Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"See also" section is empty.

"See also" section is empty. --183.189.129.121 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

Typo. Under the subheading "Second World War" the third line says "a record of his traning was found" which should be spelled "training." 204.61.30.119 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maternal Ancestry

Shifting this paragraph, which is cited to a broken or non-existing link, to this page until it can be recited to a good source.

Tolkien's maternal grandparents, John and Edith Jane Suffield, lived in Birmingham and owned a shop in the city centre. The Suffield family had run various businesses out of the same building, called Lamb House, since the early 19th century. From 1812 Tolkien's great-great-grandfather William Suffield had a book and stationery shop there; from 1826 Tolkien's great-grandfather, also named John Suffield, had a drapery and hosiery business there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Inspiration for Middle-earth?

No time to work on this right now, but thought some other enterprising editor might see whether this CNN story contains information that mnight be useful here: WWI site offers hints of J.R.R. Tolkien General Ization ^Talk 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC) It was Midgard. From Wagner and the Nibelungenlied.2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"...in the portrayal of the forced "industrialization" of the Shire..."

What does that mean? Middle Earth including the Shire is medieval, there is no "industrialization". --212.186.0.108 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Saruman uses engines and great furnaces, he builds bigger and more "efficient" mills etc. That is what it is referring to. It's described in the Scouring of the Shire - a move away from self succificency to industrial construction. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you, Gimli! Then it has to be expressed more precisely in the article. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Memorials and eponymy section is cluttered and poorly structured

The list of things, places, and organisms named after Tolkien or his characters at J. R. R. Tolkien#Memorials is getting unwieldy, and IMHO not on par with Featured Article standards. Choppy paragraphs with no or little connection between is bad writing, and I fear without attention the list may stray into further, trivial territory ("in popular culture...", etc.). Perhaps a new article or list is in order that discusses his legacy of eponymy, similar to List of things named after Charles Darwin. I am familiar with several scientific names derived from Tolkien's characters: including Gollum (genus), Smeagol (gastropod), Iandumoema smeagol, and Leucothoe tolkieni for the author himself. Lest it be thought that compiling such names is only fancruft, I've found some popular press articles and at least one scholarly secondary source that discusses Tolkein's influence on scientific nomenclature, which helps establish notability as well as article structure. There are also eponymous species listed here (not really a reliable source though), and the Commons category Things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works. An alternative to splitting off a new article would be to improve the existing section to FA criteria, in which case I think it would be good to have thematic paragraphs (e.g. one about species, one about geographic features, one about events, and miscellaneous) and the pruning of the least-relevant and/or unsourced trivia. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it is a mess. Personally I think it is borderline trivia and should either be deleted or moved out elsewhere. Deagol2 (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I have started a draft page in my userspace. Please feel free to contribute here. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on J. R. R. Tolkien. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110427014422/http://maps.google.de/maps/user?uid=112792823367225913506&hl=de&gl=de to http://maps.google.de/maps/user?uid=112792823367225913506&hl=de&gl=de
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081220123041/http://www.langmaker.com:80/ml0108.htm to http://www.langmaker.com/ml0108.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Family Origin

In the section family origin it is written that accordind to "More prosaic" members of the family said that the Tolkiens had arrived in England in 1756, as refugees from Frederick the Great's invasion of the Electorate of Saxony during the Seven Years' War. As source are pages 18.19 in the biography mentioned.

However most people with the name Tolkien or Tolkiehn are living in Lower Saxony and Hamburg today. So did Tolkien s family really migrated from the Electorate Saxony or maybe from the part of Germany, who is called Lower Saxony? Could it be possible that Tolkien's ancestor confused Lower Saxony and the Electorate Saxony (Upper Saxony) while telling the story of the familiy's migration? Or did the family move from Lower Saxony to Upper Saxony before migating? Hanover an Brunswick were also Belligerents in the Seven Years War, but with in the coaliation of Great Britian attacking the Elctorate of Saxony, being part of the coaliaion of France.--Flaverius (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The German state of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) was created in 1946, so Tolkien's ancestors didn't even know this name. Also the [i:] sound in "Tolkien" instead of standard High German [y] like in "tollkühn" would be typical of upper Saxon dialect. Anyhow, the shift of the contempary Tolkie(h)ns from what is now the state of Saxony to Lower Saxony might as well have occured as a result of World War II when many Germans fled from the approaching Soviet Army. I don't know if this has ever been researched reliably and anything else would be speculation. De728631 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

While it's true that the Bundesland Niedersachsen was established after the war, the region of central Germany, stretching from Hannover and Brunswick to the North Sea coast has been considered Saxon land, ever since the Saxons who joined with the Angles and Jutes ventured to Britain at the invitation of the Romano-Celt population seeking help against the Norsemen after the ebb of Roman power. You make a good point in mentioning the Hannover and Brunswick were belligerents in the Seven Years War. More specifically, Hannover was allied with the United Kingdom and shared a sovereign, and the Duchy of Brunswick was also allied with the UK, and Prussia. It's very possible that Tolkien's family came from that area, whether driven to flee the war, or just to take advantage of the close relations that obtained between Hannover and Britain, during the personal union. I'm just speculating, but I'm trying to offer an explanation that squares his family's oral history with other details. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

The i in Tolkien problalbyindicatesUpper Saxony, tats true. It is just strange that all Tolkiens moed from UpperSaxony to Lower Saxony. So there are probably no sources, which could be usedto find out how all Tolkien moved awa from Upper Saxony.--Flaverius (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there are some Tollkiens (with double L) left in Upper Saxony and Thuringia [1], but I just added a reference to the article that Tolkien's own hypothesis has not been proven so far. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This explains a lot about how he basically stole German stories and made them his own...2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge

According to the article, "On 7 June, Tolkien was informed that he had been assigned as a signals officer to the 11th (Service) Battalion, Lancashire Fusiliers, which had been decimated by heavy fighting at the Battle of Vimy Ridge." The 7 June is in 1916, but the Battle of Vimy Ridge didn't take place until the following year. Does anyone know if this refers to a different battle? Blotto adrift (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Why a picture of him in his early 20's? I thought I had the wrong article!2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently, this is the only freely useable image of Tolkien because its copyright has expired. More recent images including the iconic portraits of Tolkien with a pipe are all non-free and cannot be used on Wikipedia for the time being. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dates of Books

I came here to find out the order in which the books were written. You should give the dates when you name the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Apart from The Hobbit, the publication dates of all relevant books mentioned in the article have in fact been given, and the subsections in "Publications" correspond to the order in which the works were published. There is no table that lists them all with dates, but when you read the text you will find the following:

• "...the epic novel The Lord of the Rings (originally published in three volumes 1954–1955)."
• "...published as The Silmarillion in 1977."
• "...Mr. Bliss, published in 1982."
• "More recently, in 2007, The Children of Húrin was published..."

and so forth. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Initials

Deor, what do you not understand? Why do you think the article is improved by stating that Tolkien is commonly known by his initials? Can readers not assume this from the fact that his initials are used in the title? Zacwill (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zacwill: It's common, though not universal, in Wikipedia to include the form with initials in the lead when that is the form that the person is best known by—cf. the leads of H. G. Wells and R. W. Southern, for instance. I see that you've also made a similar change to T. S. Eliot and are discussing the matter at Talk:G. K. Chesterton. It seems to me to be slightly helpful to readers to make it clear why the articles' titles differ from the persons' full names (i.e., the version with initials is what's used on their books), but I don't have a strong opinion on the matter; I just saw no explict reason for your deletion. If you change this again, I won't revert you, but perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies is in order to clarify our guidelines. Deor (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If a reader were to stumble across the article, that reader may not association John Ronald Reuel with J. R. R. even though the article is listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Zacwill (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

