Talk:The Hobbit

Archives
20 December 2001 - 17 August 2007 17 August 2007 - 25 February 2008 25 February 2008 - 1 March 2009

List of editions

Is there a lists of editions article? I was thinking such a list could become featured, and would allow 3 or 4 of the external links to be moved there. Are the lists of editions sites raliable as sources?YobMod 08:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See English-language_editions_of_The_Hobbit and Translations_of_The_Hobbit. Strebe (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. So no reason to not move the external links listing editions to those articles?YobMod 07:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable thing to do, though the External links seem well under control and therefore not really in need of pruning. What you're proposing sounds like it might affect

1. Collection of edition covers, 1937–2007
2. Every UK edition of The Hobbit
3. Guide to U.S. editions of Tolkien books including The Hobbit
4. Every Dutch edition of The Hobbit

If I understand what you're proposing, you want to remove these links and place them in the External links section of the other Wikipedia articles? Again... reasonable enough, though not a dire edit in my opinion. Strebe (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Award-winning

An anonymous edit removed "award-winning" from the lead paragraph. My first reaction was annoyance, but then I considered the context. The edit is correct. "Award-winning" is superfluous, given that the rest of the paragraph describes awards. We should not keep redundant text. If the awards were listed in the body of the article instead, then "award-winning" makes sense in the lead paragraph. As it stands, it really does just read like exuberance. Strebe (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead paragraph states that The Hobbit was nominated for the Carnegie Medal, yet the Wikipedia entry for Carnegie Medal shows no such nomination. This nomination needs to be cited, and also needs to be added to the Carnegie medal page. The New York Herald Tribune award needs to be cited as well.

Also, the lead stated, "The story is told in the form of an episodic quest: most chapters introduce a specific creature, or type of creature, of Tolkien's Wilderland." That is something of a non sequitur: an episodic quest is not characterized by the introduction of a new creature in each chapter. Therefore I modified the sentence to read, "The story is told in the form of an episodic quest, and most chapters introduce a specific creature, or type of creature, of Tolkien's Wilderland." However, this is semantically weak. This observation of the introduction of creatures does not seem important enough to be in the lead paragraphs. I'd prefer to remove it entirely while keeping the designation of "episodic quest". That, too, needs to be cited, though. Strebe (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The awards are cited later in the article (currently footnote 80) which directs the reader to: [1]. I prefer the style of having a footnote free lede, with citations in the main body. I agree with the weakness of the "quest" sentence but do feel that some mention of "Wilderland" should be made as to identify the imaginary setting. The note on Bilbo's "Tookish" side is something of an aside and doesn't really belong in the lede. Also I have been thinking about separating paragraph 2 into a mini=plot-synopsis paragraph and one dealing with criticism. Again, selecting which critical views to present is a headache, mention of biographical but not of literary influences hardly seems NPOV. --Davémon (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

J.R.R.Tolkien

Just wanted to add one more little bit: Changing the text to use TOlkien's full name would be like saying Huckleberry Finn was written by Samuel Clemens. Confusing the pen-name with the real name, whether it is an anonymous pseudonym or not, is only going to cause confusion, as I pointed out via edit summary. --Izno (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• How about down further? I'll put it where I think it might be nice, and you revert if you think it is jarring. Just think about it for a bit. Abductive (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For articles on the author's works, such as this one, it should be "J.R.R. Tolkien" on first mention and "Tolkien" on subsequent mentions. The full name is appropriate for the lede of the Tolkien article (and it is there). Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Clemens is mentioned a few times in the article on Huckleberry Finn. Abductive (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Context. One is within a direct quote (albeit bracketed—not sure why the paraphrase), while the other refers to a biography of the author. Some biographies of Twain use his real name—logically enough, since Twain was only his pen name. Matter of fact, some editions of Twain's books (which have been issued by umpteen different publishers) use his real name. So the two situations really aren't comparable. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to use anything other than the Tolkien's name as it was printed on the title page of his books in articles about his books, and style conventions indicate the use of only the last name after the initial appearance. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are these style conventions? Anyway, I slid the full name down to where it was talking about him prior to writing the book. Abductive (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The conventions are followed in the vast majority of reference books and periodicals in the English language. They are supported by everything from AP to MLA, as I recall. More to the point, they are supported here. Could you explain why you think use of the full name makes this a better article? I'm willing to entertain ditching guidelines (and even nearly universal conventions) if there's a very good reason. Rivertorch (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that is his name, and I don't see the relevant passage in the link you provided. Abductive (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In all editions of the book I have seen the author is attributed as J.R.R. Tolkien. I doubt in life many people referred to him as John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, he was either John, Ronald or Tolkien. The only place that it is justifiable to list his full birth name is in the biographic article. Thu (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Using "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" in the middle of this article sticks out like a sore thumb. If a reader wants to know what Tolkien's full name is, all they have to do is click on J. R. R. Tolkien at the top of the article. Usage in this article should be consistant with other articles such as The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion -- neither of which give Tolkien's full name. BabelStone (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Outvoted. I shall remain unconvinced that this is supported by the Manual of Style. Abductive (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The relevant passage is at the very beginning of the link I provided: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only". As for how the name is initially presented, I couldn't find a precise guideline for that in MOS but agree with BabelStone that this article should be consistent—and not only with those other articles but with virtually every comparable article in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Consensus isn't based on outvoting; it has to do with determining which argument is more logical and better serves the article. "Because it is his name" isn't logical: no one disputes it was his full name, but since he chose to be known as J.R.R. Tolkien in his books, it is logical that Wikipedia articles about his books reflect that fact. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As there seems to be a clear consensus I have reverted "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" to "Tolkien". I have also changed "J.R.R. Tolkien" in a later paragraph to "Tolkien" on the basis of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names. BabelStone (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that consensus was reached, I would just like to point out that the earlier style "conventions" date from the age of paper, and that since Wikipedia is not paper, we are not bound to follow these earlier conventions--if they even exist, since I haven't been able to find them online. Abductive (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the word "evil"

Currently, there is a dispute over the usage of the word "evil" to describe the Tolkien's wargs. The dispute began with the an anonymous IP's changing of the word "evil" to describe wargs with "hostile" (Diff: [2]), which was reverted by Strebe (talk · contribs). I responded in turn with a revert, resulting in a few other reverts from others.

