Talk:The Hobbit/Archive 2

"Children's fantasy" and genre
Again it looks like the article is subject to an edit-war on first line identifying the work as a children's book. The identifcation as "Children's book" is properly cited in the "Genre" section, and is also evident from the awards it's been nominated for - all being children's book prizes. A case that the Hobbit has been viewed as a straight 'Fantasy novel' has to be cited as well, and would be a very useful addition to the Genre section. Once a precendent is found, the first line can be reviewed. --Davémon (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try and look in my books this week. I have a few books that might be helpful if you have any requests for sections to be worked on, unless you have access to the books already. Let me know, as it would be good to bring this article up to scratch (unless LotR reaches FAR first...). Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carcharoth. I've updated the To-Do list based on the feedback from the FA. Addressing anything on there would be good (and adding anything missing). The genre issue has been raised by several editors and is a cause of needless edit-waring over the first line, so in my opinion that's a priority, and I've exhausted my available sources on the matter. --Davémon (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a request for comment would be useful here. Also, I note terms such as "war" as used, as well as demeaning language in the edit summary. This is unfortunate. Hopefully some dispassionate perspectives will be helpful. --Malecasta (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An RFC may have interesting results, but really the first step is to engage in discussion on the cause of the disagreement. The status of "The Hobbit" as a childrens' book is well cited in the article, by both analytical and popular sources. The status of The Hobbit as a "grown-up" Fantasy novel (like "The Iron Dream" or "Conan"), or a "crossover" novel (like "Harry Potter" or "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime") isn't supported (yet). I think everyone would welcome the addition of supporting material to the article.--Davémon (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is classifying the Hobbit as primarily a "children's fantasy" appropriate?
See previous talk section, as well as edit history page. --Malecasta (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: Whether or not it's a children's fantasy is the jurisdiction of the author and his intenet. What did Tolkien say?  If he said it is, it absolutely is (although the article can say that adults enjoy it as well).  If he didn't say, just  comment on how the book has been recieved, but shouldn't be classified. However, Wikipedia shouldn't conjecture, since WP doesn't have an opinion. Ever.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Letter 215 (written nearly 25 years after The Hobbit was first published) clearly states that Tolkien conceived The Hobbit as a children's story:
 * "[The Hobbit] was overtly addressed to children for two reasons : I had at that time children of my own and was accustomed to making up (ephemeral) stories for them; I had been brought up to believe that there was a real and special connexion between children and fairy-stories."
 * However, I can't see why Wikipedia should commit intentional fallacy in treating an authors reported (i.e. contextual, self=promotional, inconsistent and unreliable) statements of intention as 'absolute' over and above considered analysis by experts in genre and literature published in reliable sources. --Davémon (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: I disagree with Esprit15d that the author's intentions are the only proper encylopedic standard. Plenty of works have become popularized counter to the author's intent, and many authors fail to meet their stated goals.  More relevant would be: how do libraries file The Hobbit?  My unresearched guess is that it will be found in Young Adult/Juvenile or in SciFi/Fantasy.  One easy workaround to this debate would be to describe it as a fantasy novel that Tolkien intended for children, but that has achieved popularity beyond children's literature.Eeblet (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The book's being popular with adults does not change the book's essential nature. It's children's literature read by adults. -- Evertype·✆ 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: In the text of The Hobbit itself the narrator addresses his young audience several times in the second person plural. If that's not telling a story to children, I don't know what is. -- Evertype·✆ 17:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RfC response: The controversy isn't over whom it was written for. That is clear: Tolkien wrote it for children. The publisher sold it as a children's story. The controversy is over whether the original purpose should dominate current classification. Strebe (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find this "controversial". Adults may enjoy the book, but it is a "children's fantasy" regardless. As I pointed out, the text itself addresses children. Not the author's "intention". The text speaks to readers and considers them children. -- Evertype·✆ 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we understand you don't find it controversial. A lot of people do. The fact that the text addresses the readers as if they are children is not relevant to whether the book has meaning as adult fiction. Beyond clearly juvenile themes, it addresses adult themes, is widely read by adults, and connects to a larger body of literature embraced by adults. Most children's books fail on all of those counts. Since some people wish to classify books by their greater context, rather than their explicit intent, the labeling becomes controversial. But that's all it is: a labeling problem.Strebe (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is the "we" who understands that I don't find it controversial? Children's fiction may have "meaning" to adults, and adults may enjoy it, but that does not make it adult fiction. Children's fiction—whether book or film—may address a variety of themes and indeed is often read, aloud, to children by adults. I don't find "a lot of people" arguing for a re-labelling because of this "controversy". I get the impression that you want to re-label it. I would oppose the re-labelling. Else we would have to re-label huge amounts of literature. -- Evertype·✆ 06:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been editing this article for more than five years. I've watched that particular line change back and forth between "children's" and not dozens of times. It's not the same person each time. The article's instability in this concern a matter of public record. Look it up. People wander through, get offended that their favorite book is labeled a children's book, and, oblivious to the history of changes and oblivious to the work's body of criticism, make their little edit and toddle off again into Wikipedia oblivion. You can sensibly argue the book is a children's book. You cannot sensibly argue there's no controversy. And sorry; your impression is false. I prefer the school of thought that calls it a children's book. That's a matter of public record as well; see my edits. But since, objectively, there's a labeling controversy, I acknowledge there's a controversy.Strebe (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We appear to agree, then. It is a children's book. It was written for children. Internally, its narrator speaks to the children who are reading or being read the story. I can't imagine why a person would be offended to have their favorite book labelled "a children's book". There's nothing wrong with children's literature, and nothing wrong with adults enjoying to read it. I can't think of any arguments that this book would not be classified anything but children's literature. In the absence of arguments like "I'm an adult and I like the book and I think it's not a children's book" what controversy is there? -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I supplied the arguments: "Beyond clearly juvenile themes, it addresses adult themes, is widely read by adults, and connects to a larger body of literature embraced by adults. Most children's books fail on all of those counts." These arguments all have merit. It's not a debate to be won by logic, since it boils down to one's philosophical preference of original intent versus social context. Both are reasonable positions. And I do not think it makes any sense to dismiss "widely read by adults" with the observation that adults read children's literature to children. That's a little like claiming adults enjoy changing diapers because they often change their children's diapers. Adults read The Hobbit outside of any involvement with children. They don't read many other children's books that way. Yes, some other children's literature explores adult themes as well. Yet for a children's book, The Hobbit is unusually replete with adult themes and in its method of exploring them. But I'm done with this. I don't think we're making any progress. We agree we prefer to label it a children's book, but that wasn't your thesis. Your thesis was that there is no controversy. There is, and for reasons that cannot be so breezily dismissed.Strebe (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree the social context entirely embraces the "not-just-for-children" perspective, so rather than an intention vs. reception problem we just have multiple receptions deal with. Perhaps if we elaborate on the crossover/adult arguments Strebe has given:
 * 1) Contains themes not suitable / understandable by children. Some of these are around the politics and negotiations and implications of the Battle of Five Armies, and the moral reconciliation of the Arkenstone, and the irony of Bilbo's burglar status? These are acknowledged at least in Kocher and probably Rateliff and Andersons introductions. Perhaps a list of themes considered "adult" would help clarify.
 * 2) Marketing of the book to non-children. It's in the sci-fi section of my local bookshop, and the kids section of my local library. Doctor Who books are in the kids section of both, and the sci-fi section of neither. I've no idea where to source this information, publishers and bookshops aren't likely to be that transparent about their marketing intentions. Perhaps librarys produce cataloging guidelines?
 * 3) Non-childrens-book readership. Where can this information can be sourced? What produces a non-children-related perspective on the book? Who are the non-child readers? Winnie the Pooh has entertainment value for adults in its charactures of certain personality types which young children won't recognise - but the works recognition as a kids-book hasn't changed.
 * 4) Relationship to Tolkiens other works. Actually I think this also has a converse effect insomuch as 'The Lord of the Rings' is occasionally considered a childrens-book because of the Hobbit (along with the other general "fantasy is infantile" view of some critics). There are arguments (i.e. Kocher and Anderson) which state that the narrative relationship is problematic and the case for a prequel/sequel relationship is largely insubstantial and the books should be approached as entirely separate works. But how is the narrative relationship seen to modify the reception of the two works?
 * Hopefully breaking up the issue can help move the debate forward! (full disclosure, in my opinion The Hobbit is a children's book) --Davémon (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: I believe that, although The Hobbit may have been originally intended for children, it is now a novel that can be classified as both children and adult friendly, thereby obtaining a general rating. Compare The Hobbit to the Harry Potter series. Both were originally aimed at children, and were extremely sucessful in that area. But, as both grew, they came to be loved by adults as well. The Hobbit's classification as a childrens book is incorrect, and should be changed to general, meaning it is suitable for both an adult and children audience, and is not specifically limited by age groups.Watch As I Wander (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (did some minor reformatting on your comment to keep the thread - hope that's ok). Can you point to any reliable sources that support your opinion? Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response What is the problem with simply stating that Tolkein wrote it as a children's book, but it has since been rread and enjoyed by adults as well, due to it's close association with the Lord of the Rings novels. Creative people are sometimes mistaken about who their audience really is. Tolkein himself thought at one point that The Silmarillion was his most important work, but his fans told him in no uncertain terms that this was not the case. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts? Do we have statistics about who reads The Hobbit and for what reasons? If you have something to cite, by all means, add it. The listing already categorizes the book as "Children's literature" and "Fantasy novel". Strebe (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Peter Jackson Have any Film Plans for "The Hobbit"?
Just curious if there is any citable about this.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

