Talk:Northern courage in Middle-earth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability? Original research?

How does this article not fail WP:GNG and WP:OR? Which indepdent, reliable sources discuss this topic in depth? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

What a strange question to ask of a fully-sourced article. The reliable sources listed in the article which discuss the topic in detail include major scholars such as Tom Shippey and Elizabeth Solopova, both of whom are professional medievalists as well as Tolkien scholars. Tolkien himself made the connection between his writing and the Northern vision of courage; Mary Bowman writes of "the indomitability that Tolkien saw as the defining quality of northern courage", so we have it "from the horse's mouth" as well as in the best scholarship. Actually we have far from exhausted the scholarly mentions of Northern courage as these continue to appear; for instance, Richard Gallant's recent paper in Journal of Tolkien Research addresses the topic in detail in the context of the Elves, an aspect not considered by other scholars, so I might add that to the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I'd strongly encourage to quote Bowman's directly in the article, it would help to surpress doubts about this that othersm ight express. I wrote my question before I noticed you are the major contributor here; I know you are well versed in our policies - but the article needs to make it clear that this topic is not original research by a Wikipedia volunteer (particularly if we want to pass it as a Good Article). Ps. Should Northern courage redirect here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and quoted, though I remain mystified by the doubts. On the redirect, I think it'll do for now; if someone later decides to work it up in a purely historical/mythological context then that'll be fine too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of my doubts are related to the lack of definition of the concept of northen courage. What would be the southern courage? Why not title this article as just courage in Middle-earth and note that Tolkien's concept of courage was influence by the Norse? Why isn't the Norse courage used instead? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Because Tolkien himself used the exact phrase (I've added a quotation including this); and I don't know of anybody writing about "southern courage" in Middle-earth or elsewhere. As for "Norse courage" (Dutch courage with mead rather than beer?), two things: the phrase is never used; and Tolkien emphasised Northern, because (Monsters and Critics page 21) he wanted to unify the "fundamentally similar heroic temper of ancient England and Scandinavia", as part of his desire to create a "mythology for England". I was wondering whether to include that quotation, and I fancy you've convinced me to go ahead with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. If in doubt, expand and clarify - that's always a good rule of thumb. Thanks for writing about such interesting topics! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Monsters and Critics is about Beowulf, not Middle-earth. And it was written before Tolkien started writing The Lord of the Rings and almost two decades before The Lord of the Rings was published. The lecture makes zero reference to Tolkien’s legendarium. Also, Tolkien abandoned the idea of his legendarium being “a mythology for England” when he developed from The Book of Lost Tales to the Sketch of the Mythology in the 1920s over a decade before the Lecture was given and written down and about 30 years before The Lord of the Rings was published. It’s seems like your chronology of Tolkien’s writing is all over the place. Maybe a better title for this article would be “Northern courage and Tolkien”. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear anon. Just a passing remark. Have you considered creating an account? It makes many things, including discussion (notification of replies, etc.) much easier for everyone involved. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand the point of this article

Tolkien explicitly says in Letter 294 that it’s incorrect to characterize his work as “northern” and it is a glaring omission for this particular article to ignore this. This article seems to be written by someone who’s entire knowledge of Germanic mythology comes from the God of War video games and then selectively cherry picked quotes from Tolkien scholars to form a thesis.

