Talk:The Hobbit/Archive 4

Demonstrating consensus among Tolkien scholars.
I see that this article has taken a turn too far into scholasticism. There are far too many statements of the form "Johnson described The Hobbit as a continuum between oceanic debris and a sacrament." This is not a doctoral dissertation, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, Wikipedia Policy requires all statements to represent the consensus view among scholars. Any statement that is attached to the name of an individual scholar is therefore suspect. If an editor wishes a particular point of view to be so attributed inline, then they must provide a tertiary source saying that this view is important. All other statements must be backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view, or to multiple secondary sources that all agree. These sources are not supposed to be named in the statement, they are to be given as a ref so that any reader who wants to can do further research. Abductive (reasoning) 08:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please define what makes a consensus view amongst Tolkien scholars and how we choose which person represents it. Removing whole swaves of cited work saying 'who is this person' and 'the average reader will not understand this' is not only condescending it is not constructive GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  08:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we remove the meat of the statements, just the little strings that you take off the roast before you eat it. There are thousands of scholarly works; encyclopedias, books, scholarly articles, glossaries, doctoral dissertations, master's theses, etc on Tolkien. We should use the tertiary sources most of all, then articles that have been heavily cited by other scholars. We should not be leading off with scholar's names unless it is somebody like Joseph Campbell. The others can go in the refs. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I understand your thinking now, the edit summaries seemed a little bit aggressive, apologies. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  08:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. Also, by moving these names into the refs, the article becomes shorter and more readable. Take for instance, the influence of seeing combat in WWI on Tolkien's works. At present there is only a very dry but wordy statement about themes. But what themes? The same length of text could be used to actually give an example, or to use more evocative language. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You’ve waded into a hornet’s nest. With regard to Propp, I agree it’s improper to attribute (only) Atterbery specifically, but my reason is not yours. My reason is that Propp is widely cited… but how about you convince User:Bloodofox that the statement needs no attribution? He’s the one who started an edit war with User:Davemon over it and then you deleted it yet again, with reasons directly in contradiction to User:Bloodofox’s. There’s just no way to satisfy even the subset of people who apparently have good intentions.


 * I’m happy to drop mention of structural analysis and even Russian, though given how many influences on Tolkien’s works are mentioned in the article, leaving off one that appears so commonly in literary criticism seems either negligent or discriminatory. Furthermore, though Propp’s analysis turns out to apply generally, he only analyzed Russian.


 * And by the way I think you’re on thin ice when you state as fact that Tolkien’s wartime experiences informed his writings. A hypothesis like that is unproved, unprovable, and no matter how it is argued must remain controversial. Tolkien himself disclaimed any such important influence—not that he’s opinion necessarily matters and certainly is not objective, but on the other hand, it goes to show just how controversial such statements are. I’d be much more comfortable stating as fact that The Hobbit conforms to Propp’s analysis. Strebe (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Tolkien denied the War's influence on his writing? That's funny. But as you say, his opinion is not important to determining the scholarly consensus about that. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Vladimir Propp didn't apply his morphology to The Hobbit; his morphology was specifically intended for Slavic magic tales. Someone else applied it to The Hobbit, and we don't say who. This requires a direct attribution, as people have attempted to apply it to all sorts of things, including Beowulf, to very mixed reception. This isn't "obstructionism"; we cite theories to those that make them, not state them as fact, essentially agreeing with them. Referring to anyone who disagrees with you as "obstructionism" is also unwelcome and unhelpful. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * &#58;bloodofox:, just because someone makes a typo doesn’t mean you delete their contribution; it means you fix it. Similarly, if you felt User:Davemon’s contribution needed something more, then you should have fixed it or noted your concerns on this Talk page rather than start an edit war. If you actually thought the Propp mention had no merit regardless of attribution, then you should have cited that as the reason for your deletion and backed it up. No one claimed Propp analyzed The Hobbit; that’s a red herring. Meanwhile this isn’t Beowulf; the idea that The Hobbit conforms to Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale doesn’t appear to be controversial: There is no literature disagreeing and plenty who invoke Propp. Requiring attribution in-line under those circumstances is just useless pedantism and has no Wikipedia policy backing it up. As User:Abductive noted, the proper action is to cite multiple secondary sources or a good tertiary source. You may have convinced yourself each action in your bigger dispute with User:Davemon has good foundations, but to the rest of us, it really is obstructionism. It’s in the way. It’s wasting everyone’s time. Strebe (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have Davemon's reference on hand, so I don't know exactly what the reference says, and I'm not willing to pull anything out of thin air. Obviously, stating someone's theory as a simple fact, especially when disputed when applied in other quarters, is a problem. Not attributing a claim and making a typo are not parallel. Propp's morphology is theoretical, especially when applied outside of the field it was developed for. Any time it's applied, it needs to be "according to ____". Further, you've also claimed Abductive is being an obstructionist . Are we all obstructionists when we disagree with Davemon and yourself? Anyway, as it now currently stands I am fine with it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have Davemon's reference on hand, either, but a little Internet searching would turn up everything you’d need to know. It’s not about disagreements, &#58;bloodofox:. Those happen. It ought to be clear from my comments that I’m concerned not about disagreements, but rather how they’re handled. Edit wars are not appropriate. Deleting good material just because it doesn’t quite meet your own ideas of how it should be presented is also not appropriate. Fix it or discuss it here. Edit wars and blanket deletions are obstructive, and from what I see, you are motivated to obstruct Davemon’s edits. It’s obvious you want a better article; I’m not questioning that or suggesting you’re trying to obstruct that larger goal. I am saying the bad blood between you and him is causing trouble for the rest of us.


