunciation of Tolkien's name and the dates of his birth and death in the same parenthesis (which has also rightly been rejected). Old Father Time (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir?

I'm no expert on the subject, but if he is a CBE, doesn't that make him Sir J.R.R. Tolkien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. He would have had to be appointed a KBE (Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire) in order to have had the title "Sir". Old Father Time (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hemlock, ref. 46

I have changed the American vernacular names of Conium maculatum and Daucus carota to the usual ones in British English (hemlock and wild carrot, respectively) since this article is written in British English, its subject is a quintessential Englishman and the episode described took place in an English county. Old Father Time (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Automobile/car

Since this article is written in British English I am changing the Americanism "automobile" to the British form "car". Old Father Time (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Celtic influences

I am changing "Celtic (Scottish, Welsh and Gaelic)" to "Celtic (Scottish, Irish, and Welsh)", since the term "Gaelic" encompasses both Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) and Gaeilge (Irish Gaelic), and it is the latter which is meant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Father Time (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Publications

Although it does not say so explicitly in the heading, this section seems to be about publications during Tolkien's lifetime: there is another section immediately following called "Posthumous publications". So, should an entry about The Silmarillion really appear here? Shouldn't the material appear under The Silmarillion (an entry which already exists) among "Posthumous publications"? Old Father Time (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at #Writings above. I never got around to doing anything about this. Deor (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

His name?

What name did people call him? Was it John, or was it one of his middle names? Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The usual custom of the Oxford crowd was to refer to people by their surnames, so his colleagues would have called him Tolkien. I believe the other members of the Inklings often used the nickname "Tollers". Deor (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In a letter to Allen Unwin, Tolkien invites Unwin to call him "Ronald", so I suppose that was what his intimates called him. 69.15.90.216 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

American pronunciation

As long as the footnote on American pronunciation contains an unsourced speculation, I added another. I didn't take out the one that's there, but I have grave doubts about it—normally we Americans use /ɑ/ or /ɔ/ (for those of us who have such a phoneme) where the British use /ɒ/. It seems quite unlikely to me that Americans in the '30s heard the RP for Tolkien and approximated it with /oʊ/, and quite likely that they saw the name and thought the only decision for the first syllable was between polka and folk. In addition, it's not true that Americans don't have the [ɔ] sound. We all have it before /r/, and lots of New Yorkers have it for "aw" etc. as well. So unless there's some reason I'm not seeing to believe the phonological explanation, I suggest deleting it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Main portrait

It appears Tolkien's main portrait image has been deleted. Are there any replacements that are not already used in the article? Hayden120 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Friendship between Tolkien, Lewis and Roy Campbell"

Under the headline of "Anti-communism", there is a discussion of the meeting between Tolkien, C. S. Lewis and the poet Roy Campbell. I have altered some of the things said there, using good sources, and I have also deleted the claim that "a lasting friendship began between the three which lasted until Campbell's death". Considering how hostile Lewis was to Campbell during the evening, as related, for example, in Tolkien's Letter 83, it is hard to credit that such a friendship arose. Certainly Tolkien's letter does not suggest that the evening was a social success. In order to believe that a friendship was formed between the two men, something more substantial is needed than a reference to Joseph Pearce's biography of Campbell withotu as much as a page numberOjevindlang (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

I think that an appropriate image of Tolkien during his actual career (not during his youth - long time before becoming famous) is very important for reader's understanding of the topic. That image from World War I shows a completely different Tolkien than how he is known. Therefore I re-uploaded a fair-use image, that did not gain sufficient feedback and discussion during its deletion nomination and was deleted without an evident report here.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrible decision. The image in the infobox is there to show Tolkein, and we have free images of Tolkein. We do not use non-free images if we have free ones. This is not difficult, nor should it be controversial. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the image as a recreation of an image deleted per a deletion discussion. Your edit summary was also rather unhelpful. Please have some respect for our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrible decision? Uhh! Allright, thanks. Could you please be so kind and show a trace of neutrality by providing the link to the deletion discussion? That would be spectacular. Thank You!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Childhood

In the paragraph on Tolkien's childhood the words house-boy is used in the following manner: "In another incident, a family house-boy, who thought Tolkien a beautiful child, took the baby to his kraal to show him off, returning him the next morning.[19]" The term "house-boy" is a derogatory term used for an African male servant. These men were adults and detested being referred to as boy. I suggest the word "house-boy" be replaced by "African male servant". 196.38.83.194 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Adriaan Louw

And how about replacing "kraal" with village? since that term has no meaning outside of South Africa and seems to be misapplied also. Hardyplants (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that "house-boy" is likely a verbatim quote from the source, and would probably not have been thought of as derogatory in the 19th century. I'm not claiming that justifies keeping it. Just sayin'. 192.35.35.34 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion?