Davemon (talk · contribs) argued that to change the "evil" in the article to "malicious," we require a reference that claims that they were good, citing WP:RS. However, I think this is missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that the wargs in Tolkien's work are anything but as Tolkien describes them, but the problem is that we're using an inherently non-neutral term—"evil"—without attribution. The term "evil" directly implies a dualistic belief system where "good" also exists. This isn't neutral. I argue that, unless it's clear that this is Tolkien's judgment call and the book's own description (which is, of course, written from the perspective of Bilbo..), we should substitute a more neutral term, like "malicious." :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "evil" can imply a dualism, but it doesn't necessarily. The second meaning listed in the Oxford American Dictionary is "harmful or tending to harm", which fits pretty well. "Malicious" works too, but it means "characterized by malice", and "malice" means "the intention or desire to do evil". So we come full circle.

At any rate, maybe I'm dense but I don't see a neutrality problem. If Tolkien intended his wargs to be "harmful or tending to harm"—and he clearly did—then "evil" seems like a perfectly good word to describe them. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your reference for that definition of malice? Is that the law definition or the common usage? Dictionary.com has it a little differently, where only the law definition has anything to do with the concept of "evil":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malice

Besides, the current section is totally unreferenced, and it's not clear who is calling Tolkien's wargs "evil." Is it some anonymous Wikipedia editor with a fondness for dualism, was it the character of Bilbo, or is it Tolkien himself? It needs to be referenced and attributed. I retain my argument that "evil" is inherently loaded with dualistic implications and requires attribution. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's common usage, and my reference was the OAD, as I cited for "evil". I really don't object to "malice", btw (it seems like a stronger word than "evil", perhaps because it is rarely used facetiously or hyperbolically), just pointing out that I think "evil" is similar and okay here, too. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source that says "evil wolves": [3] If someone can add this to the article, that should clear it up. Also in The Hobbit it's the narrator who calls them "evil wolves", but secondary sources are preferable to cite when they concur with the primary. Davémon (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We're arguing over which dictionary includes "evil" in the definition of malicious? (For the record, the Mac OS X widget dictionary states, An intention or desire to do evil; ill will.) What kind of gnat are we straining at here? We're discussing a fantasy world in the terms the author used. We're not discussing some real person or society where a value judgment or observations founded on a "dualistic belief system" could create prejudices in the audience and ultimately cause harm.

Are we to water down, cite quotations from the critics, and otherwise muddy up Bilbo's description as "reputable" and "conservative" just because those are not necessarily "neutral"? It's the plot section, not a literary critique. How does adding quote marks to "evil" do anything but jar the flow and confuse the reader about why there are quote marks on it? How is "malicious" not a value judgment originating in a dualistic belief system? (Do the wolves consider themselves malicious? Hm?) How is using "malicious" anything other than using a synonym for no purpose other than avoiding the term "evil"? Why does "evil" make some people squirm but "malicious" does not? Should we cater to irrational squirming? The fact that this discussion has consumed this much time and space already ought to suggest some reflection over the value of pedantic zeal. Strebe (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! On the other hand, [4] does refer to Bard as grim and honourable, which, in my opinion is better than our 'heroic'. So hopefully this has not been totally pointless. Davémon (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Boo. Obviously, the common and modern usage of the term "evil" implies a dualistic belief system (which Tolkien ascribed to), whereas "malicious" simply means "intent to harm." As I made clear earlier, the major issue is that it's not clear where this information is coming from, not whether or not it's accurate. If it's coming directly from Tolkien, or the narrator, or whoever, then that needs to be made clear. A secondary source is useless here, since it's directly from the book. Furthermore, I note that Davemon has added another instance of "evil" to the article [5]], which is cute, and I think says plenty. The fact still remains that the section needs to be referenced and we're currently using terms like "evil" without attribution. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary and character descriptions are usually paraphrasing the original source, as is the case in most literature articles, including those which are FA. I've added the secondary source that I found to the article. Cheers. Davémon (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Solved. With this addition by Strebe (talk · contribs), I no longer have qualms with usage of the terminology in this section as it stands. Thanks for making the effort, Strebe. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "This section is preparatory to the #plot summary, describing the characters from the text's point of view. See #Critical analysis for commentary" because I felt that in large part it was a redundant notice refering the reader to other areas of the article. I had scanned briefly through this talk page and hadn't seen any obvious reason why this was there. Strebe (talk · contribs) swiftly reinstated the sentence saying it was a necessary inclusion, and I've looked back at the talk page and discovered this conversation.

I'm entirely willing to accept that there may be a problem with the casual reader not understanding where the differences in the basic character descriptions taken from the text and the commentary analysis occur. Also, I'm willing to accept that this should be highlighted (although I'd like to see references as to where the descriptions come from). However, I think the sections titles in the article are obvious, and the text as it stands in the critical analysis is clearly written by other hands and not Tolkien. All of which makes the sentence above inessential.