 * It wasn’t Abductive whose edit I called obstructive. It was User:Izno, and that wasn’t about disagreement either, if you’d please pay attention to what’s going on. It didn’t even have a chance to be about disagreement because Izno’s edit wasn’t about what he thought it was about, as you can see from his edit comment and my reversion comment. It looks to me like he didn’t spend any time familiarizing himself with the dispute and instead jumped on the reversion bandwagon based on a mistaken premise. That is obstructive. Strebe (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So somehow it's my edit war, rather than Davemon's, who is all too happy to revert as well. It takes two. Strebe, a little neutrality would help—you've been the lone voice on this talk page defending the actions of Davemon—rather than attempting to frame my position. "Good material" requires proper treatment, and stating theory as fact is obviously unacceptable no matter what reference is attached to it, on Wikipedia or in academia or anywhere else that requires a level of objectivity. Whether it was you or Davemon or anyone else who made this edit, I would have done the same thing. It just so happens that Davemon decided to do so, which I have found all too common on his end, unfortunately. You additionally display a curious fondness for referring to yourself as representing a larger, silent whole ("causing trouble for the rest of us"). I'd appreciate it if you'd stopped that. As for Izno and Abductive, I did get them mixed up, but the point is the same; not everyone who disagrees with you is here to "obstruct" you. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * &#58;bloodofox:: “…the point is the same; not everyone who disagrees with you is here to ‘obstruct’ you.” No, you cannot make that the point. That is your straw man. You made it up. I have repeatedly explained what behavior I called “obstructive”, and that explanation has nothing to do with disagreements. Since you ignore my explanation and cling to your straw man, my participation in discussion about “obstruction” is hereby over.


 * “‘Good material’ requires proper treatment, and stating theory as fact is obviously unacceptable.” No, you made that up too. There is no Wikipedia principle in play here. You made up that rule and you aggressively enforce it by engaging in unacceptable policing behavior. By your reasoning the article could not make without inline attribution such statements as, “One of the greatest influences on Tolkien was the 19th century Arts and Crafts polymath William Morris,” or “The Hobbit takes cues from narrative models of children's literature, as shown by its omniscient narrator and characters that young children can relate to.” But the article states such things without inline attribution, and reasonably so. Your made up policy acts a lot like a pretext for you to selectively enforce rules you made up.


 * “So somehow it's my edit war, rather than Davemon's”. Well, you used the possessive pronoun, not I, so you made that up, too. However, since appealing to general principles of collaborative work hasn’t swayed you, I will trot out the dreary policies. Your reversion of Davemon’s contribution (which presently stands with some modification due to apparent general agreement) disregards WP:IMPERFECT and violates WP:PRESERVE. Davemon repeatedly requested in his comments restoring the edit to take the discussion of it to the Talk page, since he couldn’t see the merit of your revert-time comment. You couldn’t be bothered, violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You have no Wikipedia guidelines in favor of your actions and several against, and yet you erect another straw man over my lack of neutrality. I never claimed Davemon behaved perfectly; I claimed you started the edit war, which you did by insistently violating WP:PRESERVE.


