Talk:Influences on Tolkien/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover lotr green gandalf.jpg

Image:Cover lotr green gandalf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

All the cited content is already found in the The Lord of the Rings article, and the rest is either speculative, or actually about the Silmarillion, which isn't really appropriate here. Is a separate article really required at the moment? I think it should be merged with the LotR and Sil. articles, then allowed to grow as part of the parent, then split off when it becomes worthwhile? Or perhaps the page could be renamed to "Tolkiens Literary Influences" so the Sil. content can still stand, and encourage the expansion of this article? Davémon (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur there are original research issues in this article. Some of it is verifiable, but much is not. The text is interesting, and may be correct, but we need reliable sources to support the content.

I also concur that there is lack of clarity about what are influences of LOTR and what apply to the Silmarillion. It might be hard to do a merge to one or the other articles though, since the two works share common influences.

I prefer the solution suggested by Davémon, that the influences from both other articles be focused in one article - or perhaps it could be moved into the article at Tolkien's legendarium as a main influences section. The lead paragraphs of the influences article could be used in a modified form as a small section in the LOTR and Silmarillion articles, with links to the main influences article or "Tolkien's legendarium" - influences section.

There's also a discussion of this at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Problems with the Influence section; I suggest focusing the discussion here since it involves several articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - I've looked around some more, considering the best place for the influences info. It seems it would fit well in Middle-earth, since that article summarizes the entire cosmology, history, geography and peoples that were influenced by the influences. That's already a long article though, so maybe it's better to keep the influences as a separate article. The other article I mentioned above, Tolkien's legendarium is not so long, there is room there for a section with the influences content, and it's a good centralized article title since it's in the title bar of the nav-box footers. Or perhaps this article could be renamed to Middle-earth influences or Tolkien's legendarium influences.

I'm not proposing a specific one of those solutions at this time, but the way it is now has a lot of overlap. If we centralize the influences topic into one place it would be easier to do effective referencing and avoid duplicating work. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Jack-A-Roe suggests a general article covering "J.R.R. Tolkiens influences" would reduce a lot of repetitious content, overlap and duplicate effort. There is also the influences section at J.R.R. Tolkien to be included. I have noted several problems with the Tolkien's legendarium article on it's talk page - the main crux of the issue is that the scope of the term isn't well defined the literature (and the only formal, sourced, declaration of it does not include anything that contains hobbits). Until those problems are resolved, I'd stay away from lending the concept more weight in Wikipedia than it is given in the external literature. J.R.R. only borrowed the term "Middle-earth" part-way through writing the Lord of the Rings, and it doesn't appear in the early Silmarillion, or the Hobbit, so its relation to the process of writing these is negligible. Even in tracing something as simple as the influence (or perhaps reference) to The Man in the Moon nursery rhyme, sees it appear in The Book of Lost Tales-> Silmarillion, Father Christmas Letters, Roverandom and The Lord of the Rings, taking the influence far beyond the scope of Middle-earth, perhaps an article J.R.R. Tolkien's influences with subsections dealing with each of his writings gives us the broadest scope for collating the subject-matter? --Davémon (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I will just explain as the creator of this article: I think the majority of it is horrible. I simply cut it out of the main article because the length there is far too long for FA and the content is not FA-standard. That was before I conceded the battle of bringing the article back to the standard on which I got it promoted to FA. My suggestion would be to leave this article, verify what you can, and cut the main article section to about three paragraphs. SorryGuy Talk 17:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems we're on the same wavelength about centralizing the influences section out of the other articles because of duplication and excessive length. I was not aware of some of the facts brought up by Davémon, so in light of that information, I'd agree with renaming this article to J.R.R. Tolkien's influences, with subsections, along with SorryGuy's idea of cutting the sections to a few paragraphs in the LOTR article (and wherever else they are, ie Silmarillion, and anywhere else we find them), with links to this one as the "main article" for influences.

Once the material is collected into one article, it will be easier to identify where it is sourced or unsourced, to clear out the original research, and bring it up to good standards using good referencing. It would be fine with me to proceed on this without delay, because it does not seem controversial; I wonder how much time we should allow for others to enter comments. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. R. Tolkien's influences for consistent spacing. Uthanc (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the spacing in the title, do you concur with the merge proposal to combine the various influences into one article? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how about something like Harry Potter influences and analogues? Influences and analogues in J. R. R. Tolkien's fiction or something like that... Awkward? Uthanc (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what value "Analogues" may have - can you give one or two (cited) examples in relation to Tolkien (there may be some in articles already)? Incidently I think that Harry Potter article needs to be careful of taking the authors self-publicity statements at face value and reporting them as fact. Thankfully 60 years of Tolkien analysis and research probably means we can avoid that kind of thing! --Davémon (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think J. R. R. Tolkien's influences is sufficient - "Analogues" is not needed. If verifiable information about analogues is found at some point, the title could be adjusted then. For now, the topic is "influences", according to the text in the articles so that's what the title should reflect. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Since no-one has disagreed about this merge with summary-style paragraphs in the main articles, I've completed the merge as follows:

merged in the info from LOTR influences section into this article
shortened LOTR influences section and added "main" link to this article
adjusted merge tags to omit the already merged section
changed the name of this article to J. R. R. Tolkien's influences
created sections in this article for the various Tolkien works
merged the Silmarillion influences section into this one - the new J. R. R. Tolkien's influences article
shortened the Silmarillion influences section and added "main" link to this article
removed the merge tags

Remaining to be done:

improve the newly merged article by removing original research and tightening up the info based on reliable sources.
copyedit influences sections remaining in both the LOTR and Silmarillion articles
check other Tolkein-related pages for influences sections that can be merged and linked to this page.

All are welcome to contribute! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner

An article used to support the weight of his influence actually posits the opposite. http://tolkienonline.de/etep/1ring5.html That has been corrected with proper representation. IMO it's all overblown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.194.8 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg

The image Image:Jrrt lotr cover design.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Silmarillion.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale template linked to this article has been added. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur mythos influence

A large and interesting article on how Arthurian archetypes influenced The Lord of the Rings. [1]. Would be nice to write a Welsh paragraph in LOTR section.Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Tolkien disliked Arthurian mythology and denied influence. A lot of that seems like a lot of old poppycock and draw too many parrallels. Gandalf is influenced by Merlin? Unlikely. Other than the fact that both use magic, their isn't much parallels. Gandalf is obviously inspired by Woden in look and mannerism. The Mummy (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only Welsh influence on Tolkien's work was that the phonology of Sindarin, one of his Elvish languages, was based on the phonology of the Welsh language (which he loved). 192.91.147.34 (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent researches made about the matter, I'd think that saying that the only influences of Welsh upon Tolkien's work are restricted to the use of Welsh as a template to Sindarin is an outdated /misinformed position.