I would recommend this article for deletion on this basis if I knew how to. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. The phrase "Northern courage" is Tolkien's own, and he gave it considerable prominence, as the quotation in the article illustrates. Tolkien made many semi-contradictory statements in his letters and essays, sometimes demonstrably disingenuous. Here, the scholars themselves wrote detailed papers on the subject; and it is certain that Norse influence is important in Tolkien's writings - along with much else. But you seem to have misprised both this article and Tolkien's letter. In reply to the journalists Charlotte and Denis Plimmer of The Daily Telegraph, who had written Middle-earth .... corresponds spiritually to Nordic Europe, Tolkien replied "Not Nordic, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories. Geographically Northern is usually better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to 'Middle-earth'." He goes on to deny W. H. Auden's assertion that for him 'the North is a sacred direction', saying that instead "The North-west of Europe ... has my affection". In other words, England was the place he loved. That does not mean he did not use materials from other places - of course he did. Not least, there was practically nothing of English mythology that had survived from the Middle Ages, barring a few hints in Beowulf. Accordingly, he made free use of Norse mythology, including what he called "Northern courage" for Middle-earth; and he took care to blend this with such English or "British" elements (by which he mainly meant Welsh, i.e. of Britain before the English arrived) as he could find. Thus, Beorn is a careful mixture of Norse, English, and British ingredients. Now to go back to "characterize his work as 'northern'": well, yes, it's not purely northern, but then it's not purely anything. As to the "northern" in Middle-earth, there is overwhelming evidence for its importance; and on the aspect of northernness covered here, "Northern courage", there is ample evidence cited in the article, both from Tolkien himself and from scholars, that this was a key element of Tolkien's thinking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien use of the phrase “Northern courage” is in reference to Beowulf and not his legendarium. Tolkien is very clear that in Letter 294 that it is incorrect to characterize his legendarium as “northern”. The quotes in this article are cherry picked to further the thesis of the article, which directly contradicts Tolkien’s own words and are clearly pushing a POV. This is a Wikipedia article, not a high school English essay. I whole heartedly believe this article should be deleted. And literally every single edit on this page was made by you and you even bizarrely nominated this article for Good status despite this. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the article is based entirely on reliable scholarship, indeed on the work of some of the most respected in the field. There is no editorial in the article. It is normal for editors to study the literature in a specialised field and to write an article based on it; a large fraction af all Good Articles are prepared in this way, as knowledge is required to obtain good coverage. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If that’s true then why so no mention of Letter 294? Why is there such a heavy emphasis on Norse mythology which wasn’t as big of influence on Tolkien as people often like to claim? Why are there large sections about Ragnarok, a subject which Tolkien never talks about in any of his writings?

This article reads like a high school English paper which is trying to push a thesis.

I highly recommend that this article either be overhauled so not to give the false impression that Tolkien’s legendarium is based in Norse mythology or the false impression that Tolkien thought of his legendarium as “northern”, even though his own words contradict this. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, I'll reply as soon as I can, but you already know you do not have my agreement for any large changes or disruptive edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We don’t need your agreement to make changes. You don’t own this article. I would try to fix all of the factual errors and non sequiters in this article, but you’ll probably just revert my edits anyway. It’s sad that people feel the need to lie about Tolkien views to push a POV. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I find it incredibly odd that you try to claim Tolkien’s own letters cannot be used as they are WP:PRIMARY, and then try to rely on a letter to debunk the article. Despite the letter doing nothing of the sort. The article is well sourced to notable scholars and will (once a few minor issues are sorted out with the bad references) reach Good Article state. What we do not need is bad faith attacks on contributors of good standing to push a certain pov. If you don’t understand the point of this article, that’s fine: there are plenty of others that you can work on. What you cannot do is misrepresent what this article says in an effort to expunge something you do not personally agree with. Shippey et al are authoritative on this topic - and this article relies on them, not Chiswick’s opinion. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

When did I make the claim that Tolkien’s letters can’t be used? Why are the questions to the Monsters and Critics lecture allowed, but no mention of his letter? The article literally makes the claim that Tolkien was a “nordicist”, even though he directly rebutted this multiple times. Shippey is one voice, why not discuss what other Tolkien scholars have had to say on the matter? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The article makes no such claim at all. Please do not lie. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Letter 294 and General Notability issues

I’ve added at the very least the text of Letter 294, which directly rebuts the thesis of this article. I have also removed the entire passage about Ragnarok as it doesn’t not mention Tolkien or “northern courage” at all and I don’t see its relevance to the article. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the thread above, I will get to this as soon as I can, I have been out today (we are all volunteers here). Please do not continue trying to edit the article until agreement has been reached, as the drastic editing you have attempted depends on your specific point of view, which is not that of Tolkien scholarship, or indeed of this WikiProject. I'll reply in detail as soon as I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've more or less landed, so here goes.