My primary problem with the sentence as it stands is the use of the section links which are distracting and jarring. My other problems with it could be easily solved with a sentence to the effect that the character descriptions are taken from x,y,z pages of "The Hobbit" itself.Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Having some experience as an editor, and finding editorial incoherence to be Wikipedia's primary failure, I despair of ever putting some things into a state everyone is "happy" with. I don't know how many people find anchor links jarring. It's fine to remove the one referring to the synopsis, since that's just below, but I do not agree that the other is superfluous. It's perfectly reasonable that someone would come to the "Characters" section looking for literary criticism of the characters, and indeed, before now, the section contained some of that mixed up with in-world descriptions. Nor do I agree that the section should be cluttered up with references to the original text, since each character's description would have to be cited independently and multiple times for many of them. In meeting the cacophony of demands the article already contains far too many references. Surely it suffices to say the descriptions are from the point of view of the original text. Strebe (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note about 'reference clutter'; when you're going to be citing a bunch from the same book for a paragraph, and it only really consists of that, we don't need to put in a bunch of reference tags. Instead, we can just put the references in one and then explain "for (character name), see..." in the footnote. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with Strebe's position that you can never please all the people all of the time. I have a concern with this character section in an otherwise well written and well cited article; unless the descriptions of the characters are clearly taken from either The Hobbit or another secondary source, then it's very close to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in a way that a plot summary isn't. The citations need not be cluttered if they are laid out in a sensible way.Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The key word here is "verifyable"; see also WP:PSTS and WP:NOTOR#Works of fiction. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I just stumbled into this tiny tempest by removing the paragraph as obvious padding before coming here to learn of the fine points of compromise. But the paragraph is completely pointless, and anyone reading the article before following to the end of this discussion would wonder why the heck it's there. If there's a serious doubt that Tolkien intended the Wargs as evil, add a reference to his text. (NB: his text, not some commentator's: the issue is whether he intended them as evil.) Elphion (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Completely pointless" seems hyperbolical. I understand that you, and perhaps many, did not see the point of the paragraph when you first read it. However, now you understand the point. People who come to the section looking for critical analysis of the characters understand the point upon first reading. People keen on literary perspective understand the point upon first reading. None of us understands the reasons for everything we read because none of us is equally versed in all nuances of everything. I do not think that argues we should remove material whose purpose we do not immediately grasp.

The sentence is not just about "evil", though that sparked the rewrite. It's about the entire suite of descriptions. It is an explicit claim that the descriptions are from the book and therefore do not require Yet Another Profusion of Footnotes. While I appreciate, for example, Major Bloodnok's comment of 13 September 2009, on the other hand if there is disagreement over whether the text describes a character a particular way then that should be argued here amongst those tending the article, not cited for the 99.999% (and I do not think that number is an exaggeration) of the readers who could not possibly have any use for it. When a citation serves no use for the reader, but only shuts down debate amongst editors, then it's no longer encyclopædic; it's bookkeeping. In particular if we open that can of worms for the character section, then the same argument holds for the synopsis, and our lives will all go merrily down the drain... and so will the article. Strebe (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't *really* understand the point; I still think the paragraph contributes nothing of real value. Can we at least say it in English: "This section describes the characters from the text's point of view. See #Critical analysis for other perspectives." Elphion (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your objection to the syntax of "is preparatory to"? Or is it the semantics? That phrase indicates yet another purpose for the explanatory paragraph. The point is that the character descriptions are integral to the synopsis. The phrase explains to readers the focus of the characterizations in the Characters section. It serves notice to anyone tempted to edit the character descriptions that they need to be cognizant of the needs of the synopsis, neither deleting descriptions useful in understanding the synopsis, nor adding material extraneous to the synopsis. With this tight coupling we keep both the character descriptions and the synopsis terse.

If you prefer to state all that some other way, feel free to. Or if you prefer to lump Characters and Plot in one super heading, you're welcome to try; that would state the same thing implicitly. But it also deviates from usual practice and probably dissuades the reader that the section is useful in its own right—which, agreed, the present verbiage does to an extent, but its impact is watered down by having it as a peer section.

I don't have good answers for all this. I just know every word in these sections has been considered, reconsidered, argued, re-argued, excruciated over. We're not going to be able to satisfy everyone's itch. The Hobbit has to be one of the most scrutinized articles on a book in all of Wikipedia. If it were even faintly less popular, these "problems" may not even have a constituency. Strebe (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(1) It's flabby; (2) it doesn't convey anything like what you describe. As I argued above, it will leave most readers scratching their heads. I've reworded it, but I doubt that (in either version) it will ward off the determined editor. Elphion (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