Cf: http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10211.9/965/MYTHIC_ARCHETYPES_PERLONGO.pdf?sequence=1--PauloIapetus (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The connection seems very tenuous. Arthur and Frodo???--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland...It was Tolkien himself that mentioned the parallel between Frodo and Arthur when he commented that his (and Sam's) departing to Tol Erëssea, also called Avallon in the early writings of Tolkien, and, later, possessing a city and haven called Avalónnë, was "an Arthurian ending" in the letter to Milton Waldman in an excerpt included in Morgoth's Ring. "To Bilbo and Frodo the special grace is granted to go with the Elves they loved - an Arthurian ending, in which it is, of course, not made explicit whether this is an 'allegory' of death, or a mode of healing and restoration leading to a return" Furthermore,take a look in Verlyn Flieger's chapter about the subject in her book before deleting entire sections without reading the sources and their respective references.http://books.google.com.br/books?id=Q6zgmCf_kY4C&pg=PA32&dq=tolkien+arthur+flieger+the+literary+model+tolkien+and+arthur&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=zD83U-31L-mnsAT5-YGgBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tolkien%20arthur%20flieger%20the%20literary%20model%20tolkien%20and%20arthur&f=false§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloIapetus (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)<[reply]

Well, the information in the article is tenuous. This is more substantial. However, the problem was the Arthurian section was under Silmarillion, but dealt with LOTR. Arthurian influences on LOTR are dealt with under "Other...".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland, in spite of the division of sections in "Tolkien influences" the Arthurian Material is not exclusively pertaining to the Lord of the Rings because Avalónnë and Erëssea were introduced in The Silmarillion. It's because of this, by the way, that The Fall of Arthur edited by Christopher Tolkien included an entire section to the connection with The Silmarillion ,. Due to the intrinsic interpenetration and intertextuality between the works such a rigid separation as alluded by you was not incorporated in the design and structure of the article. Pay more attention to it before editing next time. Furthermore, your editing has shown quite clearly that you have not acquainted yourself with the sources cited and linked before editing.By the way, the information textualy included in the Wiki article properly said is always "tenuous" as observing the norms of "fair use" and Wikipedia's guidelines about lenght and excess of details and/or exclusion of original research. If you want more information take the time to read the entire lenght of the articles linked and their respective cited sources before deleting sections.PauloIapetus (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mythology section

The Greek mythology section seems to greatly be original research and speculation and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.214.150 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands currently it does have citations, but only makes 2 points of connection: the Valar and the Olympians (who are similar to the Norse gods anyway), and Atlantis and Numemor. It seems to have only minor significance.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner? Really?

I have to believe the cites exist, even though one of them supporting the claim is a dead link, but any commentator who thinks the Wagner operas had any influence on Tolkien is an ignoramus. Tolkien was not a particular Wagner fan, and he never mentioned or analyzed opera in any of his work. He was, however, an expert on Wagner's sources, and himself wrote a reconstructed lay of the whole Volusung/Nibelung cycle. If there was any influence there (which Tolkien himself denied) it was certainly the source legends and NOT Wagner. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, nowadays, excellent sources ( linked and cited in the article) proving that, although Tolkien and Wagner, indeed, have used the same sources, JRRT is indebted to Wagner's improvements and developments introduced in the Ring's mythos. T.A. Shippey himself has recognized this simple truth in his most recent article about the matter. Please, at least, try to read the sources cited and linked before stating dogmatic assertions about the issue--

Cf: Shippey's quoted words from The Problem of the Rings: 'Yet there is another feature of the opera-cycle which may at least have given Tolkien a hint, and a most important hint: this is Wagner's concentration on. and original conception of, the Ring itself. None of the ancient sources gives the ring Andvaranaut the central place that Wagner does. (...) It was Wagner who - one has to concede, in very Tolkienian fashion - noted the gaps of the ancient sources and wrote his version of the story determinedly into them. He follows the Ring from the Rhinemaidens to Alberich, to Loge and Wotan, to Fafner, to Siegfried, to Brunnhilde, and back to Siegfried, to Brunnhilde, to the Rhinemaidens. It is a continuing presence in the story. In much the same way, at some time between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien devised a chain of transmission from Sauron to Isildur, to Gollum, to Bilbo,to Frodo, with a final destruction by fire which parallels the return of Wagner's Ring to the Rhinemaidens and its drowning in the flood. '

PauloIapetus (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think, though, that Wagner is being given too much importance here. It might be better to have a section on the Ring legends and include Wagner there. The quotation from Shippey refers only to a "hint". In any case, the ring is only one thread of Tolkien's story. Much of the material of LOTR is prefigured in The Hobbit, and the ring in The Hobbit is not very Wagnerian, and in fact appears to be a just (!) a ring of invisibility. The section on Wagner as it stands is little more than a list of people who claim the influence exists and and list of people who deny it. Anyone reading it would think that the story of the operas and the story of LOTR are similar which is far from the case, but very little specific information is given.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "hint" commented by Shippey, the "most important hint", dont forget the qualified tone, however, is one of the main leitmotifs of the two sagas. The inherent malevolence of the cursed object, the Two Rings of Power, pervades the entire narratives and dictates the general direction of the plots. Furthermore... the storylines ARE similar...Both of them used the same sources It's all a question of how much someone abstract their component parts to their fundamental essence in symbolic terms. One excelent article that does just that can be found here:http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Two+rings+to+rule+them+all%3A+a+comparative+study+of+Tolkien+and+Wagner.-a0256864486 The fact that the Ring was not The Ring of Power and didn't possessed so blatant Wagnerian undertones in the Hobbit does not preclude the influence.The Hobbit was not originaly intended as part of Middle-Earth's mythology. Therefore, Sauron and Gandalf have become "Odinic" in Lord of the Rings (cf Tolkien's comments about Gandalf and the Red Eye of Sauron ( article in the link right below: http://forum.valinor.com.br/attachments/odin-pdf.25358/ the Hobbit's sequel and, consequently, the Ring was, retroactively, transformed into one analogue of the cursed Ring coveted by Odin/Wotan in the Wagnerian Tetralogy 23:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)PauloIapetus (talk).