1) Tolkien's letters are considered Primary Sources by Wikipedia (and indeed by Tolkien scholars). As such, they cannot "rebut" any thesis as they embody Tolkien's own thought, which is always complex and often to be taken with a large pinch of salt - notably, he said he despised allegory in all its forms and manifestations in his Lord of the Rings foreword, which is odd as his essays make free use of it.

2) We as editors are not allowed to make our own inferences from materials such as Tolkien's letters. This is called Original Research and is strictly forbidden. Thus, you may not take a sentence in a letter or essay, assume it disproves something, and edit an article as if you had demonstrated a falsehood: that sort of reasoning is described as "editorial", which is always unacceptable.

It took me like 5 seconds to find multiple articles discussing why it is inappropriate and incorrect to characterize Tolkien’s work as “nordic” or “northern”, both of which this article attempts to do. Tolkien straight up, clearly (and I think eloquently) that his work is neither “nordic”, nor “northern”. Now do you actually think that that doesn’t even warrant a mention in this article? And that’s on top of entire paragraphs of the article not even mentioning Tolkien like the first paragraph about Ragnarok. There isn’t a source anywhere in the article saying about about Tolkien ever even mentioning Ragnarok in his writings. And also, the giant Polish horn in the room at the top of the article is just so completely out of place, I don’t even know where to begin.

71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This article does not claim that Tolkien's work is "nordic" with the racism that that term implies. (By the way, most blogs, forums, chatrooms, and discussion groups are not reliable sources as anyone can edit them; the Tolkien Society blog you've cited here is at best marginally usable as a source because the author, Martinez, is known as an author on Tolkien though he's not a scholar. But the blog is about a different point that does not concern this article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

3) Therefore, articles are constructed using Reliable Secondary Sources, which means scholarly analysis, comments by art critics, news reports and so on. This is the normal way that Wikipedia builds articles as such sources are the only things we can rely on.

4) I have already discussed Tolkien's Letter 294 with you, and agree it is a relevant Primary Source. As such it is not the be-all-and-end-all you seem to imagine; instead, it is one of many inputs from Tolkien's own writings that may be relevant, but whose meaning is not for editors to decide. As to what it may actually mean, we are required to rely on the available Secondary Sources for that, which is why the article is based mainly on those. I actually agree with you that we should mention Letter 294, and as soon as I have a moment - you catch me at a busy time - I will add some material on it, similar to our earlier discussion. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This article relies on on two or three sources which actually discuss Tolkien, while ignoring reliable sources, such as the one from the Tolkien Society which I have shared. The connection to Ragnarök is not discussed in any of the sources you have put into the article.

if you agree that Letter 294 is relevant to the topic of this article then why do keep removing any mention of it? Why do you get to add it, but not me? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Letter 294 is an important source, and should be a part of this article. The weighting in this article should reflect that, as said it is 'one of many inputs', so while important it shouldn't be given any priority over others, but be a part of the conversation.Halbared (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We'll add it soonest. Sorry, being called away now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I already added it before and you removed it. This whole exercise of resistance from you is becoming nauseating. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll ignore this repeated personal attack, but do note that any admin who sees this could immediately block you for that sort of behaviour. I stated already in this thread that I agreed with you on Letter 294. I stated (several times) that I was busy yesterday, and would get to it soon, which I have done. The required editing involved multiple scholarly sources as well as Tolkien's Letters, and took a bit of time to do as I knew it would. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may also be helpful for readers to add that Tolkien viewed “the north” as “the seat of the devil” as he says in letter 294. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Angband was up there until Beleriand was destroyed at the end of the First Age, but that doesn't affect the account in the article which rightly says that Tolkien's affections were in Northwestern Europe, which we might take as equivalent to The Shire at the end of the Third Age, some thousands of years later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The ruins of Utumno remained in the north of Middle-earth through the end of the Third Age. The north didn’t stop being the seat of the devil after the ruin of Belariand.

if you read the whole quote you’ll read that Tolkien said of the north-west of Europe: “it is not 'sacred', nor does it exhaust my affections.” Omitting this part of the quote is POV pushing.