'Commentary' editions
I'd like to add some information about The Annotated Hobbit and The History of the Hobbit, but can't see where the best place in the article would be. Any suggestions? --Davémon (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Concept and creation seems the right place to me. That section already includes the history of the tale and its publishing. The Annotated Hobbit and The History of the Hobbit concern themselves with precisely those topics. However, I would rename the section to History, since that's already its topic. Thanks for all the good work. Strebe (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Strebe (and thanks for all your work tidying up my contribs!) - I've positioned the AH and HoTH into the end of the Concept and creation section as "Posthumous editions", not 100% on that title for the subsection, as they are more than just editions, having considerable editorial content. Potentially these could/should be considered to be reception/legacy material, but there is overlap as they fully reproduce original texts. --Davémon (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why a GA nom?
I was interested in knowing what this article will gain from being promoted to Good Article. It's already A-class, which is higher on the totem pole, correct? Shouldn't FAC be the next logical step once issues from the last nomination have been addressed? María ( habla con migo ) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you see it doesn't look A-class. It needs a review. Lord of Moria   Talk   Contribs  12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could elaborate on what aspects don't look A-class and require review (outside of what was suggested at the FA review or is already on the To-Do-List)? Davémon (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dust jacket art
Davemon, I think injecting how the dust jacket got from several colors to two colors in the Publication section just detracts from the purpose of the paragraph. Hammond & Anderson make it plain in considerable detail from quoted correspondence between Tolkien and A&U that almost all the work was done by Tolkien, even in cutting down the number of colors. The fact that the final design got pared down from three to two (whether by Tolkien or someone else) for publication seems like too many words explaining trivia. Surely it suffice to note that Tokien designed the jacket. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. According to Anderson, Tolkien indeed carried out the amendments too, but the notion must have come from somewhere (should have noted the source when first adding it). To my mind, taking into account TH as a 'whole' i.e. as a physical "book", is more encyclopedic than a purely literary approach. It was, in essence, written, designed and illustrated by one man. Tolkien reducing colours on the cover is as significant, if not more, as Tolkien changing "gnomes" to "elves" - as one had a direct impact on the economic viability work, and the other only an aesthetic effect. This not "trivia", it reflects the times and place in which the book arose, and the material processes and constraints that went into making it happen. The illustrations should also be taken account. Is there pertinent information in Artist & Illustrator which could serve? --Davémon (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It not so much the trivia aspect that bothers me; it's that the jacket description is disproportionate to the remainder of the paragraph. It reads badly with so much of it taken up by the dust jacket when the paragraph is about so much more. It belongs elsewhere.