The storylines are not similar!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, they are. Not identical, of course, but for using the same sources and incorporating the focus upon the Cursed Object, the broken sword, the desinherited hero and the passing out of a magical age that is replaced by a new age dominated by men after the departure of immortal siblings of the human race ( some of these elements added and developed upon by Wagner) they are sufficiently akin to be qualified as "similar". I'll not debate semantics with you if you are not interested in understanding the manner with which the comparisons were made and I think that the point was sufficiently explained here to facilitate your comprehensionPauloIapetus (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Just in case. Hopefully this quoted paragraphy of the article of Prof Edwary Haymes in one link that you have deleted without reading the content, can further ilustrate the point to you: http://de-vagaesemhybrazil.blogspot.com.br/2008/12/two-rings-tolkien-and-wagner-dc-before.html:

I’d like to begin by telling a little story.

A greedy, smaller-than-human creature finds a treasure in the depths of a river. He carries it to his underground retreat where he retains it until it is stolen by a visitor from the upper world. He swears eternal hate to the thief. The treasure is, of course, a ring of great power. The ring exerts strange influences on its owners including giving them the ability to disappear. The ring becomes the object of a fatal struggle between close friends or brothers, in fact it seems always to bring danger or death to its owners. A hero enters the fray armed with a reforged sword that had been broken. Various races of humanoid beings attempt to gain control of the ring by magic and by heroism until it is finally brought at great cost and sacrifice back to its origin where it is purified by fire. The last pursuer perishes along with the ring.

Is this the retelling of Richard Wagner’s four-part cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen or is it a summary of Tolkien’s prose epic The Lord of the Rings? Actually it’s both. I have arranged things carefully so that they fit either work, but the similarities and connections between the two “Ring Cycles” go far beyond the superficial plot summarized above. There are also important differences, beyond the obvious one of artistic form: prose narrative versus music drama. Here I would like to look at some of the similarities and differences in hopes of understanding the relationship.''PauloIapetus (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the plot of LOTR. If the LOTR did concentrate on the story of Isildur and Smeagol, it would be much more "Wagnerian". But it doesn't. Bilbo and Frodo do not struggle over possession of the Ring. And for most of the book Frodo is faithfully carrying the ring to its destruction and his companions in the Fellowship are faithfully doing their best to help him. In parallel with this quest is the war against the forces of Sauron and Saruman. I do not believe there is a counterpart to this is Wagner's operas.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the storylines are still quite similar as being, both of them, developments made upon the same raw matter, the same sources, the same symbols, the same mythology... If you are insisting in not understanding how and why then can be considered similar, though not identical, in the same way that Flieger for example commented the similarity between Fëanor and Prometheus or Tolkien himself has said that Gandalf is "Odinic" in spite of the imense differences between the characters, is because you do not want to understand. Fine by me. As I have said the discussion has become a question of semantics. However, such a disagreement is not a pretext to delete links with sourced and reliable information. Good to know that at least this you seem to be comprehending now.PauloIapetus (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, some rewriting pertaining, for example, to the Volsunga saga and its relation to the Nibelungelied and Der Ring des Nibelungen has made the article FULL of mistakes. I'm not certain about who was responsible but I'll made some corrections about the subject. The main source to Richard Wagner WAS NOT The Nibelungelied though he has used the names used in that text (with some notable exceptions such as Gutrune instead of Kriemhild) and The Nibelungelied was not derived from The Volsunga Saga. The Volsunga Saga and the Eddas were far more influential to the plot of Wagner's work. They( Volsunga and Nibelungelied) are independent texts dealing with the same tradition made almost at the same time. Cf in the following link: http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/ "Árni Björnsson: Wagner and the Volsungs" PauloIapetus (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources mentioned here, the Poetic and Prose Eddas and Volsunga saga, all belong to Old Icelandic literature. It has long been known to scholars that Wagner made extensive use of the poems in the Poetic Edda along with Icelandic Heroic Sagas, and indeed he said so himself on various occasions (see p. 99 below). The name of his work as a whole — The Ring of the Nibelung — has, however, carried the unconscious implication that most of its material is derived from the well-known medieval German poem, Das Nibelungenlied. There is therefore a need to emphasise that Wagner’s main sources were originally written in Iceland in the thirteenth century, and preserved in Icelandic manuscripts until they were printed in mostly Swedish and Danish editions of the seventeenth century and later".PauloIapetus (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, long after the discussion above: Wagner's Ring does not make the wearer invisible. The Tarnhelm does that. Nor does Wagner's Ring corrupt the wearer, as Tolkien's does. Wagner's Ring, like the Ring of Gyges enables the wearer to follow their own immoral inclinations, but Tolkien's Ring actively corrupts the wearer. These are significant differences. There are similarities in the stories, but it seems to be a case of Tolkien rejecting Wagner's version, and adding a Christian (specifically Catholic) slant to Icelandic and Welsh myths. -- Elphion (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.F. Cooper

I'm surprised not to see mention of J.F. Cooper's works anywhere in Tolkien's influences. To me it seems pretty obvious that inparticular the descriptions of the fading of Elvish race and culture parallels quite closely the similar themes in novels like The Last of the Mohicans and others by Cooper, and I vaguely remember reading somewhere (Carpenter?) that Tolkien explicitly mentioned this influence himself. Unfortunately I don't have any specific citations at hand, nor the time to search for them at the moment, which is why I'm posting this here.