I mean by this logic, the article should be called “North-western courage” and not “Northern courage”. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien, as cited, and multiple scholars cited in the article, have used the exact phrase "Northern courage". No scholar has ever used the phrase "North-western courage". Please stop the battlegrounding, it is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien’s only use of the phrase “northern courage” in his lecture about Beowulf. None of the sources given in the article give any instance of Tolkien using the phrase in connection with his legendarium. Please stop mis-characterizing Tolkien’s worldview. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, nobody (scholar or editor) imagines Tolkien applied it to his legendarium. The point, as I've said repeatedly, is that multiple Tolkien scholars have taken his mention of "Northern courage" and applied it to his Middle-earth writings. If I or any other editor had done this on their own, that would have been original research: but we didn't. Instead, the article correctly and properly attributes and cites the scholars who did make that connection; the fact that several of them did is significant --- not least, it establishes the topic's Notability. It does rather look as if you have a low opinion of scholarship, thinking that Tolkien's writings take priority or indeed have some sort of untouchable status, while any scholarly opinion is merely a bit of a fluffy appendage to the real thing. If that is the case, please be aware that while Tolkien is a Primary source, he can only be relied upon as evidence of a) what his Middle-earth writings actually state, and b) what he wrote about his own opinions, such as describing what he intended by something; no amount of Tolkien contributes anything to Notability in any Tolkien article (because it's primary). On (a) of course he can't be contradicted; on (b), scholars are completely free to analyse his views, trace their sources, identify any self-contradictions, suggest that his Middle-earth writings only partially did what he said he was intending, and so on and so forth. Such scholarly opinions, if reliably-published, are the main sources we have to rely on for any article of this kind. Where multiple scholars concur that "Northern courage" is significant in Middle-earth, we are obliged to accept that. If another established scholar disagrees, we can use that too. If a chatroom, forum, or fansite thinks otherwise, it's no concern of ours here as those things aren't reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Sfn errors

There are a lot of multiple target errors in the refs. (t · c) buidhe 16:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe: Many thanks, have reverted to last good version following IP editing. We need to discuss the article's direction, please see thread above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You don’t own this article. You do know that, don’t you? Your POV pushing with this article is not only sad, but it’s insulting to Tolkien and what he actually thought and believed. I high encourage you to actually read what Tolkien himself said and wrote, it may help you understand why this article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't own any article; you do not own the right to attack any editor, see the policy WP:NPA. Sanctions are available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not attacking anyone. I’m pointing out why this article makes no sense. I’m sorry if my critiques and suggestions hurt your feelings. But it’s important that Wikipedia reflect reality as much as possible and not people’s own POVs. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect, still missing the point entirely. The point is that if I or any other editor had invented the story about "Northern courage", it would rightly be described as an "essay" and deleted as WP:OR. But none of us did: the story is told entirely by scholars, including some like Tom Shippey the most experienced and respected in the business. That makes it a reliably-cited encyclopedia article, summarizing high-quality Tolkien research. I do hope this is clear, as the point is fundamental to the whole way Wikipedia works. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on this talk page I’m not the only one with concerns about Original Research. Tom Shippey doesn’t discuss Poland or Ragnarok. Why is there no mention of Tolkien scholars who disagree with Shippey’s apparaisal? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Shippey is such an experienced scholar, and shares so much of Tolkien's background (being a philologist and medievalist, among other things) that few scholars have dared to contradict him, specially when he adduces such a rich array of evidence for everything he says. Instead, other scholars fill in small gaps here and there, or emphasise themes that Shippey has briefly mentioned. There really isn't any substantial school that thinks Norse mythology inapplicable to Middle-earth. I've mentioned in yet another thread that I've added some scholarship about Ragnarök. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Polish horn photo