 * Still, it's more problematic than that. If you read H&A carefully, you'll see that Tolkien did indeed pare the colors down to three but that the publisher further removed the red, taking it down to two. It's very unlikely that they redrew the whole jacket; more likely a designer or stripper masked it. We can't give a real sense for what happened in just one long sentence about such production matters&mdash;particularly since we don't actually know what happened. The sentence as it reads still is not correct.


 * The whole matter of paring down the colors does not reflect particularly on the times and place. How many colors to print in, and whether to use process or spot colors, and how few can we get away with, have always been considerations in book publishing, and still are. It's a discussion that would come up in the preparation of any book. Strebe (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, one sentance isn't enough to do the subject justice, please ammend as you see fit. At some point in the future,the article should at least contain a paragraph, if not a section, covering the dust jacket artwork changes, and the inclusion of the b&w illustrations to the UK and US editions. I do think that print issues and dust-jacket / binding / typography /paper weights should indeed be covered in every book article, where these things have been discussed in the literature. A comparison with something like Harry Potter - which had multiple covers ('adult'/'kiddy'), 7-colour offset with gold spot printed in china (I'm guessing) - shows that process is clearly indicative of time/place - not that the article needs to make that comparison, but the reader should be able to obtain a materials, processes and design understanding of a book from a Wikipedia article. Other than on a general principle, specifically with The Hobbit, the work is 'all of a piece' being a culmination of Tolkien's creative endeavours, and should reflect that. --Davémon (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great content added there. I'm still a bit unsure about the number of colours on the original dust jacket - is it really green, blue and black inks or is the 'black' just from the green and blue inks over-printing. I've got a hunch it's 2-colour print.--Davémon (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Del Toro Quote
The way the Del Toro quote is presented is less than neutral, and it surprises me that this doesn't seem to be obvious to everyone. Before I changed it, it read:
 * "Guillermo Del Toro quoted as saying: "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits—I've never been into that ... I hate all that stuff." in 2006 signed on to direct the double-bill in 2008. Shortly after signing up, he was recorded by Weta saying "re-reading The Hobbit just recently I was quite moved by discovering, through Bilbo's eyes the illusory nature of possession, the sins of hoarding and the banality of war - whether in the Western Front or at a Valley in Middle Earth. Lonely is the mountain indeed."