If "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again" is the full title the page should be moved to The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, and the lead should be changed accordingly to something like: "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, also known as The Hobbit". If it's not then it's an alternative title and should be addressed accordingly in the lead. Something along the lines of "The Hobbit, also known as The Hobbit, or There and Back Again or There and Back Again". Either way some clarification of what the official/original title of the book is is needed and the page should reflect that. The book is referred to throughout wikipedia simply as The Hobbit. I did a quick scan (-quick-) through the archives but found nothing about this, if I missed it, please redirect me to it. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of books have a short cover title that is used to identify them while a longer title is given on first pages. So both versions are actually valid and both versions, short and long, are the title of a book. In this case "The Hobbit" and "The Hobbit or There and Back Again" make use of this rule, see the cover image provided in the article. There's no need at all for a page move. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Than the lead and the infobox should reflect that. Currently the article's name states that the book is called The Hobbit but both lead and infobox state it is The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. While both can be correct some kind of consistency and clarification is needed. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the lead so it mentions the short form as well but the infobox should keep the full title. As to the article's title, a redirect with the full name has been pointing to this article for ages. De728631 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I have removed the break tags before an after "or" in the infobox, which made it seem like "There and Back Again" was the alternative title, and it was "The Hobbit" or "There and Back Again". _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of "There and Back Again" in the title is partly due to some hesitations for Tolkien's reference towards Bilbo Baggins's own book, "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Holiday", technically, a part of "The Redbook of Westmarch". The reference not being a subtitle, but the complete title chosen by Bilbo, in which Bilbo is naming his own book. "There and Back Again" becomes only a psuedo-reference for "The Hobbit" as a naming convention where the author, Tolkien, only partially intends the reference to the title, "The Hobbit, or, There and Back Again". The author in certain ways references the last chapter of the book, THE LAST STAGE, as a form of acknowledgement that the two books, including the actual, represented the same events at a time before Bilbo utimately starts to consider crossing the seas. During the 1800s, books commonly had three, four, or even five or more titles, often seperated by a comma or semi-colon and the word or. The book itself being described by J.R.R. Tolkien as having been scribed by Bilbo as his own view of the account of events, including Bilbo excluding the lies about the recovery of, and the secrecy of, the ring. Those lies are related in the actual, "The Hobbit" and the trilogy. Because Tolkien had chosen the name that Bilbo chose for his own title to scribing his recolection of events, it only partly made its way, out of the last chapter, into the title.Ncsr11 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your theory. "There and Back Again" appears already in the title of first edition, reflecting Bilbo's transformational journey (a theme present throughout the writing of the book) and making a direct reference to the title Bilbo plans to use for his memoir. There is no need to read anything more into it. In the original text, there's no suggestion that the story in the book and Bilbo's projected account of it would differ significantly -- for in the original text the story does follow Bilbo's description of the encounter with Gollum. The text mentions that Bilbo plans to write a book, but there is no suggestion that the text of The Hobbit represents that book.

It was only during the composition of The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien decided that the ring was malevolent, and that it became important to show its baleful effect on its bearers -- an aspect of the story completely absent in the original Hobbit. The text of The Hobbit was altered at that time so that Bilbo's account no longer agreed with the "true" story -- and the divergence became part of the story. It was only then that the Red Book was invented and Bilbo's account (with Frodo's corrections) became one of its volumes -- and became associated by implication with the text of Tolkien's book.

-- Elphion (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Educational assignment

This is a recent spate of "{{Educational assignment}}" template additions to the talk page. According to Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#Current_projects, “You are invited to add the template {{Educational assignment}} to the talk pages of articles which are created or significantly changed due to an assignment.” Please explain the template addition if you want to include it, since this article was not written or substantially revised because of an educational assignment. Strebe (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Students are currently beginning to work on pages for the class which course page is at User:Roseclearfield/Durham School of the Arts YA Project Page. Their teacher has requested that they add the template to their talk page of the pages which they will be working on in order to identify that they are going to work on the page. The template on this page was added at the same time that many other were added on other books appropriate for the coursework, there is no reason to remove the template, even if the students haven't don't done alot of work on the page yet, Sadads (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the addition of this template is inappropriate, and should be removed. As Strebe has already pointed out, the template is intended to be added to articles that "are created or significantly changed due to an assignment", neither of which are the case with the Hobbit; and just because their teacher says put it on articles that you intend to edit, does not make it correct. And given the nature of this article (a high profile GA article) it seems highly unlikely that anyone doing an educational assignment will be able to significantly improve the article (and in my opinion that would mean getting the article to FA). When and if that happens, then the (in my opinion, totally meaningless) template can be readded. Meanwhile, I note that it is not a case of the "students haven't don't alot of work on the page yet" as not a single edit has been made by the students as far as I can tell, and there is no way to know whether any useful edits will be made until they start editing. BabelStone (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine that you have taken off the template. I'll have the student work on the project in a different way. Also, we added the templates before edits begin because that's what seems to have been suggested on the School and University projects page. The assignment has hardly started right now, which is why you don't see any edits yet; it will conclude by 14 March 2011. The timing on school projects moves slower than Wikipedia time, since we only have 50 minutes a day during weekdays, whereas Wikipedia is a 24/7 enterprise. I was cautioned to add the template and figured it would be better to be generous with template use rather than stingy. Was that assumption wrong? Thanks for your suggestions. Roseclearfield (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that, in general, you are correct. It's just that there will be exceptions, and this appears to be one of them. If you are ready for the exceptions, and accept removals if they happen, then I think everything will work out. For everyone else here, User:Roseclearfield is the teacher for this project, I believe. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Roseclearfield (me) is the teacher and the project page is here. I am ready for the exceptions, the removals. All in the name of teaching resource evaluation and concise, coherent writing skills. Roseclearfield (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On a related, but tangental point, to Roseclearfield. I have a concern about the students that are editing well established articles. Like this one. The concerns above raise a similar point. It's one thing for your students who have selected books that have no articles on them. But for those who have selected established articles, high profile articles, those students are going to have a tough time in totally different ways. In the earlier WP:ANI thread I mentioned the one student working on one of the Twilight novels. This article here falls into the same problem area. Problems for these students in particular are 1) finding a place in a well established article to work on, and 2) dealing with the article's regular editors. Both are issues that will not happen to students writing brand new articles. If the students can be directed to the article talk pages, like this one, the regular editors could be used to assist in pointing out places where the article has weaknesses. But if they do a "Bull in a China Shop" and just jump in, they are likely to encounter resistance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And the issue, for this page at least, has already been raised on Roseclearfield's talk page. I'm being the curve it seems. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as a footnote, more than anything: seeing as the regular editors on this page were forewarned of the impending edits, is it not possible that we could simply take a step back and allow students to edit the page as they see fit? Remembering that there is no deadline, and any edits that we found did not improve the article could be rolled back at a later date. We're not in the middle of an FA push or anything, so it shouldn't be too disruptive and might have benefited the article. --Davémon (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when has wikipedia become a tool of the educational establishment? Student edits should not be treated any differently, if they degrade the quality of the article they should be rolled back/copy edited, if they improve it then that is great. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting the wisdom and politic of educational establishments using wikipedia as a tool to one side. I'm just looking at the situation as an opportunity to have some forward momentum on the article. Evidently the use of the wrong template was a simple technical error on behalf of the teacher, and it should not have been placed. But once that was cleared up I think actual editing should have been encouraged. I see no reason why any of the editors who've contributed and continue to watch The Hobbit would not have welcomed constructive edits and shown the patience which our community affords to all newcomers, students or otherwise, along the lines of WP:AGF / WP:BITE. --Davémon (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said or implied that students (or anyone else) shouldn't be free to edit this or any other article; merely that it will be hard for an inexperienced editor to "significantly improve" an article that is already at GA status. Everyone is welcome to try to improve the article, and they certainly shouldn't be put off by the fact that there are a lot of Hobbit-watchers. However, thusfar there is no evidence of any editing of this article by the students in questions, so I am not quite sure what exactly you are complaining about. BabelStone (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Roseclearfield wrote I'll have the student work on the project in a different way... it will conclude by 14 March 2011 - this, combined with the fact that there appears to have been no student edits, leads me to believe the teacher/student had effectively been 'warned off' by the discussion above. I don't think anybody intended that, and that TexasAndroid's point (2) would have been a null point here. I do think Roseclearfield misunderstood that the removal of the template was the same thing as opposition to the student editing the article. --Davémon (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have talked to Roseclearfield in extra-wikipedia conversation, and she said in most cases she sees the contributions and activities the students did on Wikipedia were a success and that she will be consulting with some WP:Wikipedia Ambassador types next time she runs the assignment. So she was not scared off, Sadads (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad of that. I'd have liked to have seen what the student might have brought to the subject. --Davémon (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Titular Protagonist