 * Please stick to Wikipedia editing policies. I don’t care if you want to believe I’m the only one who finds your editing behavior objectionable. That doesn’t matter. Just stick to the policies and I’ll be happy to shut up about it. Strebe (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, Davemon could have just as easily have gone to the talk page first. I "started" it as much as he did. Enough with the side-taking. I've worked on many articles with other users and have brought many articles to WP:GA status; I'm not making up policies. The specific policy at play is WP:NPOV; we don't state someone's theory as a fact in the name of objectivity ("Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""). To be frank, I have no interest in going back and forth with you on this, but don't take silence on my part as an agreement. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not starting a "talk" after my first revert. Bloodofox is correct, this is a WP:NPOV issue, "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion,". This applies pretty much to all the content under discussion here, things like Propps Morphology and the influecne of war are completely uncontroversial and uncontested. Evidence to the contrary always welcome. Davémon (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I repeat: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." These are opinions, not facts. We don't have Tolkien confirming this. Propp's morphology is theoretical. You need to recognize an opinion when you see one. "The Sun is a star" is not an opinion, thus requires no direct attribution. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I repeat: "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." That Propps Morophology has been applied to The Hobbit is a fact, that War influenced Tolkiens writing is a fact. Yes, those facts are established by "critics", not "scientists", but that's the way with literature. Take a look at some literature FAs by way of guidance of how respected "critics" opinions are treated. Gawain and the Green Knight is a nice example. Davémon (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Bloodofox here. When writing about a piece of literature, and particularly for an article that's GA status (though I have my own opinion about that), we cannot have Wikipedia say in the lead that Tolkien drew on his own experiences unless we have a very good cite for that. What we do know is that critics believe he may have used autobiographical details, but the distinction needs to be made. Furthermore the statement about Propp makes little sense as written without being tied in - if can be incorporated better, perhaps with better sourcing, then that should be done, otherwise it reads as a factoid that should be removed from the current placement. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have Tolkiens principle biographer (Carpenter) and respected scholar (Jane Croft) who are cited in the article. So yes, we have very good cites for the influence of war. The lede is simply summarising non-controversal facts. Indeed Propp could be better dealt with, but as it stands, unless someone does the leg-work, what we have will do for now, except there's no reason to blame Atterby for it. --Davémon (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we should cite Carpenter, who is about the strongest source possible. If this were done in the body, then the lead could be rewritten accordingly. I've removed Propp because in fact it's cited to a piece Atterby wrote and The Hobbit is merely mentioned in passing. I'll probably work my way through the article in the next few days. I do have lit experience and FA experience. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored Propp without the miss-attribution. No need to delete properly cited content, even if it isn't perfect. I'm sure you can improve on it in time. No need to put citations on the lede.--Davémon (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your restoration per Truthkeeper's reasoning here. I'm not opposed to inclusion, but both wording and placement are inappropriate. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Truthkeeper's reasoning is in error. Yes, Atterby isn't in=depth, yet the statement attributed to him is still valid. WP:NOTE applies to articles, not content. --Davémon (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was attributed correctly because it was taken from a source Atterby wrote, not a source Propp wrote. And yes, attribution should be given in the lead if it's not in the body in regards to the war and I'm not finding it in the body. One thing is certain: with the release of the movie this page will have a lot of views and the better it's written and sourced the better it will do. There were over a million views of Brothers Grimm last weekend - dunno why but there were - and with very very few talk page comments. Thankfully a fair amount of work and good sourcing went into that page. This needs some tidying and tweaking. I'm offering to help; in fact since I do a fair amount of work on children's lit in general, it's a page I've been eyeing for a while, so as I said, I'll probably be sweeping through here in the near future. Will need to get a copy of Carpenter in hand first. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm not finding it in the body" - you'll find it under the "interpretation" section. --Davémon (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Truthkeeper here. (Regarding the hits on Brothers Grimm, the reason for this was because Google released a doodle for the 200th anniversary of the publication of the first edition of Kinder- und Hausmärchen.) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for the explanation re the Grimms - I was off the internet most of the weekend and shocked to see that). We shouldn't be edit warring over Propp. I don't mind if it's in, but it needs to be integrated better and that can only be done with more information. Right now it's a single sentence tacked on to the end of a para about fairy tales/folk tales and the Russian folklore seems to come out of nowhere when much of the text instead points to the Germanic influences. Bloodofox has is a good subject specialist and that's what's needed here to integrate this material so that it flows better. Davemon, can you explain why it's important to stay in as currently written, and why in general the idea of structuralism hasn't been addressed, since it comes from a source that discusses structuralism? Truthkeeper (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for how it is written, I'm arguing it not be deleted. Propp would probably be better served in the "interpretation" section, and a section Structuralism expanded somewhat. However these issues are not grounds for deletion of properly cited content. If somebody wants to write up a structuralism section, then that's fine, but the fact it doesn't exist yet is no reason to delete mention of it (no article could progress past being a stub if that were the case). As an aside, I grant you the Structualist methodology is not focused on the folk-tales / fairy-tale genre question, disregarding the Slavic influence on The Hobbit is mistaken Beorn was originally Medved and we retain Radagast etc. So it does not really "come out of nowhere". Experts of all kinds are welcome, but we have to respect they may have gaps in their knowledge when they step outside their narrow fields, and integration of materials is done better with a broader view.  Davémon (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, Truthkeeper and thank you for the kind words. Davemon, I'm going to ignore your "narrow fields" comment here as a courtesy (but you might want to take a look at who recently rewrote Baba Yaga, for example, before you make snide remarks like that one). Obviously the Germanic material is Tolkien's primary influence here, but we could certainly use further commentary on whatever Tolkien pulled from Slavic folklore. We cannot just tack Propp's methodology on to that section though; it is unclear if this was intentional on Tolkien's part, and, like I said, it's possible to try to attempt to fit just about any narrative into this, although it was specifically intended by Propp for East Slavic magic tales. Therefore this may or may not be due to Slavic influence; we'd need some scholar commenting on it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The "narrow fields" comment applies to us all ;-) This is not the time nor place to discuss authorial intent - needless to say it is not a cut-and-dry guide to how to weight an article, Tolkien especially changes his mind often about the nature of his work over time, and often contradicts himself. Nobody is discussing Propp as an "influence" (but yes, there are several Celtic, Slavic and Finno-Ugric influences that are sadly missing at the moment.) Yes, Propp can be better integrated, but why must it be deleted (according to policy, not opinion, please)? --Davémon (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be deleted, but this is a GA and as is the sentence doesn't flow with the rest of the text. My intention wasn't to nuke it forever, but to remove, research a bit, (though I suspect both of you know much more about it than I do) and try to make it fit. A quick look at the source itself showed it only mentioned in passing, so maybe a better source is needed. That was all. A search of the edit history shows the sentence was added in 2008, but never expanded,, and in my view it needs integration. As for the Carpenter claim and the war - Carpenter writes about post-WWI modernist literature and would certainly tie Tolkien to the war. The current source is a newspaper review of his book with only a single para viewable to me, but I can get Carpenter from the library and expand that section. Then the lead can be rewritten accordingly. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, has this discussion arrived at any consensus? I still am unclear on the meaning of "conforming to Propp's analysis". Propp's article states that, "can be applied to almost any story, be it in literature, theatre, film, television series, games, etc."  Abductive  (reasoning) 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, one can attempt to apply Propp's morphology to any sort of narrative or plot, but that doesn't mean it's going to be accepted, as a quick look at the history of these non-Slavic employments will reveal. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bloodofox is correct. However the source states The Hobbit does conform, it is not in question nor is it controversial. Davémon (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propp's morphology is not a cut and dry matter. If it is generally accepted as conforming, then that needs to be stated. If someone in particular is making the claim, then that needs to be stated. This should really be obvious and I have no idea why it's any matter of contention. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Atterby states it as fact, and does not do the analysis himself. So yes generally accepted as conforming. Davémon (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * After more poking around, I can’t figure out whom Attebery, Keyes, Petty, Giraud, Crago and anyone else is referencing when they aver that The Hobbit fits Propp’s model. This may just be a case of authors echoing each other. Maybe the fit is so obvious to them amongst themselves that no one has bothered to publish an analysis, but that’s not a good theory for inclusion here. Until we find that a primary source exists, I agree this should just go. Strebe (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Petty (One ring to bind them all: Tolkien's mythology) was the first to use Propps Morphology. I do not have the source to hand, and I am unlikely to do so at any point in the future. However, I am opposed to letting it go, Truthkeeper raises concerns of "flow" and style, which by his own admission does not really warrant the exclusion. Bloodofox seems to have concerns regards the applicability of Structuralist techniques outside their original spheres of research, which is a sound position, but not really wikipedias concern (verifiability, not truth, being out guide). As far as I am concerned the only reason for inclusion is "has it been published by a reliable source?" and "is it on the subject at hand?" The answer to both those is yes.Davémon (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A guideline that applies is WP:UNDUE. As I mention above, there are thousands are scholarly works on The Hobbit. When a topic has a surplus of sources, editors must attempt to find consensus of many scholars. Encyclopedic writing is not like scholarly writing; it does not have to cover all the views, nor slavishly report the names of scholars inline. In fact, naming scholars usually means that the material poorly integrated. That, I believe, is the case with this sentence about Propp. It provides no context, and is not a major idea about The Hobbit that nearly all scholars feel is important. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we had huge amounts of text, yes, [WP:UNDUE] may apply, But no, we have one sentence, on a subject that is significant enough to warrant mention in a tertiary source (Atterby) and that isn't placing undue prominence on the theory. There are not "thousands of scholarly works on The Hobbit" this is an erroneous assumption. Most critics focus on The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. We're lucky if The Hobbit gets a mention in passing in most scholarship, it's very rarely the focus of a study. Naming Propp isn't about it being poorly integrated, many theories and models retain the name of their originator, such as with Propp. In fact, if we had a source reading The Hobbit under Marxist literary criticism we wouldn't delete it because using the name "Marx" makes it "poorly integrated". It is not editors jobs to decide what "nearly all scholars feel is important", plotting some kind of Venn diagram (named after John Venn by the way) and selecting only the topics in the center, but to balance the various weights given to various views. Davémon (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