With J. R. R. Tolkien as the page title and in the infobox, surely even a reader with English as a second language can make the connection. What next, "Robert Anson Heinlein, commonly known as Robert A. Heinlein..."? Deagol2 (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Initials of middle names are quite obvious and I'd like to think that abbreviations like "John F. Doe" are so common that they don't need any further explanation in the lead. However, our readers should be informed why the article page is not named "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" but uses initials for all the given names. Our articles should be written for the broad public which includes those that have never heard of Tolkien before and would not know that he became famous as J. R. R. Tolkien. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed they are obvious, just as obvious as 3 names and 3 letters. Deagol2 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed they are not obvious, which is why it's common practice. But this is in response to an editor who doesn't even know MOS:NUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that MOS:NUM applies to articles and this is a Talk page, that point would seem to be moot. I do not see a common practice across Wikipedia on this point, quite the opposite in fact, so assume that each occurrence is debated individually. Can you point to a MOS that is relevant here? Deagol2 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lessons learned in main space are generally carried to talk pages. However, I concede the point, but the subject's WP:COMMONNAME should be prominent in the lede as per WP:OPENPARA and WP:INITS. Follow the trend at list of literary initials where it's common, but not universal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, although some of the linked material relates to article titles rather than ledes. I see nothing definitive either way, but MOS:LEGALNAME states that "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name." Deagol2 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

But it's also common for people to abbreviate all their forenames. Zacwill (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. In cases where people shorten their given names, that too should be identified in the lede. William "Will", James "Jim", and other such names are common and acceptable if it is their COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Kings College and Exeter, Oxford

While at Kings College, Tolkien played on the school's rugby side in 1910-11 as a forward. He continued his rugby playing days with the Exeter College team while at Oxford University. Tolkien, in 1937 in a letter to his son, described his ferocity in playing rugby as making up for his lack of physical size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.70.172 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was this added here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire ribbon?

Shouldn't there be the Order of the British Empire ribbon in the infobox?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sean Connery, Elton John If these two don't, I'd say no. You can also check the template's documentation {{Infobox person}} {{Infobox writer}} - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule on Wikipedia saying that other articles can't be taken as a proof for anything? They might either fall into separate cases, or be incorrect. But then again, my knowledge is limited.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a disclaimer for deletion discussions only. Infobox writer, however, does already cover the OBE in the infobox header. Apart from that, ribbons and such are not usually displayed in infoboxes for persons. {{Infobox military unit}} may display icons of unit citations and awards alongside unit badges etc., but that's a totally different approach. De728631 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: Citing Wikipedia - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Prize nomination

There are reports that J.R.R. Tolkien was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1961 (proof). Is it worth including?--Adûnâi (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could be mentioned somewhere at the end of the "Academic and writing career" section. De728631 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with De728631. - Mlpearc (open channel) 05:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

But only if we have a source that shows he actually was nominated; an oft-repeated rumour is worthless. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you check the link above? The official website of the Nobel Prize should suffice as a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I read it as there's proof that there have been reports of his nomination. I now see it is proof of the nomination itself, which is all we need. Carry on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Eureses (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien wrote notes in Esperanto

Tolkien learned Esperanto around the years 1905 - 1911, see I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien by Perry C. Bramlett, p. 136. Please note that the information quoted by Bramlett that Tolkien wrote “in a language based on Esperanto and Spanish” (Priestman) seems to be erroneous. Here is one page of the “Book of Foxrook” (1909) handwritten by Tolkien in Esperanto. It says in Esperanto:

"PRIVATA KODO SKAŬTA

por enskribo sur arboj aŭ faro per vergoj kaj pajleroj.

Kiam la vorto estas trasilabita (kaj tio ne ĉiam okazas) la silabado estas fonetika (esperanta escepte…)"

Should these facts be mentioned in the article - as language construction was an essential part of his life? Should Tolkien be in the Category "English Esperantists"? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It should absolutely be written about, with a reference, in the Esperanto article. It's not part of the subject's notability and has no real place here, unless of course, drafts of the subject's works were written in Esperanto or the author translated his own works into Esperanto. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. In fact the image presents an early draft of a writing system. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Artist

In the first lead paragraph would it be appropriate to include the fact that he was also an artist and illustrator along with writer, poet etc.? 216.67.56.99 (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Organization of Writings Section

As an amateur Tolkien scholar, I find this section far less helpful than it should be. This is a biographical entry, so it seems clear that his writings should, for the large part, be treated as they would in a biography. I think it might be a good idea to separate the academic and scholarly work from the fiction, poetry, and translations, although this is up in the air. Dividing his works into those that were or were not published within his lifetime makes little sense, and listing the posthumous works in the order they were published makes even less sense.

I'm in the process of constructing a chronology of all his published major works, using the dates supplied by biographers and book editors. I can envision, for this page, a chronological table showing title, dates of composition, where first published in book form, date of publication (dates for LOTR), nature of the work (adult fiction, children's fiction, poetry, translation, essay, academic essay), and status in the legendarium (canonical, supplementary, developmental, unrelated). Short poems would be grouped by book. The section could then be re-ordered to reflect this. Emvan (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose having such a table in this article. It should rather be presented in J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography. Would you care to explain why the current arrangement of the writing section does not make sense? The general structure of this section has remained unchanged since this review of the featured article status in 2009, so one should think there is consensus to keep it. De728631 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

close friend

I believe that they continued to be friends, but Tolkien outlived Lewis. The both probably outlived The Inklings, and Lewis moved to Cambridge, in another town, both married, etc. To say they were once friends implies that maybe they fell out, which I don't believe was the case, and is not supported by any source which I know of. rags (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It says he was "at one time a close friend". Just because they were no longer "close friends" in later years, doesn't mean they were not friends at all. Deagol2 (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pen name

Until July 9, last year, there was no mention of a "pen name." Normally, the term is used to denote a pseudonym, for various purposes, which differs from the true name in a way which conceals. I have been reading the biographies and critical reviews of authors for 5 decades, and have never seen an author's abbreviated, initialized name referred to as a pen name. At one point JRR Tolkien was mentioned as his "professional" name, or "known professionally," or some such. I have no problem with that terminology, although it seems an unnecessary explanation of the obvious. That phrase was deleted (according to the edit history), which change was immediately reverted, and "pen name" seems to have been a sort of compromise. It doesn't hunt. I am changing it. Thank you for your time. rags (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As you've apparently seen, I removed that phrase a while ago, but apparently it was reinstated. I agree that it's unnecessary; cf. the title and lead of C. S. Lewis. Deor (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, as well. Sometimes they lose interest. rags (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is it unnecessary? Feel free to word it however you like, it should also be applied to the Lewis article (and others). Since the articles are at the loctaion of their pen names, they should be included somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I question the intention of this article

There is no mention that Tolkien was inspired by the landscape of Lancashire while writing Lord of the Rings during his frequent stays at Stonyhurst College in the 1940s.

...the Lancashire landscape that inspired Tolkien.