Note that the article doesn't mention Del Toro at all before that, so before it is even said what the heck that guy has to do with The Hobbit, we tell our readers that he said that he hates the Hobbit. Then we tell our readers that he was signed to direct the films. That is not neutral. Period. I'm not sure if we need the quote at all, per Neutral point of view (This is the article about the book, not about the films, after all), but if we have to have it, it should be after it's said what he's got to do with The Hobbit. --Conti|✉ 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't actually explained how the original is not neutral, or what bias it creates. By reporting the events out of sequence, you are introducing bias. By introducing Del Toro as the director, the article naturalises this position (which is bias), then by saying "hates" however "loves", it dismisses the first quote by virtue of the second quote (which is bias) - without the intermediary action "got job" that contextualises the change of opinion (which is bias). I'm not saying the original is perfect, but the current alternative is much more biased. Can we somehow keep the unbiased, strict historical ordering of events and still address your perceived bias issues? --Davémon (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought I explained it, at least. The original is not neutral because it first mentiones the perceived opinion of Del Toro of The Hobbit, and then says that he'll direct the films. Just imagine he would've said the opposite in some random interview a couple of years ago instead. Would you support a version that'd read "Del Toro, who said in 200X that he loves The Hobbit, is going to direct the films", then? That wouldn't be neutral, either. Both versions introduce a bias (one negative, one positive) before they even mention what Del Toro has to do with The Hobbit in the first place.
 * Why doesn't my version contextualise the change of opinion, tho? It says that he got the job in 2008, that he said something negative about The Hobbit before that and something positive about The Hobbit afterwards. It's all in the same paragraph, so I very much doubt people would miss this, whether it's written in chronological order or not.
 * My main point here is that we should mention Del Toro as the director of the films without first offering any kind of bias or opinion whatsoever. No "He loves The Hobbit, he's going to direct it", no "He hates The Hobbit, he's going to direct it", but a simple "He is going to direct The Hobbit". Everything he said about the book, before or after he got signed to direct it, can be said afterwards. So I'm not sure if we can agree to keep the chronological order of things in the article. Right now I can't imagine a chronological version that would be, in my opinion, neutral. I'd very much like a third party to comment on this, tho. Who knows, maybe I'm the only one who sees NPOV issues with the current wording. --Conti|✉ 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem isn't bias. The narrative is incoherent as it stands. Bringing up Del Toro before his association with The Hobbit is established is simply poor editing and jarring to the reader. Secondarily, the temporal order is not a way to remove bias, since any bias so introduced is completely drowned out by the choice of what to bring up and not bring up, the context in which it is brought up in, and inferences caused by word choice. There is no way readers are going to absorb those comments without inferring that the editors of the article wish for them to question Del Toro's intellectual integrity. The article itself thereby creates controversy, and that's a massive bias problem. That cannot be waved away by claiming that it's a neutral history. It's not. Both of those comments are, in a sense, cherry-picking from amongst a possibly much greater universe of comments and actions by Del Toro concerning The Hobbit. Deciding whether those comments specifically are historically significant enough to merit attention in an encyclopædia is the job of historians, not encyclopædia editors. The proper way to handle this is to cite balanced external sources that comment on the Del Toro irony. Strebe (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversy is not bias. If questioning DT's integrity is a natural result of reading the article, so be it. This isn't a NPOV or bias issue. Sorry to be absurd, but people who read the Hitler or Charles Manson article should question the integrity of their subjects too. This isn't because the articles are constructed or written in a way which is biased against them. Of course there are editorial considerations about selection of sources, but this is inevitable in a way that rearranging and implying relationships between the events of history to construct a narrative isn't. In this instance the WETA quote isn't really a reliable, independent source - it's a staged Q&A from the company making the movie. The only reason it is in the article is to balance the controversy produced by the Salon interview - which is reliable and independent. I've added that DT is directing to the first line - without qualifying when this happened, so his role introduced before his comments reported. --Davémon (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not claim controversy is bias. I claimed an enyclopædia introduces bias when it creates controversy. An encyclopædia must report controversy, not create it. Again: The proper way to handle the Del Toro incident is to report external sources which themselves comment on Del Toro's apparent change of heart; otherwise the text is not encyclopædic. Just plucking facts out of the æther is not unbiased writing, since the context of those facts and their weight in the bigger scheme have not been established. Encyclopædia editors have no right to decide those things. Personally I don't much care, now that the temporal coherency has been addressed — although that paragraph is still a mess given how it lumps together a lot of disjoint factoids about the movies. Anyway, thanks for all the work. Strebe (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed!
As per the GA review for the article, there are a few holes in the citations. Many books used do not give page numbers which are needed, if you have any books used for sources and can locate this info, your help would be much appreciated. To find a list of what is needed see the bulleted list near the bottom of the GA review. Thank you!  Black  ngold29   03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias
I've noticed that the Reception section only contains positive reviews. The novel has historic and literary importance, but without any negative critique isn't this article violating NPOV? --Marshmello 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means if you can find negative reviews and want to present them go ahead. I wouldn't bother placing an NPOV tag though as negative reviews might not exist (in this case I'm not sure that the book was reviewed negatively by any source. I certainly have never seen one). Look for opposing views and present them if you find them. They are welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

List of editions
Is there a lists of editions article? I was thinking such a list could become featured, and would allow 3 or 4 of the external links to be moved there. Are the lists of editions sites raliable as sources?YobMod 08:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See English-language_editions_of_The_Hobbit and Translations_of_The_Hobbit. Strebe (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