copied section
I copied the text of the section on &#8220;publication&#8221; from this article the article on English-Language editions of The Hobbit. But the result was not to my liking, so I self-reverted. If anybody else believes the text does belong in the article on English-language editions of The Hobbit, then please feel free to redo [ that edit]. The above templated text serves as a record of what I did for GFDL (and/or CC-BY-SA) compliance purposes, especially in case somebody re-does my copy-paste job. Bwrs (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Joanna Russ' play of "The Hobbit"
Douglas A. Anderson has an article (previously published in the The New York Review of Science Fiction, and now on his blog ) about a play version of "The Hobbit" written by noted SF author Joanna Russ in the late 1950s. Russ was in contact with Tolkien about the play (which he disliked. although Anderson said it's "overall, Russ’s version isn’t really any worse than other adaptations that have been done over the years.") Should the info go here or in Russ' entry? 176.61.94.25 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"The name of the wizard Radagast is widely recognized..."
The current wording falls afoul of wp:undue and wp:weasel words. "A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories: (1) Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many" (2) Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")...." As User:Abductive (reasoning) observes above, "If an editor wishes a particular point of view to be so attributed inline, then they must provide a tertiary source saying that this view is important. All other statements must be backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view, or to multiple secondary sources that all agree."

In this case, a combination of passive voice, the use of puffery ("widely recognized") and a citation to a single, primary source combine to create the impression, indeed outright declares, that there is something like a consensus behind what is in reality at best a minority, if not a fringe, view. The fact is, the 'Radagasius' hypotheisis has been advanced by a couple of Slavaicists, with no basis for tha contention aside from the superficial similarity of the names, and completely disregarding the (crucial) fact that Tolkien is not known ever to have studied Old Slavonic language or mythology. It is not unlike the Lydney Park ring nonsense or the Tourism Board bilge regarding Birmingham's so-called "two towers," based entirely on a vague parallel and a big heap of rank speculation. In this vein, somebody is currently peddling a book claiming that Tolkien got all of his ideas from Pawnee Indian mythology!

Tolkien acknowledged the few instances where his vocabulary and nomenclature were connected to real-world models, a bare handful of cases (outside the wholesale appropriation of the Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse languages): "Moria" derives (in sound only) from the Norwegian fairy-tale Soria Moria Castle; "ond/gond" meaning stone was a conscious lift of one of the only words thought to be known from the language of Britain's pre-Celtic inhabitants. Gaelic "nasc" ring and also bond, when Tolkien was made aware of it after writing LR, was to him a remarkable coincidence. All of these can be cited directly to Tolkien himself; but please, let's not be claiming that one academic's pet hypothesis is "widely recognized" among Tolkien scholars when it isn't, or soon we'll be reading here that Middle-earth's Pawnee foundations are "widely recognized." Solicitr (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I whole heartedly agree, one source does not equal widely recognized, there is a distinct streak of Slavic centric pushing in some Tolkien articles, a lot of it based on very poor evidence. One needs only look at the history of the Boromir article to see this in evidence, GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  18:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree; a tiresome habit of academics with axes to grind. There's zilch evidence that Tolkien took any inspiration from Slavic mythology. -- Elphion (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect Solicitr’s conclusion is right, but the rationale (s)he gives seems faulty. This is not an apparent case of either WP:WEASEL WORDS or WP:UNDUE. It would be if the text in question were some editors’ choice of words, which is what those policies govern. But they’re not; they’re purportedly the source’s assessment (not the “spice’s” assessment: mobile device editing fail cascade there). The policy Solicitr quotes specially allows the verbiage in the text if the statement is “…backed up with by a work that either claims to represent the consensus view…” So, does Orr make a claim of the consensus view? And is Orr’s work a credible reference? I can’t answer either of those questions without a lot of digging. But it should be easy enough to answer whether scholars have refuted Orr. If no one has bothered, then it is not our place to, either. It is our place to see if other scholars agree. If we don’t find much one way or the other, then clearly “widely recognized” does not hold. “The fact that Tolkien is not known ever to have studied Old Slavonic language or mythology” is more or less irrelevant even in a scholarly analysis, let alone as a basis for Wikipedia editorial decision, being a faulty generalization summed up as “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, and in the context of this discussion, WP:OR. If Orr is correct then it may be that Tolkien casually read Slavic myths somewhere along the line, something that would be neither surprising nor generally knowable. Strebe (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In The History of the Hobbit (pp. 276-8), John Rateliff acknowledges the possibility of a Slavic origin for that name, but he concludes that a much more probable inspiration for Tolkien would have been the Gothic king Radagaisus. In any case, even if there was a Slavic inspiration for that name, I don't think it warrants a mention in this article, since The Hobbit has tons of inspirations much stronger than that one. Ælfgar (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Mentioning Radagast in isolation is a flaw in this article. Either the Slavic influence on multiple elements of the story is notable enough to warrant useful commentary, or else that single-sentence paragraph should be removed. Does no one following this conversation have access to Orr’s cited work? Strebe (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently Google has just indexed Orr's article (although they date it to 1993): . He writes that "...Radagast and Variag, which were obviously taken from Slavic originals, and are recognised as such by all the critics." The latter statement seems a bit vague to say the least. And then there's a treatise by Clive Tolley in "Old English influence on The Lord of the Rings" where he writes that Radagast "is derived from Slavonic" (aka Slavic) . Anyhow, the etymology of Tolkien's characters should either be treated in a relevant stand-alone article or in J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, but not in this article about The Hobbit. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All right, well, apparently the source does say something equivalent to “widely recognized”, so this is not a case of WP:WEASEL WORDS. I agree that the origin of “Radagast” per se is not worth mentioning. However, the character is readily identifiable to readers and therefore would be the best candidate of an example of Slavic influences. As I see it, the real problem here is that the article gives this example without the example illustrating anything. Either we give Slavic influence fair treatment or we delete the mention of Radagast. If there is an academic faction generating scholarly arguments for Slavic influence, then it seems to me we are obliged to note that, and if we do, the example of Radagast makes sense. In particular, if this academic faction is not being refuted by other critics, omitting mention of Slavic influence would be clear bias. That does not seem to be the case. Orr’s work is one of the few on the topic. Critics like Jason Fisher give plenty of reasons to suppose that the Slavic elements are incidental at best, and even Slavic apologists seem to readily acknowledge that any influence is subtle. I vote we simply delete the line in question. Strebe (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy Editing
I just reverted an edit from Strebe which had removed my changes, which were largely grammatical. Rather than begin edit warring, I thought it appropriate to discuss. Blanket changes calling commas excessive (when they are grammatically correct) is not helpful. * Seen a Mike  *  14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept that there is a trend toward minimal punctuation and eliminating commas where it does not cause confusion if they are omitted. I find it easier to read and prefer the additional punctuation, but I won't demand it where it is not necessary. However, there are some changes I will still be implementing:
 * Opening sentenance "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is a fantasy novel]...": No comma after the title. You would not say "Albert Einstein, was a scientist..."
 * In Influences section, Beowulf should be wikilinked. It will help those unfamiliar with the story. There is already a wikilink for Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics, but not for Beowulf, which is a different article and not about the same thing as the other link. It should be wikilinked.
 * In Influences section, "...include the title thief as Bilbo is called by Gollum and later also by Smaug..." I am removing "also". It is obvious without the word "also" that both of them call him "thief" and "also" just makes it more wordy and awkward to read.
 * In Influences section, "The representation of the dwarves in The Hobbit by Tolkien was influenced..." I am removing "by Tolkien". It implies that there is a different version of the story we are talking about. Clearly, we are referring to "The Hobbit" that is the subject of the article. No need for restating the author.
 * In Publication section, the wikilink for "Rationing" should just be on the one word, not to "paper rationing" specifically. My edit: paper rationing ; Other way: paper rationing