Either the people who block editors adding stuff to this article didn't know this, or they do know it but ignore it because of commercial pressure from the films set in New Zealand. Yes the Wikipedia has paid editing, it's full of it. 86.135.187.231 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think you're overreacting a bit? According to Hammond & Scull, Tolkien only spent four weeks in Stonyhurst between his three travels there between 1946 and 1947 (that's far from "frequent" in my book), and nowhere did he state that the Lancashire landscape was an influence on his writing (as opposed to e.g. his brief trip to Switzerland in 1911). I'm not saying that there was no Lancashire influence in The Lord of the Rings, but there does not seem to have been an major one—and if there was, it would be easy to find a better reference than a newspaper article. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

An updated photo is suggested. 2601:101:8201:5944:19B3:1768:8BAA:45A8 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Two issues:

1. You did not suggest a freely available photo to use. We cannot use copyrighted images.
2. It's not clear what "updated" means here. Granted this is an image from 1916 and I suspect you mean something later, possibly like the ones where he is smoking a pipe or is wearing spectacles, like those from the 40s and 50s.

Feel free to suggest an image from Commons:John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, or supply another. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. R. R. Tolkien. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620040316/http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/585 to http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/585

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien might as well not been a scholar...

This says nothing detailed about Tolkien's extremely important influence on medieval studies, not listing his publications, or discussing his contributions. Seems a bit incomplete, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.224.68 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think that the section, "Languages and philology" does not adequately sum up his scholarly career, feel free to add a section containing the missing material.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture is not a good illustration of the subject and may be a copyvio

Pinging User:Dbachmann, who in 2012 provided a pretty good breakdown of the situation on the photo's Commons page[2] but whose concerns were never, apparently, addressed. The image is almost unrecognizable as the same person as the elderly Tolkien who appears on book jackets modern editions of his most famous books, so it's not a very good illustration. I understand we are limited by copyright issues, but actually we couldn't make a decent fair use case for the current picture, and its public domain status is questionable -- if it is not in the public domain, a fair use image would be better, and failing that none.

The version of the article that survived FAR back in 2009 apparently had a fair-use image from 1972. If the article currently violates copyright (and it very well might), then it can't be Featured Article, and the fact that it past review almost a decade ago doesn't matter as it didn't apparently have the same problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Favourite author?

John Buchan? Was he an "influence"? I didn't want to add this to that section of the article as my source (Tom Shippey) doesn't specify that Buchan's work "influenced" Tolkien per se. But would the text His favourite modern author was John Buchan. This has sometimes been interpreted as Tolkien enjoying Buchan's spy novels, for which he is best-remembered, but Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey speculates that Tolkien was more interested in Buchan's historical novels. be at home in the "influences" section? (Note that "modern author" isn't technically supported by the source: Shippey just says "favourite author"; I'm assuming that Tolkien's actual favourite author would have been someone in medieval Europe.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien etymology

While Tolkien's etymology from German "tollkühn" is fancy and appealing, the surname is more likely to stem from the Indo-European root "tolk" (English: "talk"), which means "to interpret" and is found in many Indo-European languages and even in Finnish. Add the ubiquitous (Balto-)Slavic suffix "-in" for denoting one individual of a group (like Len-in, Put-in, etc.), and Tolk-in means "interpreter" or literally "talker". So it's talkin' Tolkien ;)

In the section "Family origins", there are two sentences about a German writer deriving the surname Tolkien from the Old Prussian village of Tolkynen, without further explaining the etymology of Tolkynen. That is WP:OR, confusing and probably wrong. Nesselmann's Thesaurus, s. v. tolk, p. 189, says that Old Prussian "tolk" ("interpreter") appears in many personal and place names, and I believe that explains both "Tolkien" and "Tolkynen". Anyway, I think those two sentences should be deleted. It suffices to say that the origin of the name has not been proven, until someone knowledgable supplies a better source. --83.137.1.215 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2017

In this page's infobox, please change the text "Edith Tolkien" to "Edith Bratt". ---- 213.205.251.145 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Deagol2 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2017

Should the category "British monarchists" be added to reflect Tolkien's political views? If so, please add it. 213.205.251.228 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. R. R. Tolkien. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/tolkien.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marquette.edu/library/collections/archives/tolkien.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714122905/http://www.wheaton.edu/wadecenter/Authors/JRR-Tolkien/JRRT-Resources to http://www.wheaton.edu/wadecenter/Authors/JRR-Tolkien/JRRT-Resources

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

In the category section, please replace "Category:British people of German descent" with "Category:English people of German descent". 176.252.2.223 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You can begin the discussion by providing a rationale for the change you're requesting. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Tolkien's work relations with catholic religion

This is a complete speculation. Just an intention deliberately of put inside the Legendarium some chatolic religion. The article should focus on Tolkien's work and life, not find non related alegories about crhistianity.

An example would be this silly comparacy: "Specifically, Paul H. Kocher argues that Tolkien describes evil in the orthodox Christian way as the absence of good."

Linking it with Crhistianity is a subjective opinion of someone who is not Tolkien. It's like saying it is related to the bible because both stories have humans.

This one is even worse: "Another interesting argument is Stratford Caldecott's theological view on the Ring and what it represents. "The Ring of Power exemplifies the dark magic of the corrupted will, the assertion of self in disobedience to God. It appears to give freedom, but its true function is to enslave the wearer to the Fallen Angel. It corrodes the human will of the wearer, rendering him increasingly "thin" and unreal; indeed, its gift of invisibility symbolizes this ability to destroy all natural human relationships and identity. You could say the Ring is sin itself: tempting and seemingly harmless to begin with, increasingly hard to give up and corrupting in the long run""

Another vague relation with religion, clearly intented to forcely put religion inside a fictional work. Tolkien never said that the One Ring had such relation to disobedience to Christian god. Completely unrelated.

This part of the otherwise good review about Tolkien, is disrepectful to him. In Toklien's words:

D. Gerrolt:: Is the book to be considered as an allegory? J.R.R. Tolkien: No. I dislike allegory whenever I smell it. http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/804-Tolkien-1971-BBC-Interview.php

Of course there is some relation to Christian god, but only as J.R.R. said, not as someone else claims (like I quoted before):

D. Gerrolt: There's an autumnal quality throughout the whole of The Lord of the Rings, in one case a character says the story continues but I seem to have dropped out of it … however, everything is declining, fading, at least towards the end of the Third Age. Every choice tends to the upsetting of some tradition. Now this seems to me to be somewhat like Tennyson's "the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways". Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

J.R.R. Tolkien: He's mentioned once or twice.

D. Gerrolt: Is he the One?

J.R.R. Tolkien:The One… yes. http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/804-Tolkien-1971-BBC-Interview.php

Yes, there is relation between Eru and Christian god, but because J.R.R. said it. Not someone else founding a weird forced conection.