RE this revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hobbit&curid=30292&diff=429083108&oldid=429077539

As a literary term, a titular protagonist, or a titular character is one where the book title is that of the character. ie for Bilbo to be the titular protagonist, the title of the book would be "Bilbo Baggins" and not "The Hobbit". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_role . I'm not going to revert - but I think you should, since as a literary term "titular protagonist" is incorrect. Also, for The Hobbit to refer simply to Bilbo negates the possibility that the title refers to Hobbits as a race, or a type of character, or metaphor for an underdog, or all of these. This particular point is debatable, but I think it is narrow to assume the title singularly refers to Bilbo. isfutile:P (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article you refer to (Title role) does not insist that the character be named in the title, and gives examples like The Lion King and The Lord of the Rings. This is just as clear a case. The alternative interpretations you offer above are not convincing. -- Elphion (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's really not debatable. "The Hobbit" of the title is clearly and unequivocally Bilbo ... just read the first two pages of the book: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", "This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit", "the mother of our particular hobbit". It is impossible to sensibly interpret the title as referring to anybody or anything else. BabelStone (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is so debatable; this is Wikipedia, after all ;) Nonetheless, you're absolutely correct. Bilbo is the only Hobbit of any significance in the book, and his adventures comprise the plot from start to finish. Rivertorch (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged: “of, relating to, of the nature of, or constituting a title <The titular theme of the book—N.M. Lawrence>” Clearly, then, titular protagonist means the protagonist referred to by the title with no requirement that the title contain the protagonist’s name.