--BerislavLopac (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is lacking in the area of modern literary influences. Cooper is in the same league as Buchan and Haggard who are mentioned here. Hawkeye/Pathfinder could be paralleled to Strider.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland, quite frankly, for someone that just accused other people of writing articles linking Tolkien to their prefered sources without citing the data that proved Tolkien's acquaintace wit them (a fact that shows that you, simply, didn't read the sourced articles otherwise you 'd have found that your complaint was unfounded) you have shown a remarkable level of lack of research and intelectual bias. James Fenimore Cooper was never cited by JRRT as a source of his and the influence of Hawkeye upon Aragorn's characterization in the Lord of the Rings was an assumption, educated guess, made by Tom Shippey in The Road to Middle-Earth. It's quite probable but is not an established fact. However, the Arthurian ending given to Bilbo and Frodo ( and later to Sam as well) was commented by Tolkien himself in one of his letters and your deletion of the Arthurian section simply disregarded an entire body of work already well researched in the field with which you don't seem very much familiarized. Take more care next time.PauloIapetus (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, the Arthurian discussion is misplaced. Making a comment on the Talk page is different from inserting it into the article. It would be good to have a solidly referenced paragraph about modern literary influences. I don't think JRRT has to be cited for everything. Clearly LOTR is a modern adventure novel and is remote from medieval legend, but I wouldn't expect JRRT to necessarily make this point in writing.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already posted in another section right above: the article is about influences in Tolkien's entire literary production in regards to Middle-Earth's Legendarium.Though didacticaly divided in sections pertaining to the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit and the Silmarillion, since that the works are part of the same subcreated reality, such division was not intended as a so rigid category as you have assumed. The "Arthurian" elements of Lord of the Rings were created and developed as parts of the Silmarillion and its world building and used to give an Arthurian ending to the characters of Lord of the Rings. They were included in Silmarillion's section because the "Arthurian" names and their creation ocurred in that work rather than in the Lord of the Rings. In spite of your disdain for the opinions of other people about the respective importance of the sources analysed in comparison with the others such diference reflects the behavior of Tolkien himself in regards to "sources hunting" ( specificaly he was very laconic and contradictory, when not absolutely silent, while commenting about literary influences of contemporary authors or even writers of the previous century such as Cooper or Walter Scott. The other sources with which you are not familarized were not included and detailed with more links and citations due to personal preferences of the writers but because, in these cases, John Bucham and Rider Haggard for example, there are biographical information or entire comments of the author aknownledging the influence and that is the parameter defining "sourced content" established in published research in Wikipedia (cf reliable source . If you'd be more acquainted with research about the sources of Tolkien as a whole i/e and not specificaly about Lord of the Rings's sources as a separated work you'd know that already. Walter Scott, James Fenimore Cooper and even Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft, IMO, are probable influences in Tolkien's work but they will not be included and mentioned in the article because there is not virtualy any proof stablishing the conection without any shadow of doubt generating a lack of published reliable data about the subject.PauloIapetus (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From "On Fairy Stories", FWIW (emphasis mine): "I had no desire to have either dreams or adventures like Alice, and the amount of them merely amused me. I had very little desire to look for buried treasure or fight pirates, and Treasure Island left me cool. Red Indians were better: there were bows and arrows (I had and have a wholly unsatisfied desire to shoot well with a bow), and strange languages, and glimpses of an archaic mode of life, and, above all, forests in such stories." BerislavLopac (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Berislav. I'm well aware of this passage from On Fairy Stories. It was also included or paraphrased in Humphrey Carpenter's biography and, though there are a consensus that it might possibly refer to James Fenimore Cooper and other authors of the genre, alas, his name was never directly mentioned by J.R.R.Tolkien, then it must be considered a feasible, even probable, speculation but not an established fact. Exacly as I've told you.(talk)PauloIapetus (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, we have 3 sources which suggest that Cooper and his like were an influence: Shippey, Carpenter, and Tolkien himself!!! This is not the mines of Moria, so stop acting like a troll and let us pass!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shippey is a reliable source; in The Road to Middle-earth he mentions Cooper specifically as a possible influence (p. 127, 348) as more generally adumbrating Tolkien's interest in primeval America. (Carpenter is just parroting Tolkien and adds nothing.) I think it's fair to include Shippey's observation, but clearly identified as his analysis. Shippey does not compare the fading of the Mohicans with the Elves; without a better reference that would be OR. -- Elphion (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenter adds something in that he is a secondary source, and obviously as a biographer he considers Tolkien's comment as significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source adds nothing unless it explains why something is significant -- which Carpenter does not. Carpenter is essentially a pot-boiler; his value is that he was early and brought together several biographical sources. His analysis is less than skin deep. -- Elphion (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bauer

I have just today ran into the Wikipedia entry about the Swedish artist John Bauer, and some of his works seem like quite a direct inspiration for numerous drawings and descriptions by Tolkien -- especially the drawings of trolls and forests.

Princess Tuvstarr gazing down into the dark waters of the forest tarn
The Princess and the Trolls
Trolls and Princess Tuvstarr
Tyr and Fenrir
Winter tales about the Yule Goat
Good evening, mister!
An old mountain troll
Freja

--BerislavLopac (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Tolkien was influenced by Nordic mythology and the modern revival of it, but is this more than that?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed "Artists and Illustrators' Influence on Tolkien" by John Garth in Drout's J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, p. 37, which mentions Bauer among others. It says that Tolkien "denied that his 'imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had been by certain kinds of literature and languages", declaring himself 'not well acquainted with pictorial art.'" However, Garth notes, Tolkien admitted Josef Madlener's Der Berggeist led to Gandalf. Garth notes that Mary Podles suggested that Bauer influenced Tolkien's hobbits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Admitted" is a strange word to use. The story of Der Berggeist is complicated because Tolkien's memory of it appears to be wrong. See the Gandalf page.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not strange at all, at least for a talk page where we don't have to use article-speak: the contrast is "Tolkien denied A ... admitted B". Aware of the Gandalf complication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria Too Loose

The criteria for considering something an influence needs to be tighter. Citations are not enough. Because LOTR is one of the best-selling novels in English, a lot of people have produced research into influences, and staked a claim for their favourite subject or research interest. We need: (1) evidence Tolkien knew about the supposed influence, (2) significance of the influence in his writings, (3) specificity of the influence.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this spirit, I have removed the Persian and Slavic mythology sections.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironicaly enough all these three elements were dealt with and included successfully in the articles, books or citations in the links included in the sections deleted by you, Jack Upland. This information must per force be included and detailed in the reliable sources used by Wiki but need not be always included in the article itself because it tends to increase too much its lenght and diminishes its usefullness, difficulting reading and comprehension. Extense transcriptions of letters and biographical articles or books don't attend Wiki's criteria about the matterPauloIapetus (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

I have combined the Hobbit and LOTR sections because as a sequel LOTR shares in the influences of the Hobbit. As it stood, the Hobbit section only had one subsection, Nordic influences, which was largely applicable to LOTR too. The two sections had been unconsciously merging anyway, with a lot of references to the Hobbit in the LOTR section.