 * * Seen a Mike  *  17:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * With apologies, I intended to write an explanation here when I reverted your reversion, but I got yanked away from the computer.
 * Opening sentenance "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is a fantasy novel]...": No comma after the title. You would not say "Albert Einstein, was a scientist..."
 * Your proposal is incorrect. The comma is part of the title. For purposes of sentence punctuation, it doesn’t exist. You do not seem to have reinstated the comma, so let’s please leave as is.


 * Your link to Beowulf is fine. I was looking at the wrong version of the article, it seems; there were many revisions in what I reverted originally, and this was my mistake.


 * Same goes for “also”; I thought you were adding it, not removing it. Very much my mistake.
 * In Influences section, "The representation of the dwarves in The Hobbit by Tolkien was influenced..." I am removing "by Tolkien". It implies that there is a different version of the story we are talking about. Clearly, we are referring to "The Hobbit" that is the subject of the article. No need for restating the author.
 * I do not agree with this because the sentence continues with was influenced by his own selective reading. The continuation leaves the pronoun with no antecedent, and therefore reads poorly and is simply not correct. I will be fixing this pending your response.
 * In Publication section, the wikilink for "Rationing" should just be on the one word, not to "paper rationing" specifically. My edit: paper rationing ; Other way: paper rationing
 * This is fine.


 * About the commas, I myself prefer rather more than the sparse use in the article, but my preference is irrelevant. As a matter of correctness the article is fine, and we are obliged to honor precedent. I’m glad we agree here.