I want a Wikipedia full of facts, not religious or political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauroelias1986 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is hard to comprehend. I do not understand why well-referenced information about Tolkien's religious views is somehow a "religious or political agenda". Drmies (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand it, but it's WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The section is based on the conclusions of multiple commentators so how is it OR? It looks fine to me, but the Stratford Caldecott paragraph needs to be reworded as "Another interesting argument is..." is not neutral. Deagol2 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Mauroelias1986's opinion is OR, not the article's content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain quote by quote, how is Tolkien and not someone elses opinion? "Specifically, Paul H. Kocher argues that Tolkien describes evil in the orthodox Christian way as the absence of good." Just explain me why do I care about Paul Kocher's opinion? Specially since I just quoted a Tolkien interview saying that his work is not based on the bible. This one is the same: "Stratford Caldecott's theological view on the Ring and what it represents. "The Ring of Power exemplifies the dark magic of the corrupted will, the assertion of self in disobedience to (christian) God."" I dont understand why his theological opinion is in this article, specially since Tolkien said that his work is NOT related to christian religion. I just refuted Paul Kocher and Stratford Caldecott with actual Tolkien words, I dont know what else do you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauroelias1986 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 October 2017 UTC (UTC)

This and other information about Catholic interpretations of Tolkien's works is in the article because a biography is not meant to be restricted to the subject's own view of themselves. Instead it has to present what others thought or think about the person's inspiration or views. Tolkien may have denied any religious influences or relation to religion in his works, but it is essential information that these have still been attributed to The Lord of the Rings etc. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not neutral. You are ignoring facts, literally ignoring a J.R.R. interview. Tolkien work was NOT based nor inspired on christian beliefs, and this article doesnt live up to that. Wikipedia cant be a bunch of opinions about things, it must be neutral and based on knowledge, actual truth. Make a new article about Paul H. Kocher opinions and erase it from this entry. It's against Wikipedia rules and ideals. Mauroelias1986 (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

In the category section, please replace "Category:British people of German descent" with "Category:English people of German descent" because the latter category is more specific and his son Christopher Tolkien and grandson Simon Tolkien are both listed under it. 213.205.198.77 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This same request was just made a day ago. RudolfRed (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Search bar / Redirection

For some time now, when beginning to type "jrr..." into the search bar, the first option is given as 'JRR Tolkein'. This is of course not the correct spelling.

If this is clicked on, it 'redirects' to the page for J.R.R. Tolkien.

Is there a way to fix this search result?

Thanks Acklevoy (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The way that the search works is pretty much automated and the more likely terms appear first based on the number of times that an option is selected. I don't see how this is broken. The redirect is working and it's an alternate search term. Is there another term that starts with "JRR" that you think should be the first term?

I'm not sure how much higher you pushed it by testing it, but if you want it not to be the first option, not selecting it will help. If you provide what you think alternates should be, we can look at how popular those pages are and that will help explain why "JRR Tolkien" appears first, but "changing" it will require fewer people selecting the option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

His name is actually James Rover Robinson Talkin. Could we get this change made? Thanks!

-His Grandson, James Rover Robinson Talkin III 23.24.163.197 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

請協助在External links章節加入：{{imdb name|id=0866058}}；即Tolkien在imdb網站的連結[3]，Thanks!--一群貓 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Deagol2 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

let me edit, it should be Leftennant Tolkien not lieutenant Muskman889 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done lieutenant is how it is spelled, no matter how dialects might pronounce it. zchrykng (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done If you make a series of constructive edits, your privileges will be automatically changed over time. This is not constructive. The word, "lieutenant", is pronounced differently by speakers of American English than the rest of the world who are native speakers of the language. It is not spelled differently. So your request cannot be completed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Publications

The sub-section 'Children's books and other short works' incorrectly lists On Fairy-Stories amongst a list of 'stories'. It would also be fair for this section to note that Tolkien also wrote poetry in many styles, often humorous and sometimes more serious, and that a number of his poems appeared in sundry publications before his fame as the author of The Hobbit.Jungleboy63 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted On Fairy-Stories. Perhaps concensus is required before expanding to include miscellaneous poems. Deagol2 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Racism

The following excerpt from the Article seems to intend to protray Tolkien, unfairly, as a racist:

Christine Chism distinguishes racist or racialist elements in Tolkien's views and works as falling into three categories: intentional racism, unconscious Eurocentric bias, and an evolution from latent racism in Tolkien's early work to a conscious rejection of racist tendencies in his late work.

Tolkien once wrote of racial segregation in South Africa, "The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain."

Yes, there are references, but there is no argument or conclusion, just that someone called Christine Chism wrote her beliefs on Tolkien's alleged racism. The article also uses the quote "The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain" out of context in order to suggest that Tokien saw nothing wrong with apartheid.

I suggest that this portion be removed unless the author (or someone willing) of the section can write a proper article with arguments for and against Tolkien's alleged racism, otherwise such a poorly written and poorly referenced piece should have no place within the article. Dyolf87 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

References

You must be American. You people seem to be overly sensitive about this topic and bring it up in all kinds of articles. 24.51.217.35 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed it. Excerpt has been archived here (for further discussion) and low quality material itself has no place in a featured article. - Neptuunium (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Restored it. Since there was no discussion, I don't see a WP:CONSENSUS to remove it.

Until something new is written, or a a few editors argue for its removal, I see no reason to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Support for removal of said section. Low quality writing has no place in a featured article. - Neptuunium (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support for removal. The section gives no reason why Christine Chism is notable, and these days, you can probably find somebody saying anything is racist. The section gives no indication of why she thinks Tolkien's work is racist; you have to go to the reference note to even get an idea, where it says others say that orcs = black people = evil oversimplifies it. If there's been some sort of extensive, serious discussion on these sorts of things, include it, but one person seeing orcs as black people - especially when Tolkien has said he doesn't like allegory - isn't notable enough to be worth mentioning. PaulGS (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A commentator doesn't need to be notable to find facts. Many reporters and scholars fail Wikipedia's notability criteria yet their works meet WP:RS. It's not whether the subject is notable but whether the source is reliable that matters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, please stop censoring the material. I did not object to the wholesale tagging of the content, but removing referenced content because you don't like it is not appropriate. If you would like, we could bring this to a larger community to reach consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Your charge that it is censorship is inaccurate, and your assertion that its removal is a reflection of your perception someone's "dislike" is not contributing to the discussion. RCHM (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Support for removal. This section is poorly assembled, and not very encyclopedic in nature. The person referenced, Christine Chism is provided with any degree of context on why they are relevant, or their qualifications to make an assertion. The only cite given to them is a link to an entirely different person whom was an editor on a book that apparently has a quote by this person. This is a very flimsy cite. The entire paragraph is just a one-sided summary of ill defined notions about the writings and the man, there is no neutrality in it. Even the section title it was given "debate over race" is not neutral because there is nothing here that reflects a 'debate' wherein an argument and a counter argument can be found.RCHM (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer this section to be rewritten rather than removed. I think it is unfair to say that it "portray Tolkien, unfairly, as a racist", as the last sentence says "a conscious rejection of racist tendencies in his late work" it rather portrays Tolkien as a person who late in his life not only wasn't a racist, but actively rejected racism. One problem however is that it's hard to judge a person from the early half of the 1900's by todays standards. I think that by todays standards Tolkien was indeed racist in his early life - but no more than everybody else. It's pretty clear in LotR that people from the south and the east are generally bad, not because they are born evil but because they are more easily thwarted by Sauron. However belief in white race superiority was quite common before the 1940's and one should consider Tolkiens general criticism of human weakness and lust for power. You could just as well accuse Tolkien of elf-chauvinism. --Honymand (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem with applying modern standards (which may waver significantly one way or the other in a short period of time) to historical figures who—due to being historical figures and thus already dead—are unable to state what their actual views are/were. I think having a section dedicated just to discussion of this is giving the issue too much weight, but some discussion possibly could be retained and integrated into the article, though where that should be will probably need to be discussed separately. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Support removal, as above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Support removal of section as currently constructed. Who is Christine Chism? Why is there a 'ref' after Chism's name that isn't a ref but a link to another article? Why is an opinion by John Yatt being used as evidence of the argument by Chism? And why has one out-of-context sentence by Tolkien been plucked from correspondence and inserted without any interpretation by a RS? It all smacks of OR (in a WP:SYNTHy way). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Clear consensus for its removal, so I have done so. AIRcorn (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

In the section entitled First World War, it says:

"The Tolkiens spent the night before his departure in a room at the Plough & Harrow Hotel in Birmingham."