J.R.R.Tolkien
Just wanted to add one more little bit: Changing the text to use TOlkien's full name would be like saying Huckleberry Finn was written by Samuel Clemens. Confusing the pen-name with the real name, whether it is an anonymous pseudonym or not, is only going to cause confusion, as I pointed out via edit summary. --Izno (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about down further? I'll put it where I think it might be nice, and you revert if you think it is jarring. Just think about it for a bit. Abductive (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For articles on the author's works, such as this one, it should be "J.R.R. Tolkien" on first mention and "Tolkien" on subsequent mentions. The full name is appropriate for the lede of the Tolkien article (and it is there). Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clemens is mentioned a few times in the article on Huckleberry Finn. Abductive (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Context. One is within a direct quote (albeit bracketed—not sure why the paraphrase), while the other refers to a biography of the author. Some biographies of Twain use his real name—logically enough, since Twain was only his pen name. Matter of fact, some editions of Twain's books (which have been issued by umpteen different publishers) use his real name. So the two situations really aren't comparable. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to use anything other than the Tolkien's name as it was printed on the title page of his books in articles about his books, and style conventions indicate the use of only the last name after the initial appearance. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are these style conventions? Anyway, I slid the full name down to where it was talking about him prior to writing the book. Abductive (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The conventions are followed in the vast majority of reference books and periodicals in the English language. They are supported by everything from AP to MLA, as I recall. More to the point, they are supported here. Could you explain why you think use of the full name makes this a better article? I'm willing to entertain ditching guidelines (and even nearly universal conventions) if there's a very good reason. Rivertorch (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason is that is his name, and I don't see the relevant passage in the link you provided. Abductive (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In all editions of the book I have seen the author is attributed as J.R.R. Tolkien. I doubt in life many people referred to him as John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, he was either John, Ronald or Tolkien. The only place that it is justifiable to list his full birth name is in the biographic article. Thu (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Using "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" in the middle of this article sticks out like a sore thumb. If a reader wants to know what Tolkien's full name is, all they have to do is click on J. R. R. Tolkien at the top of the article. Usage in this article should be consistant with other articles such as The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion -- neither of which give Tolkien's full name. BabelStone (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Outvoted. I shall remain unconvinced that this is supported by the Manual of Style. Abductive (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant passage is at the very beginning of the link I provided: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only". As for how the name is initially presented, I couldn't find a precise guideline for that in MOS but agree with BabelStone that this article should be consistent—and not only with those other articles but with virtually every comparable article in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Consensus isn't based on outvoting; it has to do with determining which argument is more logical and better serves the article. "Because it is his name" isn't logical: no one disputes it was his full name, but since he chose to be known as J.R.R. Tolkien in his books, it is logical that Wikipedia articles about his books reflect that fact. Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be a clear consensus I have reverted "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" to "Tolkien". I have also changed "J.R.R. Tolkien" in a later paragraph to "Tolkien" on the basis of Manual_of_Style_(biographies). BabelStone (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that consensus was reached, I would just like to point out that the earlier style "conventions" date from the age of paper, and that since Wikipedia is not paper, we are not bound to follow these earlier conventions--if they even exist, since I haven't been able to find them online. Abductive (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * What is your reference for that definition of malice? Is that the law definition or the common usage? Dictionary.com has it a little differently, where only the law definition has anything to do with the concept of "evil":
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malice
 * Besides, the current section is totally unreferenced, and it's not clear who is calling Tolkien's wargs "evil." Is it some anonymous Wikipedia editor with a fondness for dualism, was it the character of Bilbo, or is it Tolkien himself? It needs to be referenced and attributed. I retain my argument that "evil" is inherently loaded with dualistic implications and requires attribution. bloodofox: (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Boo. Obviously, the common and modern usage of the term "evil" implies a dualistic belief system (which Tolkien ascribed to), whereas "malicious" simply means "intent to harm." As I made clear earlier, the major issue is that it's not clear where this information is coming from, not whether or not it's accurate. If it's coming directly from Tolkien, or the narrator, or whoever, then that needs to be made clear. A secondary source is useless here, since it's directly from the book. Furthermore, I note that Davemon has added another instance of "evil" to the article ], which is cute, and I think says plenty. The fact still remains that the section needs to be referenced and we're currently using terms like "evil" without attribution. bloodofox: (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The plot summary and character descriptions are usually paraphrasing the original source, as is the case in most literature articles, including those which are FA. I've added the secondary source that I found to the article. Cheers. Davémon (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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