Nothing is mentioned in the info box about his Catholic faith. He's rolling in his grave right now. He got mad at CS Lewis because he chose to convert from Atheism to the Anglican Church and not the Catholic Church. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there is no field for religion in that infobox. So, though you added it, it is not visible. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rashbold" in family origins section

I cut the material referencing The Notion Club Papers in the Tolkien family origins section. Not only is it irrelevant to that section, but the citation does not support the claim that it's related to his real name. Nor does it establish that "Rashbold" is in fact a compound of two words with contrasting meaning. Actually, on its face, "Rashbold" is a compound of two words of similar meaning, arguably chosen because it could be read as having a similar meaning to "Tolkien". But even if that was true and cited, it would be irrelevant to the section. 192.35.35.34 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yoenit (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The original edits where the presumed copy vio was introduced are [8] and [9]. The combination of grammar errors "Tolkein", "batchelor" with complex words like "cessation" and "imperceptibly" suggests retyping from an offline source. The entire C.S. Lewis section was a derivative work from this edit and thus had to be removed. Yoenit (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Friendship" section

How long has that been here? This is a featured article, you shouldn't embark on sketchy essays on random angle on JRRT's life here. Even without the CS Lewis plagiarism issue, this would be problematic. Now the Lewis item has been blanked, this is simply an emparassment to an otherwise good article. Tolkien cultivated numerous friendships throughout his life, and it is pointless to address this in a list-like manner, mentioning a few of the more notable ones. This would be a project for a separate WP:SS sub-article. For now, I am cutting the material below: --dab (𒁳) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

W. H. Auden

W. H. Auden, who had spent much of his life as an avowed Marxist, began corresponding with Tolkien during the mid-1950s. By this time, Auden had broken with his former beliefs and returned to the Anglicanism of his childhood. They remained close friends for the remainder of Tolkien's life. In one letter, Auden recalled,

"I don't think I have ever told you what an unforgettable experience it was for me as an undergraduate, hearing you recite Beowulf. The voice was the voice of Gandalf."

In addition, Auden was among the most prominent literary critics to praise The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wrote in a 1971 letter:

I am [...] very deeply in Auden's debt in recent years. His support of me and interest in my work has been one of my chief encouragements. He gave me very good reviews, notices and letters from the beginning when it was by no means a popular thing to do. He was, in fact, sneered at for it.

Roy Campbell

At a meeting of the Inklings in October 1944, Tolkien met and was charmed by the South African poet and Roman Catholic convert Roy Campbell, who had been discharged from the King's African Rifles after being severely injured in a motorcycle accident. Campbell had been active as a war correspondent with Francisco Franco's Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War, although he had not served in his armies. Campbell vividly described to Tolkien and Lewis Republican atrocities which he had witnessed including the massacre of 17 Carmelite monks in Toledo by Marxist death squads.

In Campbell's eyes, the Spanish Civil War was an uncomplicated battle between the Roman Catholic Church and Stalinism. Tolkien, who shared his opinion, admiringly compared Campbell to the Ranger Aragorn from his Middle Earth legendarium. C. S. Lewis did not agree with Campbell's assessment of the Civil War, and had composed poetry attacking what he referred to as the latter's, "mixture of Catholicism and Fascism". In his poem, "To the Author of Flowering Rifle", Lewis had declared,

--Who cares

Which kind of shirt the murdering Party wears?

During the evening, Lewis, who had consumed several glasses of porter, insisted on reading his poem aloud while Campbell laughed off the provocation. Describing the evening in a letter to his son Christopher, Tolkien accused Lewis of carrying residual anti-Catholicism from his upbringing in Northern Ireland. Eventually, however, Lewis and Campbell patched up their differences. Campbell joined the Inklings at the The Eagle and Child several times before moving to Portugal in 1946.

---

this material goes off on tangents. It isn't clear how details of the dispute between Lewis and Campbell, including details on the drink Lewis had enjoyed that evening, is relevant to the main biography article of JRR Tolkien. This article really needs to stay more focussed. --dab (𒁳) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Granted, some of those paragraphs might need rewriting or clipping (and the one concerning C S Lewis looked a bit sloppy perhaps); but generally I would wish for this section to be reinstated to the article. I remember reading it for the first time and not thinking: "This is bad choochoo!", but rather finding it quite interesting. (Wikiwise, it is quite extensively sourced.) An article on Tolkien should have a section on his more notable friendships, especially C S Lewis and Auden. Trigaranus (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, normally I would just have tagged the section for cleanup. But the FA status of this article means that it should only have to accept polished additions, not preliminary stuff marked for later cleanup.

Writing a discussion of Tolkien's friendships is a complex task. It certainly cannot be done by picking out three of his more notable acquaintances and present a few anectodes about them. I grant you it is interesting, but it doesn't do the section scope or its place in the bio article any justice.

Any discussion of Tolkien's friendships needs to begin with his youth, his eagerness to join all sorts of clubs and associations, the loss of all of his friends during WWI, and the blooming of various personal friendships in his mature age, as well as the role of the Inklings. I do not think Tolkien was a personal friend of Campbell's. Tolkien admired Campbell based on his reputation, and Campbell was a notable visitor of the Inklings, not of Tolkien personally. All this Lewis-Tolkien-Campbell interaction should be discussed at the Inklings article, not in a section about Tolkien's personal friendships.

furthermore, there is secondary literature that interprets Tolkien's friendships, I think Shippey has an essay linking the eagerness in his youth to join clubs to his status as an orphan, and the loss of all his friends in WWI as particularly traumatizing because of their status as a family replacement, all of this ultimately contributing to the profound theme of alienation in his stories, especially Frodo going West etc.

what I am saying is that a "Friendships" section in this article should be done along such lines or not at all. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, the entire "Friendships" section appears to have been introduced as an attempt to rehablitate Roy Campbell, who was not only a Catholic but also an avowed Fascist. I don't think it should be reintroduced in any form. That stuff has no place in the article about Tolkien.Ojevindlang (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)