 * Thanks for the efforts. Strebe (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Originally, in the opening sentence there was a comma after "Again". I never had issue with the comma in the title. It WAS "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, is a fantasy novel..." Anyways, glad we agree it is good as it stands now.
 * In regards to the "by Tolkien", I still don't like the way that sentence reads. You are correct that simply removing the words "by Tolkien" is probably the wrong way to address it. Please feel free to re-insert "by Tolkien", as I realize why it is there. Or perhaps look at re-wording it to be better than it was or better than my edit. But I have no objection to just returning the "by Tolkien". I'll leave it up to you.
 * I do not agree that "As a matter of correctness the article is fine". I think there should technically be additional comments. While MOS:COMMA is pretty sparse, it does indicate that there should be commas to delimit parenthetical material. It also suggests simplifying a sentence so as not to require as many commas, not just eliminating them. As I said, there has been a trend toward minimal punctuation. While it seems that in a technical sense and according to the Wikipedia guidelines that there should be more commas, I'll pass on an argument about it here. It is readable, and a very good article, even if it is technically missing commas. ;)
 * Thanks for the feedback and working to improve this little slice of the world. *  Seen a Mike  *  20:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Largely a sustained exploration of evil"?
The Houghton Mifflin Harcourt "Readers' Guide for The Hobbit" quotes Humphrey Carpenter saying that The Hobbit is "largely a sustained exploration of evil." This is an interesting interpretation; how can it best be worked-in to this article? Bwrs (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yuck, whoever made that layout should be left alone with a bunch of goblins. I could hardly readly the main text on that background image. Apart from that we should cite the direct source, i.e. Carpenter's book Secret Gardens: The Golden Age of Children’s Literature and work it into the "Reception" section of our article. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see this also. J.R.R. Tolkein was famous among his contemporaries for being a Catholic author, exploring (along with C.S. Lewis, with whom he was good friends though Lewis was Anglican) the struggle between good and evil as it plays itself out in our world (represented as a fantasy world) and our selves (painted as fantasy creatures, or as the human beings who interact with them). The gradual surrender to sin and evil utterly dehumanizing and enslaving a soul is represented by the pitiful, revolting Gollum; Our human temptation, even though we see the ultimately horrible and destructive power of sin in others, is represented by Bilbo's struggle to resist becoming like Gollum after he takes the Ring. Both the authors together illustrate a very strong, orthodox religious perspective that was central to their own lives. It seems to me this shouldn't be overlooked. The article currently treats this literature as fantasy only; it is more than that, though we are not so ready to recognize it today for a multitude of reasons. However, an encyclopedia article should recognize it.172.10.238.180 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To be added the information needs to be available from secondary sources and not be original research. If you have a source for these interpretations and ideas, it could probably be included under "Themes" section. Also, keep in mind that content should relate directly and explicitly to The Hobbit. What you describe seems to follow that, but discussion of Tolkien's religion or beliefs could stray from the novel into things that would be more appropriate on the J. R. R. Tolkien article. *  Seen a Mike  *  16:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis detail
Copied from my talk page: Hi! I disagree with your undo on The Hobbit but did not want to get persnickety by undoing an undo. I thought the detail addition minor and relevant. After all, it is an accurate addition of four words total: hardly "too much detail" I think. Should we move it to talk? HullIntegrity (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, HullIntegrity. This sort of edit comes up periodically. It seems everyone has their favorite detail. Any single one doesn’t matter much other than the imbalance of depth. However, in sum, if we simply let these sorts of details accumulate, the synopsis would expand rapidly and drastically. We’re obliged to keep it as short as feasible while still letting the reader understand the plot. The question to ask is, “Does the black arrow contribute to understanding the plot?” The answer is, surely, no. Thanks for your understanding. Strebe (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One problem with the undone edit was that it introduced "The Black Arrow" as if a reader without any context would know what that was, the black arrow is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, so this addition could cause confusion and to make it suitable would require even more detail. GimliDotNet (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I can see the issue here, but slippery slope arguments are not my thing. It seemed to me that particular undo was reactionary. Just thinking now: he does kill Smaug with an arrow. It was called "The Black Arrow". Why not make it something like "with a special arrow named 'The Black Arrow' made to kill a dragon"? No one is going to be sued over too much detail in this particular case, right? If I had never read The Hobbit, I would like to know that information. And thanks for listening. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Strebe: is the detail significant to the plot?  Not at all; it's a throw-away detail even in the text.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  To learn all the details you should read the book. -- Elphion (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So he kills the dragon with his bare hands? Bad breath? Harsh language? I think how a dragon is actually killed seems significant. I mean: dragon. Right? And, of course, this was not even my edit I am defending. LOL. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify: The line currently reads " A noble thrush had overheard Bilbo's report of Smaug's vulnerability and reports it to the Lake-town defender, Bard, who slays the dragon." So "noble thrush" (rather than "bird" or "some animal") is more important than "arrow"? I am just not getting this. Slaying an ancient dragon with a specially made arrow seems a major plot element to me. And now I feel all Freudian and weird . . . HullIntegrity (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a valid point. "Noble" is completely superfluous, and the point of the thrush's intelligence is not clear.  ("Thrush" wastes no more breath than "bird", so I'm inclined to keep that.)  But Strebe's point about mentioning "Black Arrow" specifically (i.e., that we would then have to explain it) remains; and it really is a minor detail:  Tolkien says nothing about "specially made", with the implication that there was some sort of spell on it or something.  How about something like the following:  " A thrush had overheard Bilbo's report of Smaug's vulnerability and reports it to the Lake-town defender, Bard the Bowman.  Bard aims for the weak spot and slays the dragon."  -- Elphion (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That is actually pretty nice! HullIntegrity (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we agree to make that edit as proposed? HullIntegrity (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I might even suggest “reports it to the Lake-town defender, Bard. His arrow finds the chink and slays the dragon.” Even less text conveying more. Strebe (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A very elegant rephrase. :) HullIntegrity (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We have a new series of edits surrounding the auctioning of Bilbo’s home. Please let’s exercise some judicious thinking here. There is nothing about that particular detail that benefits the understanding of the story. Why not toss in the episode of wildly and futilely shooting at the deer in Mirkwood? Or climbing the tree and finding all the butterflies? Or the colors of all the dwarves’ cloaks? Or Beorn’s magical animals? We are obliged to keep the synopsis succinct by eliminating what’s unnecessary. That obliges us to exercise judgment about what contributes to understanding versus what add charm and realism. The latter is dispensable. Please read How to write a plot summary for a thoughtful explanation of how the plot summary should work. In particular, “The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included.” Strebe (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Methinks the return to The Shire (in the book) and the state of The Shire at the time is significant enough for a reference. HullIntegrity (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But I am totally NOT fighting for it. HullIntegrity (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Bewilderland
The introduction includes the comment:- "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".

I edited the last bit to Middle-earth because:- (1) the introduction to creatures begins with Chapter 1, which introduces Hobbits (and Wizards and Dwarves), and continues with chapter 2 (which introduces Trolls) and chapter 3 (which introduces Elves). These creatures are not limited to "Tolkien's Wilderland", and in fact the individuals introduced (Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin & Co., etc.) do NOT live in Wilderland. Wilderland is properly the region east of the Misty Mountains, and Bilbo does not reach it until chapter 6. (2) Furthermore, many of the creatures first encountered in Wilderland (e.g. Men and Dragons) are not unique to Wilderland in Tolkien's Middle-earth. (3) I'm aware that Middle-earth in not named in the book. However most readers of Wikipedia would have heard of Middle-earth, and few would have heard of Wilderland. (4) In any case a link is required.