 * I removed the sentence "This section is preparatory to the #plot summary, describing the characters from the text's point of view. See #Critical analysis for commentary" because I felt that in large part it was a redundant notice refering the reader to other areas of the article. I had scanned briefly through this talk page and hadn't seen any obvious reason why this was there. swiftly reinstated the sentence saying it was a necessary inclusion, and I've looked back at the talk page and discovered this conversation.
 * I'm entirely willing to accept that there may be a problem with the casual reader not understanding where the differences in the basic character descriptions taken from the text and the commentary analysis occur. Also, I'm willing to accept that this should be highlighted (although I'd like to see references as to where the descriptions come from). However, I think the sections titles in the article are obvious, and the text as it stands in the critical analysis is clearly written by other hands and not Tolkien. All of which makes the sentence above inessential.
 * My primary problem with the sentence as it stands is the use of the section links which are distracting and jarring. My other problems with it could be easily solved with a sentence to the effect that the character descriptions are taken from x,y,z pages of "The Hobbit" itself.Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * I have some sympathy with Strebe's position that you can never please all the people all of the time. I have a concern with this character section in an otherwise well written and well cited article; unless the descriptions of the characters are clearly taken from either The Hobbit or another secondary source, then it's very close to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in a way that a plot summary isn't. The citations need not be cluttered if they are laid out in a sensible way.Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "verifyable"; see also WP:PSTS and WP:NOTOR. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I just stumbled into this tiny tempest by removing the paragraph as obvious padding before coming here to learn of the fine points of compromise. But the paragraph is completely pointless, and anyone reading the article before following to the end of this discussion would wonder why the heck it's there. If there's a serious doubt that Tolkien intended the Wargs as evil, add a reference to his text. (NB: his text, not some commentator's: the issue is whether he intended them as evil.) Elphion (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Completely pointless" seems hyperbolical. I understand that you, and perhaps many, did not see the point of the paragraph when you first read it. However, now you understand the point. People who come to the section looking for critical analysis of the characters understand the point upon first reading. People keen on literary perspective understand the point upon first reading. None of us understands the reasons for everything we read because none of us is equally versed in all nuances of everything. I do not think that argues we should remove material whose purpose we do not immediately grasp.


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

I don't *really* understand the point; I still think the paragraph contributes nothing of real value. Can we at least say it in English: "This section describes the characters from the text's point of view. See #Critical analysis for other perspectives." Elphion (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your objection to the syntax of "is preparatory to"? Or is it the semantics? That phrase indicates yet another purpose for the explanatory paragraph. The point is that the character descriptions are integral to the synopsis. The phrase explains to readers the focus of the characterizations in the Characters section. It serves notice to anyone tempted to edit the character descriptions that they need to be cognizant of the needs of the synopsis, neither deleting descriptions useful in understanding the synopsis, nor adding material extraneous to the synopsis. With this tight coupling we keep both the character descriptions and the synopsis terse.


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


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

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

Title
If "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again" is the full title the page should be moved to The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, and the lead should be changed accordingly to something like: "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, also known as The Hobbit". If it's not then it's an alternative title and should be addressed accordingly in the lead. Something along the lines of "The Hobbit, also known as The Hobbit, or There and Back Again or There and Back Again". Either way some clarification of what the official/original title of the book is is needed and the page should reflect that. The book is referred to throughout wikipedia simply as The Hobbit. I did a quick scan (-quick-) through the archives but found nothing about this, if I missed it, please redirect me to it. Thanks.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of books have a short cover title that is used to identify them while a longer title is given on first pages. So both versions are actually valid and both versions, short and long, are the title of a book. In this case "The Hobbit" and "The Hobbit or There and Back Again" make use of this rule, see the cover image provided in the article. There's no need at all for a page move. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Than the lead and the infobox should reflect that. Currently the article's name states that the book is called The Hobbit but both lead and infobox state it is The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. While both can be correct some kind of consistency and clarification is needed.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the lead so it mentions the short form as well but the infobox should keep the full title. As to the article's title, a redirect with the full name has been pointing to this article for ages. De728631 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. I have removed the break tags before an after "or" in the infobox, which made it seem like "There and Back Again" was the alternative title, and it was "The Hobbit" or "There and Back Again".  X  eworlebi (t•c) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lack of "There and Back Again" in the title is partly due to some hesitations for Tolkien's reference towards Bilbo Baggins's own book, "There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Holiday", technically, a part of "The Redbook of Westmarch". The reference not being a subtitle, but the complete title chosen by Bilbo, in which Bilbo is naming his own book. "There and Back Again" becomes only a psuedo-reference for "The Hobbit" as a naming convention where the author, Tolkien, only partially intends the reference to the title, "The Hobbit, or, There and Back Again". The author in certain ways references the last chapter of the book, THE LAST STAGE, as a form of acknowledgement that the two books, including the actual, represented the same events at a time before Bilbo utimately starts to consider crossing the seas. During the 1800s, books commonly had three, four, or even five or more titles, often seperated by a comma or semi-colon and the word or. The book itself being described by J.R.R. Tolkien as having been scribed by Bilbo as his own view of the account of events, including Bilbo excluding the lies about the recovery of, and the secrecy of, the ring. Those lies are related in the actual, "The Hobbit" and the trilogy. Because Tolkien had chosen the name that Bilbo chose for his own title to scribing his recolection of events, it only partly made its way, out of the last chapter, into the title.Ncsr11 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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