At one point, eponymous was used at that place, as I recall; that would certainly be questionable if not outright incorrect. Strebe (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien's name for hobbits was intended to be halflings. Tolkien had named the book, "The War of the Ring" (singular), but publishers had changed it to, "The Lord of the Rings" (plural). Tolkien considered these halflings to be men; just as the elves had caused the downfall of Middle Earth, man (halflings included) would become the redeemer by the recovery of the one ring (again, singular). Tolkien did not use the events in Europe to influence his writings. Many Britons did not use the term World War II, instead considering The Great War (The First World War) as an extension of events. Beowulf, of which Tolkien was a university liguistic scholar, had more influence on the writer than the events of The War. The rings were not the magic rings, they were the elven rings. When Sauron, not being an elf himself, created the one ring, it was through his mastery of the elven craft by way of his association with the elven race. It was still an elven ring. When the ring was recovered, it was not Sauron's ring, but a result of that craft belonging to the elves. The elves were already making rings centuries before Sauron began to learn the craft from them. Sauron decided to seal the rings with his forging the one Ruling Ring while in the mountain Orodruin, in Mordor. There is not a titular protagonist. The book, "The Hobbit", is a prelude to "The Lord of the Rings" (again, plural) as a result of the naming oversight by the publisher which was already named, "The War of the Ring" (singular), a crisis in Middle Earth where there are men, halfling men, elves, and dwarves. Gandalf would have considered men or elves to be the bearer of the one ring. Since halflings had already become involved, it was ultimately a halfling who was chosen to be the ring-bearer within the Fellowship. Another name for the events in "The Hobbit" is the expedition to Erebor. There were many events preceding "The Hobbit" such as The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs to which there is not a protagonist. Bilbo's, as a halfling, recovery of the ring, unlike The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs was not a war but led to The War of the Ring. Just as The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs had led to Thórin staying in the west and passing through The Shire. Ncsr11 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rings? Elves? Sauron? Maybe I'm even denser than usual today, but I don't see what any of that has to do with the question that prompted this thread. "Titular" means "denoting a person or thing from whom or which the name of an artistic work or similar is taken". The protagonist is Bilbo, the title is The Hobbit, and Bilbo is the only hobbit of note in the book. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Right next to the title "The Hobbit" is the name of the author, J.R.R. Tolkien. His son Johnathan Tolkien had transcribed letters sent by his father to his father's associates. "The Hobbit" led up to The War of the Ring. Altough publishers had renamed that book's title The Lord of the Rings instead of The War of the Ring, The War of the Ring is still a chronolgical event. The encyclopedic reference in the Wikipedia article to the entry The Hobbit references Bilbo numerous times in the body of the article. The title of the actual book is on the cover and the spine. Bilbo is not exactly a protagonist. It is unlikely that a halfling would be allowed to become the Ringbearer, such as his distant nephew. The hobbits took it as a burden to redeem the elves and already being men themselves, man became their redeemer. I don't know what they're suggesting to be done about the title. The book either has a name and several ISBNs, or does not. Elphion says the title is Bilbo Baggins. One can type in Bilbo Baggins in the search box and get a list of hobbits, so that name already comprises search results, meaning that its there. As far as what Elphion wants was addressed by User:Tonyinman. Rivertorch comment is correct. The Hobbit as a singular denotation is universally to be directed towards Bilbo. When Tolkien found the blank sheet of paper he wrote,...in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. The race of hobbits was explained. Ncsr11 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It only the third volume, The Return of the King that was named against Tolkien's wishes, not the Lord of The Rings. Tolkien felt the Return of the King gave away too much.GimliDotNet (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what it was, the third. But on the other hand, Tolkien had wanted all three parts under one binding, but due to paper shortages and the decsion of the publisher, the 'parts' became divided into three seperate bounds. That's not the case for the HMH edition.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He also wanted to include the Simlarillion with the Lord of the Rings, but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I am struggling to see what point you are trying to make? The book is called 'the hobbit', the book is about Bilbo, he is the titular character by all definitions. Do you agree, or disagree with that? GimliDotNet (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt he is titular. The singular and not plural reference to 'The Hobbit" is not suggesting he is only one creature and that they are not a race. But the book is about the slaying of the last dragon. The finding of the ring was only an object he kept for years. Gandalf only agreed with Thorin in aiding his expedition out of concern that Sauron would use Smaug as a weapon. Gandalf was almost certain that Smaug had never smelled the scent of a hobbit and sought Bilbo to break up the unlucky number thirteen in the expedition. Tolkien did name the book. He didn't name the trilogy after hobbits. I'm not trying to make any point, but if The Hobbit were bound with The Lord of The Rings and The Simlarillion, the binding of the spine might not be feasable in print. Maybe Tolkien did not comprehend that. I'm not certain what this thread is anyway, perhaps it was the author wanting the trilogy's title as The Lord of The Ring, singular and not 'Rings' plural. Maybe the publisher made a typo. Ncsr11 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

isfutile:P says he thinks it's narrow to assume the title singularly refers to Bilbo. That's what the title does refer to.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings refers to the fact that ALL rings are under the influence of the one, the Nine, the Seven and the Three are all bound to it. Who controls the one can control them all all GimliDotNet (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Good call, but the top of the thread is seven months ago. Tolkien kept changing his mind on naming conventions. Read the first header and you will see that the revert was against what the title should be. Some of it is missing, like when it was reverted.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

isfutile:P reference was why the title The Hobbit was singular and not the subject of whether or not the rings were plural.???.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at now :). Really any discussion regarding the title of the page should have gone into that section, this section is just the discussion about calling Bilbo the Titular character. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GimliDotNet, I was in error, it ocurred to me later that Tolkien did not want to bind The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings and The Simarillion under one spine. The Hobbit had already been published. When the publisher contacted the author against his submitting The Simarillian for print they wanted the story to be more like T.H. It would have only been The Simarillian and LoTR in one binding.

(outdent)

For the record:

1. "The Hobbit" clearly refers to Bilbo. I never said that the title should be Bilbo Baggins, but he is the titular character.
2. "The Lord of the Rings" (with an 's' -- Tolkien was using that as a working title well before the books were published) probably refers to Sauron -- or at least to the master of the One, who, if strong enough and in possession of the One, would be able (Sauron hoped) to control the others.
3. The War of the Ring was suggested by Tolkien for the third volume only after Unwin proposed breaking the book into three volumes. It was never Tolkien's title for the complete work, and doesn't indicate that he meant to use a singular form in the title The Lord of the Rings.
4. Sauron did not learn the art of making rings from the Elves, rather the other way around. The One is in no sense an "elven ring".
5. I doubt that Tolkien intended Frodo to be redeeming the Elves, or indeed anyone. That would not fit easily with his Catholic outlook. Frodo was assigned a task, tried his utmost to complete it, but failed. The task was completed in the end only through the intervention of Eru (as adumbrated in one of the Letters).