I'm not sure about the Silmarillion. Perhaps it is sufficiently different to have its own section, but there's a fair amount of overlap. Scholarly sources don't necessarily make much of a distinction which makes it difficult. On the other hand, combining the 3 books would threaten to drown out the two popular novels with obscure references to the Silmarillion which isn't popular with most readers or critics.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your negative opinion about the Silmarillion and its performance and image with critics and readers is a broad generalization and I think that you refer to its content and influence upon The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings as "obscure" because, obviously, you are not very well acquainted or interested in that part of JRRT's work. Don't let this bias direct and influence your editing work here. That bias was the cause for your deletion spree that included the elimination of links with valuable information to the public interested. The same "overlapping" between the works, a fact recognized by you, should have precluded this. If you have not sourced citations and links to provide the basis for your opinions and assumptions please refrain from editing the article. PauloIapetus (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Silmarillion should not have a separate section. What's your view? Prior to my editing, this article was a mess. The overall structure was being destroyed.

There's nothing wrong with deleting material. We cannot include every possible reference. The article should concentrate on major, well-supported influences, unlike (for example) Persian mythology. If there's important material you think should be restored, there's nothing to stop you restoring it. But we can't have an article which consists of a random series of citations: X says that brief mention of Y in Tolkien's work is reminiscent of Z.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arthurian Legend section has been restored. And the article was far from being a mess though, perhaps, still retaining some of the original writing from the time in which it was still different parts in separated articles...Anyways, your editing has created more problems intead of truly helping with the old flaws, IMO. BTW... Untill now you have simply deleted content, without producing new links and quotations. Instead of deleting content try to find reliable data pertaining to what you think that should be here. About the deletions... the first thing that a conscious editor have to do, IMO, is try to search available data to give support to the sections such as Slavonic mythology instead of deleting it due to, personaly, disregarding its relevance. For some people, perhaps, the fact that Radagast is the name of a Slavonic god can be far more interesting than the assumed influence from the Last of the Mohicans over the Lord of the Rings.At least it was studied by a proeminent Tolkien scholar and has being the theme of one reliable article http://lingwe.blogspot.com.br/2007/12/thinking-about-radagast.html PauloIapetus (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Radagast is a good example. He is a minor character in LOTR and The Hobbit. He is mentioned a few times but never actually appears. The name could be drawn from a Slavic god "Radegast", or it could be from a Gothic warlord (closer to Tolkien's interests). However, there is no suggestion that the name of the character has any bearing on the character himself. I don't think that this is a valid reason for having a separate section on Slavic mythology. By contrast, Strider is a major character. I think this illustrates what I said below. Drawing a speculative and obscure link with mythology is considered more scholarly than the Hawkeye connection. Given that LOTR is one of the most popular novels of the last century, I am sure there are many suggestions of sources for many minor characters etc. I don't think we should include them all, less so create a new section for each one. And then try to find more examples to fill out this new section. The article should deal with major influences. Major on both sides. That's where Radagast falls down. He is a minor character, and the Slavic influence is a minor too.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article does not differentiate between major or minor sources and influences. Since that the bulk of the respective influence's section was transfered to this article it's assumed that it must be as inclusive as possible. The motive that precluded The Last of Mohicans being included as a reference is because there is not virtualy any reliable source treating the subject with any kind of methodical or serious attention, due to Tolkien's own laconism and personal distaste toward sources's hunting. The name Radagast, however, contains a hint of an influence in the name itself that is the one of the main motivations of Tolkien's mythopoeic work ( the creation of languages). And BTW, there are other probable Slavic influences. http://lingwe.blogspot.com.br/2009/10/slavic-echoes-in-tolkien-response.html. What I think positively annoying is your tendence of deleting things without doing any research by yourself before doing so. IMO, it's you that are doing these types of things based in your personal preferences and bias towards such characters or parts of Tolkien's work, precisely the kind of acusation that you directed to the previous editors of the article.PauloIapetus (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wikipedia article does not differentiate between major or minor sources and influences." Thank you. That sums up a big part of the dispute we had. What do other editors think of this statement?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore

There should be some mention of folklore, such as fairytales (Goldilocks) and even nursery rhymes ("The Cat and the Fiddle") and proverbs ("All that is gold does not glitter"). But I don't know if any source has delved into this.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny the fact that you are complaining about this since that yourself deleted the Welsh section of the Celtic influence that included the mention to the folktales The Devil With the Three Golden Hairs and The Griffin that have a clear structural (and documented) resemblance to Kullwych and Olwen and, consequently, to Beren and Lúthien.http://books.google.com.br/books?id=eEgC3bS4dOwC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=the+three+golden+hairs+of+the+devil+beren+and+l%C3%BAthien&source=bl&ots=LIDk9KGZOU&sig=RqSa12BdUV69o17XUT4QLyHlFSM&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=ZJw5U6z8CdTQsQTCzIDQCA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=the%20three%20golden%20hairs%20of%20the%20devil%20beren%20and%20l%C3%BAthien&f=false If the reference is to the Silmarillion is deemed as irrelevant and worthy of deletion, if it is to The Lord of the Rings, in spite of lack of sources, you think that it should receive its proper section. I think that this is a double standard that is causing damage to the article and its usefullness and comprehensibility. I'd suggest more care, attention and research. Later I'll edit the article to correct this mistake of yours. Take care and please give more value to the weight given to reliable source in Wikipedia. Don't delete things due to bias and preconceived notions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources PauloIapetus (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I meant modern English folklore. There is a bias here towards mythology because it is academically valued. We end up getting a discussion that is very little to do with Tolkien's texts.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with Tolkien texts , since that we have reliable sources comparing them with Tolkien's mythology. They seem to be, however, far out of the scope of your interest. BTW... Goldlocks is every bit as folklorical as The Devil with the Three Golden Hairs. Tolkien used mythology and fairy-tales from, virtualy, all the Indo-Germanic countries. There is not a motive that should made "English" folktales being more valued in this kind of research. And if you are so interested in seeing English Folktales analysed as sources of Tolkien try to find reliable data treating the matter instead of deleting similar material just because it deals with folklore from other countries with mythologies that have influenced Tolkien but are not EnglishPauloIapetus (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting non-English sources be excluded at all. But there is a kind of distancing from Tolkien's texts when focussing on folktales that resemble Kullwych and Olwen, who resemble Beren and Lúthien (who were barely mentioned by the novels that Tolkien published in his lifetime).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again...The article is not limited to the novels published during Tolkien's lifetime. Just because they seem to be the sole focus of your interest this fact should not preclude the insertion of other sources pertaining to the works posthumosly published. Refrain from deleting material referenced with reliable sources as you have already done just due to your preference for the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings in an article devoted to the literary work of Tolkien as a whole. Thank you PauloIapetus (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to delete the Silmarillion section. I just think we need balance.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