Educational assignment
This is a recent spate of "Educational assignment" template additions to the talk page. According to School_and_university_projects, “You are invited to add the template Educational assignment to the talk pages of articles which are created or significantly changed due to an assignment.” Please explain the template addition if you want to include it, since this article was not written or substantially revised because of an educational assignment. Strebe (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Students are currently beginning to work on pages for the class which course page is at User:Roseclearfield/Durham School of the Arts YA Project Page. Their teacher has requested that they add the template to their talk page of the pages which they will be working on in order to identify that they are going to work on the page. The template on this page was added at the same time that many other were added on other books appropriate for the coursework, there is no reason to remove the template, even if the students haven't don't done alot of work on the page yet, Sadads (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the addition of this template is inappropriate, and should be removed. As Strebe has already pointed out, the template is intended to be added to articles that "are created or significantly changed due to an assignment", neither of which are the case with the Hobbit; and just because their teacher says put it on articles that you intend to edit, does not make it correct.  And given the nature of this article (a high profile GA article) it seems highly unlikely that anyone doing an educational assignment will be able to significantly improve the article (and in my opinion that would mean getting the article to FA).  When and if that happens, then the (in my opinion, totally meaningless) template can be readded. Meanwhile, I note that it is not a case of the "students haven't don't alot of work on the page yet" as not a single edit has been made by the students as far as I can tell, and there is no way to know whether any useful edits will be made until they start editing. BabelStone (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely fine that you have taken off the template. I'll have the student work on the project in a different way. Also, we added the templates before edits begin because that's what seems to have been suggested on the School and University projects page. The assignment has hardly started right now, which is why you don't see any edits yet; it will conclude by 14 March 2011. The timing on school projects moves slower than Wikipedia time, since we only have 50 minutes a day during weekdays, whereas Wikipedia is a 24/7 enterprise. I was cautioned to add the template and figured it would be better to be generous with template use rather than stingy. Was that assumption wrong? Thanks for your suggestions. Roseclearfield (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that, in general, you are correct. It's just that there will be exceptions, and this appears to be one of them. If you are ready for the exceptions, and accept removals if they happen, then I think everything will work out.  For everyone else here, User:Roseclearfield is the teacher for this project, I believe.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Roseclearfield (me) is the teacher and the project page is here. I am ready for the exceptions, the removals. All in the name of teaching resource evaluation and concise, coherent writing skills. Roseclearfield (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On a related, but tangental point, to Roseclearfield. I have a concern about the students that are editing well established articles.  Like this one.  The concerns above raise a similar point.  It's one thing for your students who have selected books that have no articles on them.  But for those who have selected established articles, high profile articles, those students are going to have a tough time in totally different ways.  In the earlier WP:ANI thread I mentioned the one student working on one of the Twilight novels.  This article here falls into the same problem area.  Problems for these students in particular are 1) finding a place in a well established article to work on, and 2) dealing with the article's regular editors.  Both are issues that will not happen to students writing brand new articles.  If the students can be directed to the article talk pages, like this one, the regular editors could be used to assist in pointing out places where the article has weaknesses.  But if they do a "Bull in a China Shop" and just jump in, they are likely to encounter resistance.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the issue, for this page at least, has already been raised on Roseclearfield's talk page. I'm being the curve it seems. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a footnote, more than anything: seeing as the regular editors on this page were forewarned of the impending edits, is it not possible that we could simply take a step back and allow students to edit the page as they see fit? Remembering that there is no deadline, and any edits that we found did not improve the article could be rolled back at a later date. We're not in the middle of an FA push or anything, so it shouldn't be too disruptive and might have benefited the article. --Davémon (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when has wikipedia become a tool of the educational establishment? Student edits should not be treated any differently, if they degrade the quality of the article they should be rolled back/copy edited, if they improve it then that is great. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting the wisdom and politic of educational establishments using wikipedia as a tool to one side. I'm just looking at the situation as an opportunity to have some forward momentum on the article. Evidently the use of the wrong template was a simple technical error on behalf of the teacher, and it should not have been placed. But once that was cleared up I think actual editing should have been encouraged. I see no reason why any of the editors who've contributed and continue to watch The Hobbit would not have welcomed constructive edits and shown the patience which our community affords to all newcomers, students or otherwise, along the lines of WP:AGF / WP:BITE. --Davémon (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has said or implied that students (or anyone else) shouldn't be free to edit this or any other article; merely that it will be hard for an inexperienced editor to "significantly improve" an article that is already at GA status. Everyone is welcome to try to improve the article, and they certainly shouldn't be put off by the fact that there are a lot of Hobbit-watchers.  However, thusfar there is no evidence of any editing of this article by the students in questions, so I am not quite sure what exactly you are complaining about. BabelStone (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Roseclearfield wrote I'll have the student work on the project in a different way... it will conclude by 14 March 2011 - this, combined with the fact that there appears to have been no student edits, leads me to believe the teacher/student had effectively been 'warned off' by the discussion above. I don't think anybody intended that, and that TexasAndroid's point (2) would have been a null point here. I do think Roseclearfield misunderstood that the removal of the template was the same thing as opposition to the student editing the article.  --Davémon (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have talked to Roseclearfield in extra-wikipedia conversation, and she said in most cases she sees the contributions and activities the students did on Wikipedia were a success and that she will be consulting with some WP:Wikipedia Ambassador types next time she runs the assignment. So she was not scared off, Sadads (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad of that. I'd have liked to have seen what the student might have brought to the subject. --Davémon (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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