Why is there a photo of a polish horn at the top the page which has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the article? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Its Polishness I admit I hadn't even noticed; nor would I have considered it in any way important which European country it might have been from. Any traditional horn that would fit the "great horns of the North wildly blowing" (i.e., the heroic horns of Rohan) would do equally well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Man, so you just saw a random horn that has no connection to Tolkien whatsoever and you thought to yourself “that’ll be perfect, I’ll put it right at the top of the article so it’ll be the first you see when you open the article”. Poland isn’t a “northern” country, nor does it have a discernible connection to Tolkien whatsoever. Why not use an image of one of Tolkien’s illustrations or at least a fan depiction of a horn of Rohan? Right now the photo seems to be implying that the Polish horn looks like the horns in Tolkien’s writing. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Calmness and civility, please. We can certainly tweak the caption and possibly find another image, but actually the horn is very much the right kind here, and I doubt we'll find a better one. But there is no hurry for that, we can look and discuss "in slow time". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha. File:Hunting horn of Sigismund III of Poland.jpg. Ideally we would use a Tolkien-related image, but IP is an issue. How about this. Can we find a copyrighted Tolkien-related horn image, then we can see if this or another free image looks "similar" enough to say that "horns similar to this were used in the setting"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien doesn’t describe what the horns look like, so what what would be the standard to determine if they look “similar” enough or not? Why does there need to be a photo of a horn at all? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We can but try. The goal is not to use a specific image but to illustrate the "great horns of the north wildly blowing". Maybe we can find something that stirs fewer feathers. I have to admit that any large well-made Aurochs horn adapted for blowing would suit the article just fine; I don't really understand why anybody should mind which country the example comes from, but it would obviously be nice to have a specifically "northern" example. You are right that a non-free film prop would be fine, at least that would be Jackson's idea of what the thing should be like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is no verifiable connection between the image and the article subject, I agree with the IP that it should not be used. How is this particular horn artifact connected to middle earth? (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

As above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph about Ragnarök

The paragraph about Ragnarok doesn’t mention Tolkien at all, nor do any of the sources referenced in the article connect Tolkien to Ragnarok. What is the justification for including this information? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The section is titled context, and it brings context to the discussion further into the article. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

But Ragnarok has nothing to do with Tolkien’s legendarium. I don’t understand the connection and that there are no sources which even attempt to make the connection in the article right now. This whole Ragnarok section reeks of Original Research. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

To the person who keeps re-adding the “Spirit of Ragnarok” sub heading. Why? There is mention of Ragnarok except in an uncited part of the lede. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reworked the paragraph, adding citations and quotations from two scholars, discussing the direct connection between Tolkien's Middle-earth and Ragnarök. I had formatted the material as background, as could be seen by the impartial reader from the fact that it was in the "Context" section; to make the connections more explicit, I've introduced the material directly where it is used to illuminate Tolkien's method in the main part of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Couldn’t we include a mention of Letter 131 were Tolkien says something like his Last Battle is kinda of like Ragnarok, but says “though it is not much like it”? It seems like quite a reach to associate Tolkien’s legendarium (especially The Lord of the Rings) with Ragnarok. Why not mention the Book of Revelations, which a is much larger influence on Tolkien’s vision of the end days? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read my reply in the 'Letter 294...' thread. We are not making "quite a reach", we are citing major Tolkien scholars. "Couldn't we include...?" --- We are permitted to cite Tolkien AS WELL, but as a WP:PRIMARY source, he does not take precedence over scholarship. (Footnote: The link with Ragnarök is already reliably established; as you say, Tolkien even acknowledges it, and whether he says it's not much like it is not particularly important: he's right of course, as his account of the battles in LOTR does not read much like a Norse myth: but this article doesn't begin to assert that his writing should do that, it's just about Northern courage and that's all.) It really would help enormously if you conducted your discussions with knowledge of WP:V and WP:RS, as everything on Wikipedia depends on those policies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Original Research in “ Northern courage "even in our own times"” section