$.02's worth: Mythology is critically important, not because it is "academically valued" but because it was one of Tolkien's primary interests. He valued mythology especially because of what could be gleaned from it through philology. He used this approach in his professional work, it was a primary motivation of his fictional universe, and it spills over into The Lord of the Rings in many places. Likewise, The Silmarillion is important because it was his primary interest in Middle-earth, and much of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings took inspiration from it. The legend of Beren and Luthien was an important pillar of his entire life, and that story resurfaces in the story of Aragorn and Arwen. So yes, the Welsh sources for the former are important for the latter as well. It is all connected and properly understood cannot be separated. -- Elphion (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go and read the 1st page of the 1st chapter of LOTR, and then come back and argue the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I am not arguing against folklore, but for, e.g., the Celtic influence and the importance of The Silmarillion. For Tolkien it was all grist for the mill. The prototype of the kind of work he was doing is Grimm's Deutsche Mythologie, which covers the whole gamut that we artificially divide into mythology and folklore. For philology, it is all one and the same, and Grimm's methods are a primary pillar of Middle-earth. Tolkien was influenced not so much by proverbs as by the analysis of them: how did such and such a saying come about, and what underlying history can we infer from it? Why did such and such a legend or myth take that turn, and what underlying history can we infer from it? Similarly, the problem of separating The Silmarillion from the Third Age stories is that the one was a significant -- I would say primary -- influence on the other: the Third Age was a "modern" period in which older traditions had survived. Tolkien borrowed freely from the older material to set the stage for the The Hobbit; and faced with his publisher's reluctance to deal with The Silmarillion, he deliberately involved much of the older material in a mythological and philological manner. -- Elphion (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the length of this post, but shortcuts make long delays, and it is better to explain something once properly than to add to a thicket of fruitless verbiage. So here goes:

(1) Originally (I mean before I started editing), this article was divided by novel, which is desirable. The reason why I amalgamated LOTR and The Hobbitt was that there was so much repetition that it was unworkable. As discussed above, it was confusing to readers - and even editors. Undoubtably The Silmarillion (TS) is set in the same world (misleadingly called "Middle Earth"), and hence shares its influences. However, it remains different enough to have its own section. As I tried to explain previously, I was not trying to eliminate material related to TS but place it in the appropriate place. While TS fleshes out some of the history mentioned in the other two books, it is not inextricably intertwined as they are. The Hobbit is not just the seed of the LOTR; it is also the unignorable back story; it is essentially retold in LOTR and its story is mentioned in LOTR several times.

(2) TS is a lesser work. It was not published by Tolkien himself in his lifetime, it was published by his son Christopher in an attempt to cash in on his fame, and has not received the popular or critical acclaim of the other 2 novels. We must not give it undue weight. Furthermore, I don't think it's been reliably established what form it had at the time of the writing of LOTR (or at the time of his death). I certainly don't think you're right to imply that it influenced the writing of The Hobbit (which I think began as a yarn for his kids). I think Tolkien was engaged in a bit of myth-making about himself in the preface to LOTR when he implied that he had worked out the mythology etc first before writing LOTR. It is certainly impossible for a number of reasons to believe TS in its published form was written before LOTR. (For one thing, it contains a summary of LOTR's plot.) Again, I am not and I have never been trying to get rid of TS.

(3) @Elphion:, I did not think you were "arguing against folklore". But I am arguing that academic mythology (if you know what I mean) is being given undue weight.

(4) Rather than assume that I don't understand or that I am imposing my views on others, I would suggest that other editors first consider that it is they who do not understand and it is they who are imposing their views on the article and on other editors. What I am attempting to do is improve the article, both in form and content.

(5) And please do reread the first page(s) of "A Long-Expected Party". It's interesting if nothing else.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, "A Long-Expected Party" is interesting, but I have reread it (and most of the rest) almost every year for over half a century, so I'm not quite sure why you are urging this repeatedly. I agree that folklore is an important source because it is an important component of mythology -- the issue of "balance" is a red herring. I don't know what you mean by "academic mythology" -- Grimm is as academic as any, but his volumes include the minutest scraps of folklore along with the great tales, and his approach is also Tolkien's. I don't agree with your assertion that separating the influences by novel (a category Tolkien vociferously contested) is desirable, since the works are all of a piece; each influenced the next, and the earliest (The Silmarillion) with all its influences permeates all. The work of Rateliff, Scull, and Hammond makes this quite clear. The Hobbit may have begun as a yarn for kids -- even that's debatable, though it certainly ended as one -- but it was quickly pulled into the context of Sil, and without that it would never have taken off. (The Hobbit without the infusion of Sil would have been about as memorable as Mr. Bliss.) Your judgment that Sil is a lesser work is immaterial; Tolkien valued it more and would have published it eagerly if his publisher had been interested, as his letters indicate at several points. He began work on LotR reluctantly as a less desirable alternative, and until he could tie it into Sil he had little idea how to proceed. Even so he wanted far more of Sil to appear in the Appendices. (And your judgment of CRRT is uncharitable and wide of the mark; fans were clamouring for Sil to be published, and given the state of the texts Christopher's effort verges on the heroic. We are much the richer for having it -- and UT and HoME.) And yes, Tolkien did develop much of the mythology before The Hobbit was written; much of it was on paper before LotR. Certainly the shape of the tales was in place, and much of the text as well. (HoME shows that most of the text was in fact JRRT's, and much of it quite early.) Finally, your point (4) above is ironic, given that you are arguing positions at variance with the critical literature on Tolkien. We are pushing back not to advance our own POV, but because that is what the scholarship says. I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article -- and I agree it is in better shape than it was after the merger of various articles -- but kindly accord us the same consideration. -- Elphion (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. So do you want to merge the separate Sil section? I have no objections. I will let the other issues rest.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside: Tolkien began the Sil before the other works, and even submitted it to his editors before LOTR was written. Not in its current form, obviously. It isn't as canonical as LOTR and Hobbit, but calling it a 'lesser work' somehow seems wrong. Also curious of the source of Christopher trying to cash in on his dad's fame. It was still mostly JRR's work, and is considered an extremely important one by and large by Tolkien enthusiasts. Here's one of the best Tolkien resources on the Net and what it has to say about the Sil's publishing:

http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/External.html#SilmChanges