As a literary term, a titular protagonist, or a titular character is one where the book title is that of the character. ie for Bilbo to be the titular protagonist, the title of the book would be "Bilbo Baggins" and not "The Hobbit". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_role. I'm not going to revert - but I think you should, since as a literary term "titular protagonist" is incorrect. Also, for The Hobbit to refer simply to Bilbo negates the possibility that the title refers to Hobbits as a race, or a type of character, or metaphor for an underdog, or all of these. This particular point is debatable, but I think it is narrow to assume the title singularly refers to Bilbo. isfutile:P (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article you refer to (Title role) does not insist that the character be named in the title, and gives examples like The Lion King and The Lord of the Rings. This is just as clear a case. The alternative interpretations you offer above are not convincing. -- Elphion (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not debatable. "The Hobbit" of the title is clearly and unequivocally Bilbo ... just read the first two pages of the book: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", "This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit", "the mother of our particular hobbit".  It is impossible to sensibly interpret the title as referring to anybody or anything else. BabelStone (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is so debatable; this is Wikipedia, after all ;) Nonetheless, you're absolutely correct. Bilbo is the only Hobbit of any significance in the book, and his adventures comprise the plot from start to finish. Rivertorch (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


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


 * At one point, eponymous was used at that place, as I recall; that would certainly be questionable if not outright incorrect. Strebe (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tolkien's name for hobbits was intended to be halflings. Tolkien had named the book, "The War of the Ring" (singular), but publishers had changed it to, "The Lord of the Rings" (plural). Tolkien considered these halflings to be men; just as the elves had caused the downfall of Middle Earth, man (halflings included) would become the redeemer by the recovery of the one ring (again, singular). Tolkien did not use the events in Europe to influence his writings. Many Britons did not use the term World War II, instead considering The Great War (The First World War) as an extension of events. Beowulf, of which Tolkien was a university liguistic scholar, had more influence on the writer than the events of The War. The rings were not the magic rings, they were the elven rings. When Sauron, not being an elf himself, created the one ring, it was through his mastery of the elven craft by way of his association with the elven race. It was still an elven ring. When the ring was recovered, it was not Sauron's ring, but a result of that craft belonging to the elves. The elves were already making rings centuries before Sauron began to learn the craft from them. Sauron decided to seal the rings with his forging the one Ruling Ring while in the mountain Orodruin, in Mordor. There is not a titular protagonist. The book, "The Hobbit", is a prelude to "The Lord of the Rings" (again, plural) as a result of the naming oversight by the publisher which was already named, "The War of the Ring" (singular), a crisis in Middle Earth where there are men, halfling men, elves, and dwarves. Gandalf would have considered men or elves to be the bearer of the one ring. Since halflings had already become involved, it was ultimately a halfling who was chosen to be the ring-bearer within the Fellowship. Another name for the events in "The Hobbit" is the expedition to Erebor. There were many events preceding "The Hobbit" such as The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs to which there is not a protagonist. Bilbo's, as a halfling, recovery of the ring, unlike The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs was not a war but led to The War of the Ring. Just as The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs had led to Thórin staying in the west and passing through The Shire. Ncsr11 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

No doubt he is titular. The singular and not plural reference to 'The Hobbit" is not suggesting he is only one creature and that they are not a race. But the book is about the slaying of the last dragon. The finding of the ring was only an object he kept for years. Gandalf only agreed with Thorin in aiding his expedition out of concern that Sauron would use Smaug as a weapon. Gandalf was almost certain that Smaug had never smelled the scent of a hobbit and sought Bilbo to break up the unlucky number thirteen in the expedition. Tolkien did name the book. He didn't name the trilogy after hobbits. I'm not trying to make any point, but if The Hobbit were bound with The Lord of The Rings and The Simlarillion, the binding of the spine might not be feasable in print. Maybe Tolkien did not comprehend that. I'm not certain what this thread is anyway, perhaps it was the author wanting the trilogy's title as The Lord of The Ring, singular and not 'Rings' plural. Maybe the publisher made a typo. Ncsr11 (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * isfutile:P says he thinks it's narrow to assume the title singularly refers to Bilbo. That's what the title does refer to.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Good call, but the top of the thread is seven months ago. Tolkien kept changing his mind on naming conventions. Read the first header and you will see that the revert was against what the title should be. Some of it is missing, like when it was reverted.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * isfutile:P reference was why the title The Hobbit was singular and not the subject of whether or not the rings were plural.???.Ncsr11 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at now :). Really any discussion regarding the title of the page should have gone into that section, this section is just the discussion about calling Bilbo the Titular character. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * GimliDotNet, I was in error, it ocurred to me later that Tolkien did not want to bind The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings and The Simarillion under one spine. The Hobbit had already been published. When the publisher contacted the author against his submitting The Simarillian for print they wanted the story to be more like T.H. It would have only been The Simarillian and LoTR in one binding.

(outdent)

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

2012-2013 Films?
Why are the new films not mentioned in the adaptations section? I had added them at one point, but someone removed my addition. Alphius (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


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