It appears as if the heavy use use of primary sources in this section violate WP:PRIMARY. The quotes don’t even related to the topic of the article so I’m confused why they were included in the first place. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. However, this section does not just report on Tolkien's views on this aspect, but states the opinion of two major scholars, Elizabeth Solopova and Tom Shippey, so it's certainly reliably sourced and sufficiently secondary. Even if they were not present, this would still not be "original research" as it would be citing Tolkien directly; but happily we're not in that boat either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not add references and content from John Garth and Dimitra Fimi and Christopher Tolkien? All of them either openly disagree with Shippey’s assessment about the “northern-ness” of Tolkien’s legendarium or at the very least down overplay unlike Shippey what does. It’s just not a great look to included only voices which further the thesis of the article while intentionally not adding voices which rebut it. 71.114.123.162 (talk), 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That is once again an unacceptable and totally unjustifiable personal attack: you are sailing very close to the wind here. On the matter in hand, I've read plenty of all three of them, and I don't see anything there that contradicts what's said in the article. There is absolutely no intention to avoid opposing voices. I think you'll find their discussions have rather a different focus, rebutting accusations of prejudice in favour of Nordicism, or in favour of "the North" for instance, which have nothing to do with "Northern courage". If you have any citations which actually speak specifically against the presence of "Northern courage" in Middle-earth, I'll be delighted to include them. Tolkien was, I repeat, nothing if not nuanced, and his Middle-earth is a complex blend of Celtic and Norse, Elf and Dwarf, so as to construct something different from either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien’s primary influences were Victorian fairy stories (especially Lang), Catholicism and euphemized Christian literature from the Middle Ages. A big problem with this article is that it gives the false impression that Norse mythology was Tolkien’s primary influence and that he thusly subscribed to a “northern” or “nordic”” world view. Tolkien talks about regretting calling the Quendi “elves” in his letters and the primary work featuring dwarves, The Hobbit, was not even originally part of his legendarium. Up til the 1940s when Tolkien decided to integrate The Hobbit into his legendarium, the main dwarf character was Mîm the petty dwarf who owes his existence much more to Uralic mythology than to Norse or Celtic mythology. I worry that people read words like “elves” and “dwarves” and then immediately make the connection to Norse mythology because the only mythology they know about with elves and dwarves is Norse mythology. Tolkien’s influences were much wide than this article is currently implying. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien had many influences. This article is about one of them, that's all. We can certainly say so in the article, it's not controversial. Any large subject is handled on Wikipedia by a top-level article (here, J. R. R. Tolkien) and many subsidiary articles like this one; indeed there is a fully-formed hierarchy, via Middle-earth and The Lord of the Rings and J. R. R. Tolkien's influences and so on, all the way down to this lowly article. The subsidiary articles are not required to repeat all the higher-level stuff - that would be impossibly repetitive, and of course it would be totally wrong and inappropriate to try. Few (ahem) new readers will arrive straight here without some contact with the higher-level articles first, and any who do will encounter links in the lead section and again in the Context section to several of those articles, each of which provides broader context. So in short, no, we must not try to say everything again here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

WP:30 perhaps? And/or request for feedback from Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth? I'd like to help but the issue seems pretty complicated, and I have to say my familiarity with Tolkien is limited (and my time to delve into this right now is sparse as well). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, yes. Actually Halbared has offered his WP:3O above. I'll action it today or tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Mythology For England?

I don’t understand why the article is trying to claim or at least heavily implying that The Lord of the Rings was written by Tolkien as “a mythology for England”. In reality, as is widely accepted by Tolkien scholars and discussed in depth in the first three volumes of HoME, Tolkien abandoned this idea of his legendarium being “a mythology for England” in the 1920s. My worry is that this misconception of Tolkien writing The Lord of the Rings as “a mythology for England” is often used by white supremacists to try and co-opt Tolkien’s work for their own purposes. It would best to clarify that the only work Tolkien ever created as “a mythology for England” was the Book of Lost Tales and that he soon abandoned this concept in the 1920s and his tastes changed. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, this sentence: “She states that Tolkien certainly "saw England as rightfully part of this North".” is uncited and unsupported. Letter 294 also seems to pretty clearly rebut this statement. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, it's the same source. I've repeated the page ref for you, but I'm finding your attitude disputatious and uncollegiate; Wikipedia calls it "battleground" mentality. The objective is to collaborate to write a good Encyclopedia, not to win battles: it may be different on other platforms, but that's how it is here. If you don't like it, please air your views elsewhere. Same goes for your multiple threads below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The quote contradicts Tolkien’s own words though and is this either POV pushing or written by someone who hasn’t actually read what Tolkien himself wrote. The whole concept of this article as treating Tolkien’s legendarium as “northern” runs counter to Tolkien’s actual worldview, which we know about from his own words. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And this sentence “The medievalist Marjorie Burns writes that the theme of courageous action in the face of inevitable loss in The Lord of the Rings is borrowed from the Nordic world view which emphasises "imminent or threatening destruction".” directly contradicts Tolkien’s own words about his extreme dislike of the word “nordic” as he states in letter 294. Tolkien 1000000% was not borrowing from the “Nordic world view” of the Nazis and other white supremacists. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, not at all. Burns would totally reject the suggestion she was implying Tolkien borrowed anything from modern "nordic" racism. She is a medievalist, and her scholarly books and papers concern Old Norse mythology from the Middle Ages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