--Stevehim (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Christopher today still producing works by his father???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Tolkien left behind several manuscripts that are interesting in their own right (at least to some)? Tolkien did in fact entrust these to Christopher as his literary executor, and (as Tolkien's frequent confidant on Middle Earth and much else, Christopher is uniquely positioned (and academically qualified) to edit these. Your vendetta against Christopher is quite misplaced; if he were in fact in it mostly for the money, he would not have fought so hard against the travesty the movies made of his father's vision. -- Elphion (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JRRT had sold the movie and merchandising rights to LOTR and The Hobbit, so there was nothing Christopher could do to stop the movies. It is odd that Christopher is still publishing things 40 years after his father's death.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you find this 'odd' is proof you shouldn't be editing any Tolkien-related post on Wikipedia. Please read a book or two on or by Tolkien (of relevance, mind) before continuing wasting other's people time. --M.Buelles (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular edits do you object to?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page

Not gonna change anything on it, and I know the wiki is more for collecting sources than accuracy, but most of this page seems like speculation to me. Just wanted to get that off my chest. --Stevehim (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it has sources. The new "Iranian" section doesn't, and probably should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying this, Steve, you are correct. Any article citing a Day book as relevant material on Tolkien is unfortunate, to say the least. --M.Buelles (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persian religion influence

Should there be something about the very apparent similiarities to the religion that spawned with the rise of The Great Persian empire?

In where the concept 'The King Of Kings' also comes from?
As there is mentions on this page about christian influences of satan and god the persian similarities seem much more clear especially tracing the naming.
Ehura-Mazda (far fetched but within contexts still 'Eru') the supreme god who's champion Mithra ('Mithrandil') roams the lands fighting darkness and his archenemy Ahuraman ('Saruman'). The persian king, the mentioned King of Kings divinely tasked with uniting the humans under the light and good is in context of this rather undenyably connected to Gondor/Numenor and the importance of uniting the world to stand against Sauron.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfsphere (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien obviously liked the sound of Mithrandir and mithril. Perhaps they are related to Mithra. But I think we need a source.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that more strongly: random similarity of words is not evidence of influence. Something more is needed. -- Elphion (talk)

Pearl

I don't see the relevance of the poem Pearl. Simply because it says "my precious pearl" does not link it to Gollum. There is no secondary source to back this up.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen this particular connection made elsewhere, so without a reference it looks like OR. But the influence of Pearl on Tolkien's writing, and in particular on his imagery of the Elves and the intense longing for magical lands, reminiscent of Paradise, owes much to Pearl, which he was intimately involved with much of his life, starting as early as St. Edward's School. Shippey discusses this at length in "Visions and Revisions" in The Road to Middle-earth, and again in "The Mythic Dimension" in Author of the Century. Tolkien saw Pearl as an exemplar of the style of writing that modern English has lost, to its detriment, and of the type he hoped to promote. He borrowed phraseology from it as well. The connection with "my precious" is atypical of the uses he made of the imagery of Pearl, but it's a plausible twisting to illustrate the intense desire for something affected by the baleful influence of the Ring. But, yeah: no reference. -- Elphion (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the reference to the Pearl.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milton's Paradise Lost as an influence

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned on this page, as Paradise Lost is clearly an influence on Tolkien's work. Could perhaps sit under 'religious influences'? I'll leave this for someone more involved with this page to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.96.228 (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. R. R. Tolkien's influences. 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/20061112064304/http://www.travellady.com/Issues/Issue64/64E-hobbits.htm to http://www.travellady.com/Issues/Issue64/64E-hobbits.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. R. R. Tolkien's influences. 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/20080204140936/http://www.glyphweb.com/Arda/a/aeglos.html to http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/a/aeglos.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protest of Tradition

Extended non-constructive comment

I am here as a Storyteller who is not in a long line of Storytellers, but merely a Storyteller. To warn and overshadow you with the certain knowledge that there is in fact conspiracy against the validity of this article. Just as you would not quote a Flat Earth enthusiast to be proof of a Flat Earth without mentioning the proof against his erroneous beliefs, just as you should, and have failed to, not ignore the Creationist arguments in mentioning them alongside the Evolutionists, or one supporter of QM over Relativity stacked alongside the supporter of SR over the Uncertainty Principle...So it is this article makes no mention of any counterpoint to the statements of influence on Tolkien's work.

It is to be asserted most candidly that Wikipedia illogically relies on any and all articles that is publicly listed in the sphere of the virtual sources to draw for its vast library and validate and evidence its informative articles. However, often enough nobody investigates beneath skin to find the hidden parallels of arguments and debates and controversy, and all articles are not only rendered one sided, but follow the interests and pretenses of the influences now on this premises of knowledge. Such can be said of much of the articles and bodies within this wide stream of data. And much of it sadly is irrevocable, as until the common knowledge and attentions are altered, no notice shall be given if some telling is wrong or not. As well with this system's assistive editors and collectors of meanings cannot find way to discover understanding so deep to pertain to the unknown and the conflict within our available lights of what is alearned of the moment.

However, I may warn you of scandal and fraud charades. Traditionalist critics and analytical entities do not possess any capacity of truth that should be recognizable by this austere observer of all notes to Man. The Traditionalist of Story is a general fool. Yet you are not interested in lack of neutrality in any way or vein, so allow me to enlighten you of keen sight that your own eyes can share in and show to yourself that I speak of a possible truth to balance the merits of any writing on. You see, it is in the affirmative interest of every single writer's Ruler to assert that which is and is not. This is true, you see, as a critic by nature criticizes, and a historian of literature historicizes. Yet that is all this is. Historicizing. Designing and devising destinies forgone without evidence but wit. For it is too close to kin between Wagner and Tolkien for us to forget that are similar. Though we will put it by intention and choice beyond us to conceive or even realize by proper examination the differences in the Story and the simple fact Tolkien denies many influences, so you have the original source and every else asserting he is a liar.