Please add for clarification

"The Tolkiens spent the night before his departure in a room at the Plough & Harrow Hotel in Edgbaston, Birmingham."

Birmingham is just as big as London where the convention is always to add the borough due to size and scale of the conurbation. 86.154.76.223 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Deagol2 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

Was a good friend of C.S Lewis. 73.176.254.111 (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article already says that. RudolfRed (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't it be mentioned on the lead that better known as J.R.R Tolkien. That's how he is most widely known. The shortened name is suddenly brought out of nowhere in the body. Don't forget to ping me if someone reaches for consensus. ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Not required - see the last paragraph of MOS:INITIALS. Deagol2 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

Category:Christian anarchists should be removed as it is a parent category of Category:British Christian anarchists. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

Please consider adding an additional line to the Memorials subsection, noting the following:

Since 2013 Pembroke College, Oxford University, has held an annual lecture on fantasy literature in Tolkien's honour. Antiphonus (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

The first mention of the city of Birmingham needs to link to the Birmingham Wikipedia page. Jayoheh (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Qcomp. Deor (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Category: Writers of fiction set in Prehistoric times" ?

I don't understand why J. R. R. Tolkien is listed under the "Category:Writers of fiction set in Prehistoric times". AIUI, this category is for writers who write historical fiction set in the era before recorded history, i.e. before c. 3,000 BC. Writers who would fall into this category would include William Golding, because of his Stone Age novel The Inheritors , and Jean M. Auel, with her Earth's Children Stone Age historical novels.

Now Tolkien did write fiction set before recorded history....but it was set in an entirely imaginary Secondary World, Middle-Earth. I don't think Tolkien ever wrote any historical fiction (as opposed to a fantasy) set in the Prehistoric period. I would argue that "Category:Writers of fiction set in Prehistoric times" is an inappropriate category to list Tolkien under- it is for historical fiction writers, and The Silmarillion and Golding's The Inheritors are different types of fiction. 188.141.25.160 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Tolkien did intend for "Middle Earth" to be our Earth in the past. There's the bit in LOTR appendixes where he mentions that the length of the year at the time of the narrative was "no doubt" the same as "ours." Yes, lots of invention, but Jean Auel made a lot of stuff up too.

K6rfm (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It is set in a prehistoric Earth. It is geographically different because of continental drift, though the Shire is a forerunner of England. and the land over the ocean where tobacco comes from is a forerunner of America. Given the recent discovery of the fossils of hobbits, maybe it's time we stopped calling Prof Tolkien a writer of fiction altogether.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Palaeontologist vs Paleontologist

There have been a few edits and reverts on the article between these two variant spellings. The Wikipedia help page for Oxford spelling gives examples both with and without the 'a'. The OED uses "palaeontologist". https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/palaeontology Opinions please. Deagol2 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford spelling article does not give two examples, it gives one: encyclopaedia as the British English and encyclopedia as the Oxford English spelling, unless you're referring to anaemia.

Your link is to the "British & World English" spelling (see the breadcrumbs at the top of the page), not the Oxford spelling. There is no online version of the Oxford spellings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Having checked through Letters, I see that Tolkien does not use 'ae', so I withdraw my objection. Deagol2 (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Language construction

Is the Tengwar transcription of the poem correct? I'm not seeing a t in lantar. Or is the middle character supposed to represent nt? Paul Magnussen (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So it is, see the table File:Tengwar_modi2_EN.svg in the Tengwar article: = anto = nt in the classical transcription. --Bjs (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert

I was reverted with the comment to seek consensus on the talk page. I didn't believe it such a grave change that consensus had to be seeked first. I only changed the order of sentences because while reading, it confused me. The sentence starting with "This incident" clearly refers to the dancing of Edith in a clearing among the flowering hemlock, and should imho stand immediately thereafter, not after the long statement by Tolking that also includes other matter. This statement fits good thereafter as an explanation. --Bjs (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Education

Could we, please, give a more clear description of Tolkien's education in the terms of academic degrees? It is a topic that often creates confusion and it is not clearly stated in the article, either. If I'm not mistaken, he got a BA from Exeter College and later an MA in Oxford "by virtue of having been in residence for two years beyond his B.A.", but I don't have good sources for it. --Ehitaja (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Artwork

I have noticed that the artwork section has been tagged for nearly two years. If this issue is not resolved, then this article may lose its status as a featured article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"J.r.r." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J.r.r.. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Academic career

I think this is confused. There is "Academic and writing career" and "Linguistic career". Both sections mention his work with the Oxford English Dictionary, for example. Some of his non-fiction publications are listed under "Academic and writing career" or "Publications" or both. Also, this claim (in bold), "Parallel to Tolkien's professional work as a philologist, and sometimes overshadowing this work, to the effect that his academic output remained rather thin, was his affection for constructing languages" is unsourced.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Shall we use "authored" or "wrote" in the lede

An editor objects to the former term claiming that we should have "Adherence to basic good English" even though there's no comma between the two adjectives! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Authored" is an ugly back-formation from the noun author. It is unnecessary. The simple straightforward English word is "write". Tolkien wrote the books. Simple. Leave it at that. [And what are you implying by your comment on "no comma between the two adjectives"? There's no need for a comma between two simple little adjectives.] SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Wrote" is better. Simplicity is best.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're confused. This is not the simple English project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, simple straightforward language is best. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And authored is both simple and straightforward. Writers write. Authors author. Show me a policy or even a guideline that says we need to dumb-down our language. if you want that try https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not "dumbing down", it's using the best word for the purpose. I dislike "author" as a verb, but I will acknowledge that it is frequently used in the context of technical manuals, business documents, and computer programs. But not works of literature - and that's why I think it's inappropriate in this case. But there is a compromise. How about amending to "... and academic, author of the classic ..."? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Except the cases that you mention, the role is either "writer" or "technical writer" and as such "wrote" is appropriate.

Now the sentence is a problem as the conjunction prior to "academic" makes it seem as though the authoring is academic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm genuinely puzzled. When then, would "authored" be right? It cannot be as simple as "writers write and authors author"! To my ear, the back-formed verb "author" has absolutely the wrong connotation for a work of literature. In answer to your second point, I have introduced a full stop and a new sentence. Better? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I would even suggest that "He is best known as the author of the…" might make sense now that it's no longer an independent clause but a stand-alone sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. I don't suppose we need to cite evidence for the fact that he is "best known" for that, do we? ;-) SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"J. R. R. R. R. Tolkien" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect J. R. R. R. R. Tolkien. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 05:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"J. R.R. Tolkien" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect J. R.R. Tolkien. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#J. R.R. Tolkien until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"J.R. R. Tolkien" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect J.R. R. Tolkien. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#J.R. R. Tolkien until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Age

He is listed as dying at 82 and 81 at different places in the article, these should be changed to 81. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.188.46.193 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says that he died at the age of 82. It does, however, say that his wife died at the age of 82. Perhaps you misread. Deor (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy additions

User:LongIslandThomist914 has recently made some lengthy additions on the question of Tolkien's views, especially on Roman Catholicism.

This article is already very long, indeed far above the rule-of-thumb 100,000 bytes for convenient readability.