White supremacist beliefs are unfortunately common in scholarship of Old English and medieval England. Tolkien directly states that his work isn’t “nordic” and directly cites its association with white supremacy as the reason for this. The Burns quote may give the false impression that Tolkien himself saw his work as “nordic”. And anyway, the word “nordic” didn’t even come into use to refer to Scandinavia until the 1960s. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly say "Old Norse" here as it's clearer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien’s “Southern” influences

I think it may add to the article as a counterpoint to discuss Tolkien’s “southern” influences including The Ring of Gygax, neo-Platonism, Catholic mythology, Greco-Roman mythology and the Romance languages of southern Europe? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be a splendid idea if the article was about "Northern influences on ...", but it isn't. It's about "Northern courage", and the things you mention are basically all out of the article's scope. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

based on medieval languages including Old English, Old Norse, and Old High German

I am confused by this sentence. None of Tolkiens conlangs are based on either of these three languages. Quenya is based on Finnish, Spanish and Latin, Sindarin is based on Welsh and Adunaic is based on Hebrew and Arabic. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed it as not germane to the context here. Tolkien was powerfully influenced by those languages, but there is no suggestion that he directly based his languages on those (except for Rohan, where he has the Riders actually speak in West Mercian Old English: but that's not a constructed language). The derivations of his languages are highly indirect; but they do not concern this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Rohirrim speak the Rohirric language, which is an archaic version of Westron. As Westron itself is translated by Tolkien into modern English, he chose Old English as the language to translate the Rohirric language into. Why not mention this instead of just having this blatant falsehood remain in the article? Literally none of Tolkien’s conlangs are derived from the three languages you’ve listed. what you have in the article here is very bizarre. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, the article DOES NOT SUGGEST that these are the basis of any constructed language; nor is the matter anything to do with this article. What's more, the phrase in question was removed a long while back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The protagonists are advised by the Wizard

I don’t understand this sentence from the lede. Which protagonists are being referred to? Gandalf plays a very minor role in the central work of Tolkien’s legendarium, The Silmarillion and isn’t even mentioned by this name in that work. Gandalf does feature heavily in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but is missing almost completely from all of Tolkien’s other legendarium works. It would be very helpful to readers to clarify which protagonists. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those two books, added to the lead text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Among Elves: Fëanor versus Galadriel

In this section it would be helpful for readers to know that the elves of Tolkien’s legendarium viewed the north as evil and that for them the west was the sacred direction. I’m also a little confused why Celtic mythology is assigned the label of “northern” as for them the west was the sacred direction and not the north. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. This article is, for the Nth time in the nth thread, only about "Northern courage". Its job is to cover that one subject and nothing else. It provides the bare minimum of context to make that subject intelligible. The Elves' opinions about the north and the Celts' about the west, any sort of "sacred direction" to anybody, have nothing at all to do with "Northern courage". In fact the article is nothing to do with anything sacred whatsoever. As for the "two Norths", that is a scholarly opinion, and it's explained and cited in the article. It isn't our job to reason why (WP:NOTFORUM) but I guess Ireland/Wales and Scandinavia are sufficiently in the north of Europe for scholars to use the word: it doesn't matter, that's just what they said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien was a Modernist author