-- Elphion (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

setting the Scene/stage

Since this is obviously going to keep going on, I thought it best to bring this up for discussion here. Clearly, I agree with U-Mos that "sets the stage" in this context is an idiom we should avoid per WP:IDIOM. Strebe feels that this has has no idiomatic meaning (which again, is a good thing per policy) and questions the literal meaning of the term. I would have thought that "setting the scene" in a book/film/tv series/insert other type of fictional narrative was obvious. But based on Strebe's insistence, I'm wondering if that's not as obvious to others or if there isn't a better rephrase we could with to express the same concept. "Sets the stage" is out though; clearly a "stage" has no literal meaning in this context, although I'm sure most native English speakers are familiar with the idiom. What do others think? Millahnna (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that “sets the stage” ought to be avoided just because it is an idiom. Everyone knows the idiom because it is ancient. It is used commonly even in formal publications because there is no single word that conveys the meaning well. It is basically just a word that has three spaces in it. However, we have the blunt hammer of WP:IDIOM, which exists for good reasons, and so if someone insists we remove the idiom, then fine, remove the idiom, even if it’s a uselessly pedantic application of WP:IDIOM.

However, replacing “sets the stage” with an ad hoc idiom, “sets the scene”, is not the answer. There’s no such thing as “setting a scene”. To “set the stage” means to put the props on the stage for the next act. To “set the scene” means… what? What objects are getting set on what things? What scene is under discussion here? The Lord of the Rings is not a “scene”. It is a book. It has many (metaphorical, not literal) scenes. Nothing is getting set anywhere. “Sets the scene” has no literal meaning; it is just an ad hoc way of trying to reformulate “sets the stage” so as to avoid being found in a list of idioms.

I tried to solve the problem by using an actual word that works just fine here: presages. Somehow we have advocacy for a non-literal, awkward neologism of unclear meaning—“sets the scene”—instead. Do we need to belabor this? Strebe (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Heya Strebe, thanks for commenting. I disagree with your assessment of sets the scene, but I do see what you meant now by literal interpretation of the phrase (I think we were defining terms differently); it may be that I'm familiar with that phrase because of personal experience and didn't realize it, though I see it commonly enough. Thinking about your most recent edit again, perhaps your choice (presages) is a better compromise than I first thought. Or perhaps there's a more common word with the same meaning that I'm not thinking of? I think "preface" might be slightly off in context. Thoughts? Millahnna (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, by the way, that set the scene also shows up in lists of idioms, so I was wrong: It is not ad hoc. But it is an idiom, and seems less apt to me for the reasons I gave. Preface also seems less apt because literally it is an introduction to a book or speech. Foreshadows? Augurs? I don’t like any of these, including presages, because the passage not only hints at Gollum’s portrayal in The Lord of the Rings; it also prepares for it by acting as a transition between the Gollum of The Hobbit and the Gollum of The Lord of the Rings. Sadly sets the stage really is perfect. That's exactly what's going on. The passage is the transition, or stage-setting, between the previous act, which is The Hobbit, and the next act, which is The Lord of the Rings. I’d really like to have left well enough alone. It’s not as if sets the stage is some modernism or slang. I suppose we could try to work transition in there, but I’m losing heart for this; the text is just going to get uglier no matter how we try to fiddle it. Strebe (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... what if we just revamp the whole sentence. Is "sets up" on the list of idioms? Man I'm losing the heart for this, too. You aren't wrong about the "uglier" angle. Millahnna (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian adaptations

I think you could mention that Russia/USSR twice filmed movies based on this book. First there is 1984 tv movie, you can watch it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYddjJseUj4 here is wikipedia page with all information on russian http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0_%28%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%29

And also in 1991 Argus company started filming animated film, but now there is only intro left, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hWwu17udnI&feature=related, film was never relised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.234.172.242 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There already is an article on adaptations; surely that is a better place for such things. Strebe (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

NB: The Youtube video link is broken, as the Youtube account was closed due to repeated copyright violations. -- Elphion (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

2012-2013 Films?

Why are the new films not mentioned in the adaptations section? I had added them at one point, but someone removed my addition. Alphius (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It’s there. A two-part live-action film version is planned to be co-produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and New Line Cinema, produced and directed by Peter Jackson. Strebe (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Would a dwarf of that importance really be traveling alone?

Gandalf was overtaken by Thorin on the Great Road and later invited to the Blue Mountains. Gandalf was headed for the Shire for a rest, someplace he had not been since the death of the Old Took, but why was Thorin alighting from? Where was his escort and guard? Ncsr11 (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A continent as massive as Middle-earth, the storyline speaks of the Road (the Great Road) as being in dis-repair like a 'Roman road' during the 'dark ages', the great cathedral-building era of Europe. The continent is under exodus. Many parts are underpopulated. Perhaps there is a false sense in the west, even though rumors have spread that the tower has been rebuilt?. Ncsr11 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, this is not a bulletin board for discussions about The Hobbit. It’s for discussing the editing of the article. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Genre