There is already an article on Christianity in Middle-earth, which might be suitable for some of the material; or we might split off some of the material into articles such as Tolkien's Christianity or Tolkien's politics.

The new material consists in large part of lengthy quotations from Tolkien's letters; such quotations, even if attributed and cited, are a stretch on "fair use" of copyrighted materials, as well as on readers' capacity.

I trimmed a modest percentage of the additions, only for the material to be restored immediately without discussion in full edit-warring mode. We can surely do better than this, so I invite LongIslandThomist914 and other editors to help come to a sensible consensus on the additions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article uses far too many quotations. The current version contains 37 quotations totalling around 2000 words. But even before the recent additions, there were 32 quotes in the article. We need to be a lot more selective about the number of quotes. Readers will likely find purpose-written prose a lot more engaging and enlightening than a series of quotations. The version that passed FA review back in 2009 did not contain any quotes whatsoever.— Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at reducing or paraphrasing some of the 32 quotations throughout the article. User:LongIslandThomist914 please note this will be a general process; I won't specially concern myself with your additions, but nor will I specially avoid them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose these edits are fine if the quotations are really an issue. However, I do think there should be a separate article (“The Religious and Political views of J. R. R. Tolkien”), linked to this article, where these quotes can be posted in their entirety. I’m still relatively new at editing on Wikipedia and I’m not sure how to create articles, but I’d be happy to work on it. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There could certainly be an article on such a topic but it's doubtful it could contain such long quotes. The title probably needs work too, and you're wise to hesitate as putting it together could be quite a complex project. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

In the final years section in the second sentence the word rooms is written twice

Edith died on 29 November 1971, at the age of 82. Ronald returned to Oxford, where Merton College gave him convenient !!rooms rooms!! near the High Street. He missed Edith, but enjoyed being back in the city.[96] 95.44.14.40 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you want changed, and without a source, it's unlikely that any change will occur. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

I believe this paragraph needs to be review. It has a little additional text not related to the main text. It is a version of the Spanish page. The mistake is at the end of the third row and until the second half of the fourth (Si estás utilizando un...inténtalo de nuevo.)

"Tuve que elegir entre desobedecer y llorar (o engañar) a un guardián que había sido un padre para mí, más que la mayoría de los padres ... y "dejar" la historia de amor hasta los 21 años. No me arrepiento de mi decisión, aunque fue muy difícil para mi amante. Pero no fue mi culpa. Si estás utilizando un ordenador portátil o una tablet, intenta moverte a otra ubicación e inténtalo de nuevo. Durante casi tres años no vi ni le escribí a mi amante. Fue extremadamente difícil, especialmente al principio. Los efectos no fueron del todo buenos: volví a caer en la locura y la holgura y fallé una buena parte de mi primer año en la universidad. [43]

I hope this small note improves this site (a very important one to me).

Juan Manuel Hernández Ramos (sorry for any mistake in my English, it is not my mother tongue). 197.148.21.91 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that those words shouldn't be in that quote, but I don't see them anywhere in the English or Spanish Wikipedia articles. Can you please provide more details on where you see this? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ElHef I believe it is a Spanish translation of the second blockquote in the "Courtship and marriage" section of this (English) article, which starts I had to choose between disobeying and grieving... Seagull123 Φ 22:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Seagull123: I get that, but the part of the text the OP is objecting to Google translates to "If you are using a laptop or tablet, try moving to another location and try again", and I don't see anything like that in there anywhere. If it's somehow getting added in translation on their end then ok, but if it's actually here somewhere I'd like to find it and fix it. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@ElHef: ah yes, I see that now. This isn't in the English WP article, though, as far as I can see (nothing about computers in the quote on the article), so I don't think there's much we're able to do about it, unfortunately? Seagull123 Φ 14:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Seagull123: That's probably what it is, but just in case it's buried somewhere I'm not seeing right off that I can fix (eswiki, wikidata, simple, shortdesc, etc - I've seen things like that before) I like to ask. I'm going to go ahead and close this (since I've checked all of those plus a couple more and haven't found anything), but to the OP - if you can provide further details that would allow us to reproduce what you are seeing, please reopen this request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Citing direct quotations

Any direct quotation must be both attributed to its author and cited to a reliable source. I've accordingly restored a citation to one of Tolkien's letters. There are some limited cases such as the plot summary of a book or play where detailed citations aren't needed (though they may be useful, and tend to be demanded by reviewers), but in general anything that could be challenged needs to be cited. In a featured article like this one, all additions should be cited, in the same style as the existing citations, to maintain article quality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Heading in the wrong direction

I'm concerned this article is continuing to head in the wrong direction. When it passed FAC it was far shorter than it is now, free of long quotations, and much less full of technical material about his opinions. LongIslandThomist914 is only the last in a long line of editors who have contributed to those three trends, and adding extremely long and somewhat technical arguments in edit comments while reverting is no way to carry on a discussion. Please be aware of WP:BRD - an editor may Boldly make an edit; another may Revert it; and then Discussion, here on the talk page, is the correct follow-up if the reversion is to be challenged - reverting and writing edit comments is not acceptable (it's edit-warring). The status quo is BEFORE the Bold edit was made, i.e. it would be in order for the second revert to be undone - I shall refrain for now because understanding is required, nor more edit-warring.

The problem with the Roman Catholicism edit(s) is that they are highly technical and denominational, in a general article. There is scope for a subsidiary article on Tolkien's religious views among the 100-odd Tolkien articles in the various Tolkien templates. It is strikingly inappropriate to have a string of religious terms jammed together in a general article. Think of the audience as non-Catholic folk, indeed probably people interested in Middle-earth or Beowulf or Philology or Oxford University or Sir Gawain, all Tolkienian topics, rather than religion. What may they make of it? We have "blessed sacrament" THREE TIMES, all wikilinked, so that's a double overlink as well as repetition. We have "holy communion", "pride of place" and "honor" (not even "honour", article is in British English); we have "reforms of Pope Pius X"; we have "Second Vatican Council" (twice) and "liturgical" and "liturgy" and "responses". It's like my father's dog listening in to a conversation: "Da da da WALKIES da da da da DINNER" but here it's "La la la la CATHOLIC la la la CATHOLIC la la la MORE CATHOLIC". That's what people will get. It's not great. In an article on some specialised aspect of Roman Catholicism, it's fine; in an article on Tolkien's religion, it might be ok if explained carefully. Here, in a general biographical article it's simply out of place. I do hope this is clear.

Meanwhile, I shall continue to reduce the excessive use of direct quotations; to add citations; and to work towards reducing the overall length of the article. Maybe this will involve splitting off one or more subsidiary articles – indeed, the Views section is a candidate for that treatment so I shall consider it, but am open to discussion. On the whole I'd have said a biography should focus on actions and achievements, not views, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with this analysis of yours. /Any extended description of Tolkien's religious life and influences should take place in Christianity in Middle-earth or similar articles (maybe write a full article on Tolkien's Christianity?), but not in in this general, featured biography. LongIslandThomist914, you have been reverted multiple times by several users and still keep reinstating your elaborate versions of the text. This is not how it is supposed to work, so please refrain from adding any specific quotes or further details to this article unless you have consensus to do so. While the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria require an article to be comprehensive, i.e. "it neglects no major facts or details", intricate details like the Vatican council or some such are way over the top for a general biography of an author who did not primarily write Catholic religious literature. De728631 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think your comments about Catholicism are misplaced. Tolkien was a Catholic and his Catholic views are no more technical than anything else. "Pride of place" is not a Catholic term. The Second Vatican Council is a historical event, that many educated non-Catholics would be aware of. If not there is always a link.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap,

If I committed any actions that constitute "edit warring" then I apologize as that was not my intent; if I have suggestions then I will try to move to the talk page first. First regarding the excessive linking, if this diminishes the quality of the article then I will cease doing so and undo any remaining linking. I did this with the intent, as you mentioned, of trying to appeal to a non-Catholic readership who might not understand these terms. Rather than going into a lengthy diatribe about the technicalities of Catholic doctrine on the eucharist, I thought it would be better to link to the wikipedia articles on catholic belief about such things if readers were curious to learn more or understand the context of Tolkien's beliefs. If overlinking is an issue than by all means remove them.