Can a reason be given for why the sourced material in the lede showing that Tolkien is a modernist author is being removed? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it’s utter bollocks. Modernism and modern authoring are not synonyms. Stop being so disruptive. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s literally not though. Lol. The topic of Tolkien being a modernist author has wide coverage in Tolkien scholarship as is clearly demonstrated by the sources. I never once said that modernism and “modern authoring” were the same thing. What do you think modernism is? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The article about Tolkien doesn’t mention the word, except in one “further reading” item. It’s not his primary persona. Nick Levine (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources I previously added, but which have now been removed, discuss Tolkien as a modernist author. It’s kinda of weird exercise in gaslighting to say that Tolkien wasn’t a modernist. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting sources again, one says he was like a modernist writer, and one has been dismissed by scholars for lacking depth and deliberately ignoring facets of the work. You are pushing a fringe view and being deliberately disruptive. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if that was true, which is it not. It took me like 5 seconds on Google Scholar to find like 10 other scholarly secondary sources discussing how Tolkien is a modernist. Which one of the scholars “has been dismissed by scholars for lacking depth and deliberately ignoring facets of the work”? I am pushing a view which is supported by reliable sources. I’m sorry that Tolkien was a modernist and that you don’t like this fact, but he clearly was (based on the available information from reliable secondary sources). 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet you rely on two sources, one that doesn’t call him a modernist and one that has been heavily criticised. We already have an article at Tolkien and the modernists that goes in depth. Stop POV pushing and misrepresenting sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please quit battlegrounding, it's not helpful to anybody, least of all yourself. Tolkien wasn't a modernist, but even if he had been, it would have nothing to do with this article. Anna Vaninskaya in the Wiley-Blackwell Companion to JRR Tolkien, for instance, says he was a modern writer but not a modernist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien was a modernist, as the sources clearly demonstrate. This article is pushing the POV that Tolkien complete and utterly rejected the modern world in favor of bigoted views on “northern courage” which racists in the 20th century have co-opted to push the false conception of Tolkien as an anti-modernist, pan-European. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I have given a total of 10 sources. Which one has been heavily criticized? Heavily criticized by whom? 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Not one of your sources calls Tolkien a modernist. Discussing how Tolkien's work compares and contrasts does not mean they are claiming he is a modernist. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do. One of them is even entitled: “Tolkien the modernist: a glimpse of a unique creative process”. Are you even looking at my sources or are you just rejecting them outright because you personally don’t agree with them?

Also, I would like to very much know which one my sources has been heavily criticized and whom it was criticized by. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

you mean [[1]], which isn’t a scholarly source but a blog post? GimliDotNet (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a reliable secondary source. According to Wikipedia, that’s all that matters. I’m sorry that you don’t like that Tolkien was a modernist, but he factually was regardless of whether it is mentioned in this article or not.

Please tell which of the sources I have shared has been heavily criticized and by whom it was criticized by. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No. It’s not WP:RS. It’s a blog. Not discussing this any further with you, you’ve already been pointed at the article that covers Tolkien and modernity. It doesn’t belong in this article. It’s quite clear you are not here to edit constructively. Until you do, I am not going to bother interacting with you. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s quite clear that you are just immediately disqualifying any sources which you personally disagree with. Tolkien modernism is 100% relevant to the discussion of the article.

Also, please just tell me which of the source I have shared was heavily criticized and by whom it was criticized by. It is difficult to have a conversation without knowing which source you are talking about. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop, this is simply unhelpful. Tolkien's status as a modern but not a modernist is nothing to do with this article (WP:NOTFORUM), so let's just get on with something more useful, please. All that's needed here is for readers to know that he was not just a fantasy author (they know that bit) but also a medievalist, as that is relevant to the "Northern courage" theme. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Title Change to “Northern courage and Tolkien” or “Northern courage in Beowulf and Tolkien”

Maybe a better and less controversial title for this article could be “Northern courage and Tolkien” or “Northern courage in Beowulf and Tolkien” as much of the article as it stands now is not about Middle-earth or even the Legendarium at large, but is about Tolkien’s writings about Beowulf. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the focus of the article is Middle-earth. The context on Tolkien as a medievalist is provided purely to make the main body of the article comprehensible to newcomers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)