A book such as this [6] should probably be consulted regarding genre. The difficulty here, in my view, is that Tolkien created a world (fantasy) with it's own mythology and legends. Although Zipes has an entry in his fairy tale book, that's only a small part of the puzzle. Good luck with this, it's a complicated piece to work in regards to comprehensiveness. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's not in the preview but what I could find about any genre, mostly Fantasy, in that book refers to The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's legendarium in general, which was developed and published at a later stage. The Hobbit as such is only treated in terms of themes and motifs and is not classified into a specific genre. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur De728631. As far as I can see, Purtill doesn't discuss genre with regards The Hobbit, but rather addresses his concerns to The Lord of the Rings. His only real commentary on The Hobbit itself cover the theme of Bilbos maturation - he identifies the leadership role (which starts with Gandalf) as being "parental" which could be usefully added to the article. --Davémon (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically the traditional definition between fantasy and realism, in regard to children's lit, is whether the action exists in a place that can be recognized as the world we live in, or a made up world. Clearly Tolkien created a made up world, and because The Hobbit is the first installment in that world, it introduces the world. I need to work at the moment and can't continue this, but will add some specific sources. Will also pick up Carpenter's book. I'd suggest attributing both Carpenter and Zipes, if they definitely place it in the genre of fairy tale - I haven't read the entire Zipes entry but will. Then I'd suggest adding that scholars disagree on the genre, in that some consider it fantasy others fairy tale, and finally that some consider it children's lit and others not. Personally, though were I to work on this page, I wouldn't be treating children's lit as a genre - the genres themselves cross over. If you look at the article on Charles Perrault's Histoires ou contes du temps passé, you'll see that the tales weren't written for children. Off the top of my head, from what I remember of Tolkien scholarship, he wasn't necessarily writing for children at all. One more thing - the dragon is based on the dragon in Beowulf. I have source for that somewhere. Ping me if you have questions and I'll keep this page watched. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned in the article that Smaug's personality is based on the Beowulf epic (Solopova, 2009) and that "the Smaug episode reflects and references the dragon of Beowulf" (Steele, 2006). And one of today's additions was a phrase that Tolkien himself stated he had not written The Hobbit as a children's novel. As to the genre, the article does already mention that children's literature and Fantasy are not mutually exclusive and that different authors prefer different genres, but from what I could find in the sources already present, the novel is mostly treated as children's literature, be it as a top category that includes "Fantasy for children" or a standalone definition. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t grasp the significance of this discussion. I cannot imagine a thoughtful reader coming away from the article with idea that The Hobbit “belongs” in one genre. Classifications are a convenience. They are supposed to aid understanding by stripping away details so that we can focus on essence. They are not an attribute of the thing; they are our distillation of ideas about the thing. The point when classifying something begins to interfere with understanding is the point when classifications are no longer useful—and certainly not worth excruciating over. The article unambiguously states that The Hobbit deeply crosses genres. It states which genres the story crosses. It gives references scholarly criticism in a balanced way. There is no more understanding to be gleaned by adding more “influential” votes into the mix and stirring. Strebe (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentences such as this: "Tolkien intended The Hobbit as a fairy story and wrote it in a tone suited to addressing children" are absolute and at the very least should be attributed. Many scholars would disagree perhaps. My point, as a reviewer, is that all the point-of-view need to be considered. That's integral to the FA process and the criteria. As a courtesy to the review, I moved the discussion from there, but certainly it can be taken up there again. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter to me where the discussion takes place. My point is that the book deeply crosses genres. Everyone agrees it does. The article says it does. The article gives all significant points of views and describes them really rather thoroughly within the scope of an article that is supposed to cover all aspects of the book. Therefore more excruciating over the genre “puzzle” does not further the quality of the article. The quote you give is attributed as reference #54, so I don’t know what you intend by stating it needs to be attributed. The article does not state that the book is a fairy tale; it states that Tolkien intended it as a fairy tale, and that on the authority of Tolkien’s principal biographer. If your point is that we should qualify the statement as someone’s opinion, then I merely say of course it is someone’s opinion. Any such statement is an opinion, but in the absence of credible dissenting opinions, noting everything as an opinion simply becomes clumsy writing. Do you have some reason to believe a mainstream scholar disagrees with that opinion? I don’t. They may disagree about whether Tolkien actually created a fairy story, but I’ve never seen any dissent about his intent. Strebe (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The largest problem is this: almost every source I've looked at is showing text that's verbatim or close to verbatim. The first sentence in the genre sections says: characters that pre-adolescent children can identify with and the source says: characters preadolescent children can easily identify with -- all of which has made me look more closely at the text. So, let me say this: first the text needs some scrubbing. The example above is easily taken care of with quotation marks and a page number (which is lacking). Second, yes, my suggestion as a reviewer, a person who writes about fiction, and an editor familiar with the scholars and the genres, would be to attribute Humphrey Carpenter by name. He's a very reputable scholar and thus his opinion holds weight. Equally, Zipes is a reputable scholar whose opinion holds equal weight, and yet in his entry about The Hobbit, (a sentence from which was presented here verbatim until I changed it) explains that it's not a typical fairy tale. It's not necessary to reconcile the two - but it is necessary to explain which scholars hold which view. Furthermore, both the source mentioned above and Zipes explain the book has many folkloric attributes, but that's lacking in the article. But this all my opinion only and clearly we disagree. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not addressing the problem of verbatim excerpts or the suitability of the article for FA. I am addressing the topic of genre. I’m puzzled now by the new claim that the article lacks mention of the folklore elements. They’re right there in the section on genre: Many fairy tale motifs… and folklore themes, such as trolls turning to stone, are to be found in the story. The Hobbit conforms to Vladimir Propp's 31-motif model of folktales. I do not think the article is obliged to quote any particular reviewer’s favorite sources as long as the article’s treatment of concepts is balanced.

As for listing who says what directly in the article rather than in references, I have no strong opinion other than to note the typical reader isn’t going to know those names, so dropping them into the text isn’t going to help most readers. Quite the opposite, it just puts people off because the names are meaningless words to them. It starts to read like a research paper or literary criticism. It’s not; it’s an encyclopædia entry, and it happens to be one about the entire book, not one about critique of the book. Is there some Wikipedia guideline we can refer to about the appropriate level of in-line citations before we go stuffing lots of names into the body text? Strebe (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading carefully the section re folklore. No, as far as I know, no policy that requires attribution. Let's just let it go. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work in a short time. I know how hard it is to come up to speed on a major article. Especially thanks for checking the references. Strebe (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)