But I guess whoever reversed my edit knows better. Regards, 203.26.122.8 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, talk, and thanks for the efforts. I reverted the edit because of the reference to Middle-earth and because I thought it contradicted the reference. However, this conversation incited me to look up the cited essay (Matthews’s “the Psychological Journey of Bilbo Baggins”), and nowhere does she state “Tolkien’s Wilderland” or even reference Wilderland at all. I agree it needs to be fixed. As for where Wilderland starts literally, I would suppose it’s at “The Edge of the Wild” as marked on Tolkien’s map of Wilderland. That’s west of the Misty Mountains, not at or east of, and the party reaches that at the beginning of Chapter III. People tend to equate Wilderland with Rhovanion, but The Hobbit does not agree. Strebe (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Altogether it was a very slow business following the track"
The info box currently states that The Hobbit was followed by The Lord of the Rings. Looking at how the label followed_by is used elsewhere, I amended this to indicate that Tolkien's next published work was Leaf by Niggle, but retained the information that the sequel of The Hobbit is The Lord of the Rings. This has been reversed, with the claim that LbN was not in the 'series'. However LbN it was certainly next in the 'series' of Tolkien publications. Furthermore, in other authors' works, one notes e.g. that Oliver Twist is 'followed by' Nicholas Nickleby, although NN is not a sequel of OT. Or an example closer to home: the info-box for The Children of Húrin states that it was followed by The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, and LoGS only follows 'CoH' in the publication series (it was in no way a sequel). The relevant dates for the matter at hand are: The Hobbit (1937), LbN (1945), Farmer Giles of Ham (1949), _then_ LotR (1954). At the same time I definitely think it's important to include LotR in the info box for The Hobbit. Perhaps a separate label 'Sequel'? What do people think? Regards Jungleboy63 (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I also propose to indicate the prequel to The Hobbit: namely The Quest of Erebor (albeit unfinished). Jungleboy63 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This needs a broader discussion. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth -- Elphion (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Hobbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103123557/http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/95-96/ to http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/95-96/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103123557/http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/95-96/ to http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/95-96/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103123557/http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/95-96/ to http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/95-96/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5nndnGHOp?url=http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/ChesleyWinsByYear.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Chesley2002.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Hobbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017121000/http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/90/ to http://www.mythsoc.org/mythlore/90/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516192023/http://www.middleearthgames.com/index.html to http://middleearthgames.com/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the Brief or Descriptive version of the plot be used?
Simple issue on which version of the plot should be used.

This version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=842601749

or this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hobbit&oldid=842607232

For reference, this is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hobbit&diff=842607232&oldid=842601749

Moonythehuman (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * For note, most other plot sections are similarly large and descriptive to the descriptive version. Preemptive revert to descriptive version, for now? Moonythehuman (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The wording in the extended version is not neutral and includes too much unnecessary fluff. Not a positive change in my opnion. Deagol2 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The level of detail and precise verbiage in the synopsis have already consumed monumental amounts of collaborative time in this article and have been the subject of extensive, prolonged debates over many years. Wikipedia's guidelines want short synopses. I agree with Deagol2's assessment as well. Strebe (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Warg" or "warg"?
Elphion reverted my capitalization change, having found an instance of "warg" in The Hobbit. Hence, the capitalization appears to be inconsistent. On the other hand, having found myriad instances of "Warg" and no other instance of "warg", I am left to wonder why the sole uncapitalized instance "wins". Strebe (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The quote is actually from FR, Book II, Chapter 1 ("Many Meetings"). The general rule, mentioned somewhere in Tolkien's own letters, is that you capitalize the race name when referring to the race as a whole, but leave it uncapitalized when referring to individuals (or a group of individuals).  Thus "In the First Age, Men migrated from the waking location," but "Several men came from the waking location."  There are still obvious grey areas, e.g., "an army of M/men", and in addition even Tolkien himself occasionally deviates from the rule. -- Elphion (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The general rule… Does that not argue, then, for capitalized for at least the first mention in the article? (Side note: true inconsistencies might be from Tolkien’s editors; he wrangled with them much. On the other hand, he never capitalized hobbit, whether as a race, collective noun, or individual, as far as I recall.) Strebe (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the first mention is saying that some men, elves, wargs, etc. are involved in the tale, not the entire races. (The other races mentioned there are all lower-case.)  "Hobbits" does appear as a capitalized collective at least in the Prologue of LOTR and various Appendices.  But I suspect most of the inconsistency is Tolkien himself:  see, e.g., the incident where Treebeard finds Merry and Pippin in TT, when Treebeard recites the "lore of Living Creatures" and they discuss editing it -- u.c. and l.c. used fairly indiscriminately.  Many picayune editorial corrections were made in the text later, by Tolkien and, later still, by the Estate, but consistency in this regard was not achieved (and there are still many more obvious errors even in the "standard" computerized version of the text). -- Elphion (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Given Tolkien is so consistent with the use of Warg in The Hobbit, I feel we should follow his use for this article. The book was not conceived as part of the matter of Middle-earth, so does not necessarily follow "the rules". Deagol2 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the first mention is saying that some men, elves, wargs, etc. are involved in the tale, not the entire races. Those first mentions are pretty much textbook usages of "race". "Types of elves" cannot be construed any other way. Notice that Men is capitalized, by the way. Strebe (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll concede Elves. The others should all be lower case.  I certainly don't agree that Tolkien's general usage (and this is a matter of English, not Middle-earth) as he stated and (inconsistently) followed elsewhere should necessarily be overridden by the usage specifically in The Hobbit.  While the first page was not conceived in conjunction with Middle-earth, by the time he got to writing about the wargs it had already been pulled into its orbit.