However there simply is no way of avoiding using "technical and denominational" language, as it's language Tolkien himself used. I assume you object to the term "Blessed Sacrament". The revert to "Holy Communion" simply is so broad as to effectively neuter the meaning of Tolkien's letter. As I mentioned, Tolkien used this honorific in comparison to what he thought was the Protestant Reformation's degradation of the sacrament. There's simply no way around it. His views on the eucharist affected his works, in particular the Lord of the Rings (see: Lembas bread). And honestly that's why it may've been better to leave some of these direct quotations in, as it provides the direct context and would preserve the "objectivity" of the non-quotation sections of that paragraph. Also "pride of place" is not a technical, nor an exclusively Catholic term, I'm not sure where this objection is coming from. Also the sections mentioning "liturgy" and "liturgical" were not mine, and have been there for years. Building off of that later sentence, it would seem that Tolkien opposed the Second Vatican Council, which is not necessarily true. Hence why I added the previous sentence, as a clarification.

And more broadly to the question of if views should be included in a biographical article: I'm sorry but how could they not? I would not expect to go to the article on Malcom X and find nothing on the Nation of Islam (whatever I may think of those views) or go to the article on Martin Luther King Jr. and find nothing about his views deriving from his being an African-American or a Baptist Minister. (As an aside, the Martin Luther King Jr. article which is considered a "good article" by wikipedia, has a whole section on "ideas, influences, and political stances" and mentions his "Christianity" as a subsection). Ideas shape who people are and provide them with direction; and there's simply no denying Tolkien's catholicism had a profound impact on his life and was an integral part of who he was."Think of people interested in Middle-earth or Beowulf or Philology or Oxford University or Sir Gawain, all Tolkienian topics." Ok, but this isn't an article about middle earth, Beowulf, Philology or Oxford University or Sir Gawain; this is an article about Tolkien the man. If people want to read about those things then they can go to those articles, if they want to read about Tolkien the man then they can read this article. And frankly the section about his religious beliefs are only in one short, 6 sentence paragraph, hardly an overwhelming amount of information. And if people are not interested in Tolkien's views then they can simply skip that section. Consider the article on George Washington, also considered a "good article", which has two rather lengthy paragraphs on Washington's religious views. This attempt to attenuate Tolkien's views does a disservice to both Tolkien and those who are legitimately interested in learning about him.

Also I would like to cease getting nasty messages from user FlightTime accusing me of proselytizing and "disruptive preaching" ,and threatening to block me. Unfortunately, sometimes I get the impression that the objections to these edits are not rooted in trying to make this article better, but in a discomfort in their favorite author's being a Catholic.

Tolkien's works were, obviously, not written exclusively for Catholics nor Christians, nor necessarily for evangelical or apologetical reasons, but the Lord of the Rings is, as Tolkien said, "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work" [Letter 142]. That his views cannot be separated from his works seems plainly self-evident. Tolkien himself resented this: he was gravely disappointed with the appropriation of his works by the 1960s countercultural-new age movement, particularly in the United States.

I apologize again for any issues regarding citation and linking, and would always welcome correction in this regard. I also apologize for the length of this response, but this faux controversy has really become irksome.

Respectfully, --LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only should the additions from LongIslandThomist914 be rolled back, but any Tolkien quote cited only to one of his published letters should be removed. The quotes appearing in this biography should be restricted to ones that have been quoted by third-party observers, thereby establishing the importance of that quote. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds exactly right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The quotes from Tolkien's letters might be paraphrased though and then sourced to letter No. X, but they should not stick out as they do now. I would also like to note that Malcolm X and MLK were professional clerics of their respective faith, so detailing on their religious views and development is vital for writing a biography on these men. Tolkien, however, was a linguist and writer first of all, who, although thoroughly influenced by his beliefs, is not primarily known for publishing religious treatises. If and where his Catholicism needs to be focused on, it should happen in any dedicated article dealing with the origins of Middle-earth or JRRT's religious views, but not in the general biography where it is undue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs)

No, let's not try to summarize Tolkien's own words for the reader. That job is for WP:SECONDARY sources who will weigh the words and put them in context. It's the same as quoting any primary source such as the Bible: there may be different, even conflicting interpretations. If we look at third-party analysis we are at least verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Any direct interpretations that editors have made from Tolkien's letters should be removed from the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree too. By my count, there are 45 citations of his letters that are unaccompanied by secondary sources. There are several passages that rely solely on a letter, for example:

• The paragraph beginning Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and in his religious and political views he was mostly a traditionalist moderate, with distributist, localist, and monarchist leanings...
• Tolkien hated the side effects of industrialization, which he considered to be devouring the English countryside and simpler life. For most of his adult life, he was disdainful of cars, preferring to ride a bicycle.
• The lengthy section, "Politics and Race".
• One of the greatest influences on Tolkien was the Arts and Crafts polymath William Morris. Tolkien wished to imitate Morris's prose and poetry romances...

There is also a citation to the poem, "Mythopoeia", and many sentences which have no citations at all. While I think a lot of this is valuable material, letters aren't sufficient sources. An individual letter just shows what Tolkien was thinking at a particular point. And, as said above, we should be using secondary sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've got rid of over 20 of the Letters refs, and added over 20 refs to secondary sources. I've replaced several lengthy sections with "Main" links to the relevant articles, accompanied by short, summary-style text with secondary sources giving the gist of those linked articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Please start explaining your edits in your edit summaries. Some are simply incorrect. I believe one such changes is changing No. or Nos. to #. See MOS:NUMERO. 16:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

All my edits are commented. On that bit of formatting, all the others were formatted like that, so I just harmonised one to match the rest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I see that now. Sorry. Missed it because the few I looked at were abbreviations or shorthand. I cannot complain about that because I often to the same. I'll restore "No." later then, as I believe it is correct formatting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say so. On the # issue, I think it much preferable to "No." or "no", etc, as it immediately looks distinct from page numbering - clearly an item of some kind is being enumerated, and people do sometimes refer to the Letters by page number, which can be confusing. It's also much easier to search for... Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"accomplished artist"?

Was Tolkien really an "accomplished artist"? It would seem more accurate to say that he was competent within certain limits, and aware of those limits (such as human figures). From various comments scattered in "The Art of the Hobbit" (ISBN 978-0-547-92825-8), it seems very doubtful that Tolkien would have claimed to be an accomplished artist... AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy in demobilization date

At the bottom of the section titled "Home Front", the article state that Tolkien was demobilized in 1919. The opening sentence of the following section ("Academic and writing career") state he was demobilized in 1920. The citation for the second date seems solid, and I can't view the cited material for the 1919 date. I was just wondering which should be used. Mulstev (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Reworded: on the first date he was allowed off with temporary disability; on the second he was discharged from the army altogether. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tolkien's artwork

Deagol2, I'm not too sure of the reason for your edit on the Tolkien article just now, but the section is reliably sourced, and there are two major books, both cited in the section; more to the point, one of them, J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist and Illustrator (HarperCollins 1995) is actually by Hammond and Scull, whom you are now citing to say that what authors including Hammond and Scull have said of Tolkien's art is not valid. This isn't too good. If you don't mind, it would be best if we could put back the citation you deleted.