 * The inconsistency in the sources complicates matters, but I disagree that The Hobbit should not be the authority here. This article has been forceful and consistent in its assignation of authority to The Hobbit for matters of perspective, tone, context—everything. I don’t know why orthography should be any different. And, as I go through parallel examples in The Lord of the Rings, I find precious few instances of "orcs". Rather, it is almost always Orcs, whether talking about them as a race or as a mob or simply in plural. Wargs are much less of a topic in LotR, but returning to The Hobbit, the capitalized form strongly dominates. So, capitalize, I say. (This is not a matter of preference for me, by the way. I dislike how often mundane, descriptive stuff gets capitalized in many modern contexts. My preferences do not trump Tolkien’s, though, for articles about his works, let alone for words he invented.) Strebe (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, Tolkien was not consistent, as we have established. I think we should attempt to be, but far too many electrons have been spilt over this already.  Tolkien did not invent "warg", by the way, he imported it:  it's a Scandinavian word for "wolf". -- Elphion (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, Tolkien was not consistent, as we have established. What we have established is that he almost always wrote "Warg", not "warg". As far as a “Scandinavian” warg goes, the word is not Danish or Norwegian (both "ulv"); it is Swedish (“Varg”), which is capitalized. So, I am keen to understand your continued insistence on your preferred orthography as somehow having primacy. Strebe (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Already explained above: it's the rule Tolkien expressed, and followed to some degree. Should we follow his rule -- or his inconsistency?  Are you advocating capitalizing race terms randomly? Should we just sprinkle in majuscules or minuscules as the whim takes us?  Perhaps perform a statistical study of the texts to determine the appropriate ratio for each race in each text? Any of those might justifiably be called "following Tolkien's practice". I think following the rule makes the most sense. -- Elphion (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We cannot follow Tolkien’s articulated rule because we cannot even agree on when a usage refers to the category versus members of the category. Given this list:
 * …a host of other characters of varying importance, such as the twelve other dwarves of the company; two types of elves: both puckish and more serious warrior types; Men; man-eating trolls; boulder-throwing giants; evil cave-dwelling goblins; forest-dwelling giant spiders who can speak; immense and heroic eagles who also speak; evil wolves, or wargs, who are allied with the goblins…
 * …it is clear to me that Men (already capitalized), trolls, giants, goblins, giant spiders, eagles, wolves/wargs are each a mention of a category, not a mention of members of that category. You, evidently, think otherwise, for reasons I do not know and likely will never agree to. Meanwhile, Tolkien's articulated rule (the source of which, thus far in this conversation, remains obscure) came long after The Hobbit, is overwhelmingly violated in The Hobbit, is largely violated in The Lord of the Rings, and therefore seems probable was an answer contrived in the moment without any strong cognizance theretofore. I am prepared to draw up an exhaustive list of instances wherein the capitalized form is used and we both agree the text refers to members of the category, as well as an exhaustive list of instances wherein the lower case form is used and we both agree the text refers to members of the category. If I were to undertake this, are you prepared to accept the results or will you continue to assert primacy in violation of Tolkien’s vacillating but strong tendencies? Strebe (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to run down where Tolkien mentions the rule, but the indexes of the various works have not been helpful, and I haven't time to plough through HoME, UT, and Letters looking for something I'm no longer sure is even there. It's quite possible that I've internalized the rule mentioned a few times in various WP Tolkien talk pages, since several editors are observing it. And that, I think, is the crux of this discussion: it's not just about The Hobbit -- it runs through many, maybe even most of the Tolkien articles. I have no strong feelings one way or the other (believe it or not); I just want a simple rule we can all follow. You're talking about a change that touches the entire project, so the project talk page is the right place to address this. -- Elphion (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to add above: Swedish varg is not in fact routinely capitalized -- not that that need bear much on what en:WP decides to do. Tolkien clearly borrowed the root, transforming it according to historical English sound changes (cf. Völundr, Weland). -- Elphion (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elphion. Here is the rundown in The Hobbit, first edition:
 * Warg is always capitalized, no exceptions.
 * Goblin, orc, hobgoblin, elf, dwarf, hobbit, troll, etc. are never capitalized except for standard grammatical purposes: in a title or as first word of a sentence.
 * Men is capitalized when it refers to race but otherwise not. Presumably this is to prevent ambiguity when it might refer to, for example, male elves.
 * Hence my opinion is unchanged:
 * 1. Tolkien clearly intended Warg to be capitalized in The Hobbit, for whatever obscure but relentless reasons of his own;
 * 2. This article considers The Hobbit to be the authority in all matters surrounding it;
 * 3. The Lord of the Rings is a mess with regard to capitalization; in general these names of races are capitalized whether referring to the category or to members of it, but exceptions are easy to find.
 * 4. I see no point in deferring to a mess of a situation, particularly when it is not relevant to The Hobbit, which has its own clear rules. Hence, capitalize it in this article, I maintain. Strebe (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What about in an article that mentions both Hobbit and LoTR (like Warg (Middle-earth))? Saying that it's always capitalized in The Hobbit doesn't really solve the problem. As I said above, we need a project-wide methodology on this, and not just for wargs. -- Elphion (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree conventions are a problem for the project. They’re just not a problem here. It does not bother me that this article differs; The Hobbit is a distinct work. Many details cannot be fully reconciled with the rest, and a belief that we must invites WP:SYNTH. Strebe (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The Kalevala, Influences on Tolkien, Gandalf, and (perhaps) The Hobbit
Guys, the Middle-earth articles number over 100, not counting the film side, covering characters, themes, places, poetry and other aspects separately: it makes no sense to try to cover everything in a high-level article on one book. There is a major article on J. R. R. Tolkien's influences; another on Gandalf, which also discusses influences on him; now people are wondering if we should include such matter here. I think that's simply not appropriate; there are far too many to include sensibly, and as it happens, the Kalevala is at most a minor and debatable influence on Gandalf (there's a stronger case for Tom Bombadil, actually, and from the same Kalevala character, Väinämöinen). The main influence on Gandalf is not the Kalevala but Norse mythology, as Gandalf is the image of Odin the wanderer, attested in reliable sources. But that isn't a matter for The Hobbit either. I've therefore cut the proposed discussion of the Kalevala and Gandalf from here. I do hope that's clear and acceptable to everybody. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bilbo romantic?
Introductory paragraph on the Hobbit states Bilbo learns his romantic dude if nature, but there was no such "romance" in the book... I believe it is a wrong information, and could be looked into... 124.123.43.148 (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it does not suggest he was in any way inclined to wenching, it means that just as the romantic poets (Wordsworth, Coleridge, ...) dreamt of something altogether loftier than day-to-day existence in Industrial Revolution England, he had a romantic streak for adventure and excitement, belying his solid bourgeois appearance. I think I told you all this in edit comments already, but no matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Soviet Hobbit
There's no info about Soviet cartoon and TV adaptations of the book, but it is available in separate article about book's adaptations. Can someone transfer info from there to here? If simple copy-past is OK- I can do it. Gevorg89 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but there's no reason to clone the whole of that article over here; the content here should be a concise (short) summary of that article. The section is indeed getting rather over-full and too much like a list, not a summary, so I'll have a go at cleaning it up. The goal is basically to have one paragraph summarizing the other article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)