Hammond and Scull begin their book on Tolkien's art with the words:

We have long felt that Tolkien's art deserves to be as well known as his writings. The two were closely linked, and in his paintings and drawings he displayed remarkable powers of invention that rivalled his skill with words. (p. 7)

I'd be very grateful for your attention to the question so that we can find a solution satisfactory to everyone. For now, I've made a small adjustment to the start of the paragraph so that it begins neutrally "Tolkien learnt to paint and draw as a child, and continued to do so all his adult life." Actually that may be pretty much all we need to say at that point. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the citation calling Tolkien an accomplished artist becuase the statement was made by a journalist with minimal knowledge of Tolkien. The text I used is based on Hammond and Scull's opening to their entry on Tolkien's art in their Reader's Companion. It seems to me to be an accurate appraisal of his artistic ability - he was an amateur, not a professional, he was good at trees, flowers and landscape, but not so good at figures. Deagol2 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Throwing this open to a wider audience than my Talk page. It seens to me that an honest summary/appraisal of Tolkien's artwork is needed at the start of the section. Deagol2 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I already replied both on your talk page and in the article: the journalist's citation and claim was gone; I noted that the paragraph in fact already correctly used the word "amateur", once being enough; and the opening sentence was amended to a plain statement with no claims of accomplishment. The whole thing is now quite clearly neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Völsunga saga

Did he really deny influence from the Völsunga saga? It says here that it was one of the first books he bought, and he even wrote The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún. I was under the illusion that he only denied influence from Wagner.--Berig (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No evidence that he did. Probably an artefact of editing by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Tolkien/Tollkühn/Tolkynen

I venture a theory that brings both assumptions together. Namely, Tolkien's assumption that his name is derived from "tollkühn" ("foolhardy") - and the assumption that his name can be traced back to the place "Tolkynen". Namely, that the name of the place Tolkynen "namely" itself derived from the word "tollkühn", which in turn was not an all too rare name in East Prussia at the time of the "foolhardy" knighthood of the Order. Perhaps the instinct of the ingenious Tolkien was not entirely unfounded. In this video, which is about a journey to East Prussia, a grave with the name of an East Prussian woman ("Tollkühn") can be seen from minute 0.18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e2oY0grqSY

That's very kind of you, and who knows, you may even be correct. However, Wikipedia exists only to report what can be reliably cited (WP:RS) to existing sources such as scholarly journals which have been independently reviewed. Anything else is here called "original research" (WP:OR) and we are forbidden to use it. Of course, if you get your work published in such a scholarly journal, we can cite it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Without claim to use it your article, followed only a "spontaneous inspiration". My conclusion received same answer on German discussion page. Have asked via name of Youtube channel in UK to participate in questioning. Media just reported, Amazon Studios plans new LOTR TV series, with $465 million for first season alone ever most expensive. Best regards

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Hi, I'm a graphic artists that specializes in photo restoration and coloring. I'm new to wikipedia, but have taken the time to color the main picture used on J. R. R. Tolkiens Wikipedia page. I'm not familiar with how this works but I uploaded it with the name of "Tolkien-color.png" It can be seen on Wikimedia. Thank you and glad to help TuckerFTW (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Note: It should be located at File:Tolkien-color.png ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly of interest. I'm not sure we should use it at the head of the Tolkien article without a clear mandate to change the historic monochrome photograph, but it's certainly appropriate that it's noted here and on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Caedmon Records

Why did you revert my edit of J.R.R. Tolkien when he recorded at least five albums for the spoken-word label Caedmon Records during the 1970s? If you need evidence, you can look at Discogs. Peace. ——MuzikJunky (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CATV, categories must be supported by text in the article and a citation to a reliable secondary source. There is no mention of Caedmon Records in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact is worth citing in the text, and once that's done, it will be fine to add the category also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, MuzikJunky, we need citations in 6 other articles for this category. Elizium23 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The detail is encyclopedic, but agree it must be mentioned in prose and supported with a reliable source. At the very least, https://www.discogs.com/artist/433425-JRR-Tolkien would suffice, but the prose should really discuss the recordings and discogs.com cannot be used to that end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tolkien's making of recordings is narrated in Sayer, George (1996) "Recollections of J.R.R. Tolkien," Mythlore: Vol. 21 : No. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol21/iss2/6. Sayer seems to have published the same thing in Mallorn and The Chesterton Review. Tolkien recorded "The Homecoming of Beorthnoth", as discussed in "Testing the Whole Thing on Tape" : A Preliminary Insight into the Performative Dimensions of the J.R.R. Tolkien's Own Recording of the Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhtelm's Son by Lukasz Neubauer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Bournemouth is not in Hampshire, Hampshire should be Dorset 92.40.188.12 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It was in Hampshire until 1974, i.e. after Tolkien's death. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Tolkien was not definitively an anti-fascist

I've removed the category Category:English anti-fascists from this page. Whilst Tolkien, similar to the overwhelming majority of British people at that time, held anti-Nazi opinions, we should not categorise people simply by their opinions. Moreover these opinions were not definitive of who Tolkien was. This page is definitely a victim of over-categorisation and this is just one example (I think the category "English anti-communists" can be deleted for the same reasons and will do so). Probably the category is appropriate for people who were e.g., leading members of the Anti-Fascist League and so-forth, but giving this category to people who simply (as all sensible people do) dislike fascism means over-use of this category. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the "definitively" may have special connotations, and the whole category system leaves much to be desired (can everyone and everything be shoehorned into little boxes, of course not), but Tolkien did not just hold an opinion; he actively spoke out against fascism, and further he spoke out against over-zealous British newspapers that held excessively violent opinions about Germans, even in wartime: so he was actively anti-extremist also. Of course if you're deleting the category then that's another matter, good luck with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap - Thanks for the reply. I think the category probably needs looking at but I doubt it should be deleted because categorising people who were activists (i.e., not simply people who had opinions, but people who were e.g., members of specific organisations) is allowed under the rules. The problem is it has been applied in a blanket manner: was Jack Charlton really, definitively, an anti-fascist? Yet he was in this category. This is when it clearly is just being used as an WP:OPINIONCAT, and that's the case here with Tolkien as well - Tolkien said some admirable things against Nazism, but that's it. FOARP (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Under Biography -> Second World War

Regarding the line:

"He served as an external examiner for University College, Dublin, for many years.[73]"

The referenced source (73) mentions UCG (University College Galway) which is now called NUIG (National University of Ireland, Galway) as apposed to UCD. Recommend it be changed to "He served as an external examiner for NUI Galway, for many years." or "He served as an external examiner for University College Galway (now NUIG), for many years."

The line: "In 1954 Tolkien received an honorary degree from the National University of Ireland (of which U.C.D. was a constituent college).[74]" may then need to be changed to accommodate the modification of the subject of the sentence. 134.226.214.252 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP is certainly correct, per the source given as in many other places. I've fixed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And I've changed the honorary-degree sentence that the IP also brought up. Deor (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)