Then one compares with the ease any Man, Woman, or Child may find in taking a common piece of jewelry and imagining magic about it. And even the great Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake for wearing one such Magic Ring. Tis true, the inquisition of the Catholic Church asked of her seeking to say she was a witch. Magic is common in the mind of Man. Rings a simple circle and band that fits about the finger. Both so fundamental and elemental that one cannot discern whether Lord of the Rings comes from Wagner and stealing his blessed ring or from Tolkien's own private imagination taking from the transcripts of ordinary life and its perspectives of good and evil, of dust and stone, or fashion and form, and at last you reach a ring of magic holding the powers of good and evil, long before even the man Mcguffin was born, and without any proof of any real connection of influence in the Author's mind. The Mind being invisible, the Heart hidden, how is one to know he is but a writer of influence and theft instead of a mere subcreator of mere things we merely find, like a ring, magic, and another war for good against evil as practically every culture of the world envisaged of itself against its enemies whether you believe in the One True God or not.

Scholars like to propagate an association myth between stories, true until the Hero's Journey of Joseph Campbell and Star Wars fame. Except Star Wars is a repetitioned Villain's Journey if one examines it, or an Anti-Hero, or a Hero Redemption Story, or et cetera. The truth be told, we here are but repeating the words of scholars without thought or question to the reality of their assertions. And partially that is the duty and foolishness of this listing of views and responses and perceptions of us all. However, I assign you this knowledge and input and wisdom I carry from the very Wheal of my profession...Many are lost, confused, and left abandoning tales and the belief that they are good and original enough to make up and invent any connection or slight influence by meager comparisons that may come. So do not trust them wholly when wholly the likenesses are separate, the ties are vague and strained, and the one of insight who gives what this Wikipedia sees are on the course to deliver a belief beside all that may truly be.

This is all I wish as a Storyteller to merely share and allow to shape with yourselves the uncovering, execution, and impression of the article and the facts of life and Story. 2600:1700:BCE0:A230:49AD:964B:5606:567D (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your concrete proposal for improving the article is . . . ?

Tolkien was incredibly influenced by Welsh culture as a child

Following up with the deletion (by Jack Upland) of my contribution that the culture that spearheaded Tolkien's interests into archaic history, There is significant evidence to back this, such as these links; ^[1]^[2] "I heard it coming out of the West, It struck me in the names on train trucks and growing nearer it flickered past on station signs, A flash of strange spelling & the hint of a language old and yet alive."^[3] later in life he attended Oxford university where he studied linguistics where a tutor 'Joe Wright' advised him to; "go in for Celtic, lad, there's money in it"^[4], and on winning an english competition, spent most of his prize money on books about medieval Welsh, much to the university's surprise. So I put it to all of the editors on this article, can you dispute my argument?, shouldn't Welsh be placed in the synopsis like I tried to do?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC) ‎[reply]

References

Firstly, you have created a sentence with five "ands" in it. There is also no reason to use both the words "Welsh" and "Brythonic" in the same sentence. Secondly, you have provided some evidence that Tolkien was interested in Welsh, but not that it was an influence on his fiction, which is the topic of this article. Thirdly, the introduction should summarise the body of the article. If you have new information, you should put it in the body. The introduction could be expanded, but there is no reason to single out Welsh influence on Tolkien. Tolkien had many influences.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sentence implied that Welsh culture was one of Tolkien's academic fields, which is false. And it used ampersands, which is almost vandalism. Since a month has passed without any attempt to deal with these problems I have deleted this again.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you are wrong but it seems you're fighting your corner so I'll back away even though Welsh was Tolkien's first influence in languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like anyone reading this to research the Middle Earth map and tell me the origins of the largest place-name displayed, if you're stumped, research the Book of Taliesin and then argue my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look... coincidence? a Welsh medieval tale which speaks of animated trees who aid in a war :o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cad_Goddeu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that make these points, fine. But this article can't be a noticeboard for everyone's theory about Tolkien. For example, I am convinced that Tolkien was influenced by insomnia, the Red Eye, etc, but I have no source that says that.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolves in Black Douglas

That doesn't sound right.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the book, I know see it is a historical fantasy with a witch woman, werewolves, second sight, and Satanism.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hooker 2002

The refs to "Hooker 2002" do not point anywhere. They may or may not be to an earlier edition of one of the two Hooker sources listed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: There is a useful (though am uncertain how accurate it is) list of Hooker's publications at the page on him at 'The Tolkien Gateway. It might be an edition of A_Tolkienian_Mathomium. Looking at the chapter list for this on Amazon (for the revised 2008 edition), the quotes in the footnotes match up with the page numbers and article/chapter titles. Incidentally, the entire Cormarë Series is described here, which is useful. Carcharoth (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I am certain it is this, and have linked to the 2006 edition given in the references. Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

The current text comes across as a bit of a jumble, a disordered list, with the key themes mentioned once, twice, or not at all. What justification is there for splitting the article LOTR/Silmarillion? That might make sense if we wanted 2 articles, which probably we don't. Organising by the major themes or types of influence would I think work a whole lot better, and we could then give examples of each one in H/LOTR/Sil as appropriate.

The article correctly identifies Christianity, Mythology, and Personal Experience as themes: those could be reorganised to work better. Christian themes are only hinted at, and some that the critics discuss at length, like the Christ-roles of Aragorn or Gandalf, are not mentioned at all.

Linguistics is mentioned but not explained or illustrated, and Philology, critically important as a driver of the whole legendarium, appears in the lead but nowhere else! Also missing is History and Archaeology, such as the use of war elephants and galleys in Classical times.

One reason for the article's weakness, despite a much better number of scholarly sources than other legendarium articles, is its lack of diagrams, maps, or tables to lend structure or any feeling of a synoptic view. Instead, the text just stumbles uneasily from one sub-subtopic to another, like a goods train rattling over points at night. For example, we could use a minimal sketch-map to relate regions of Middle-earth to the languages Tolkien used for them. With a bit more overview, the reader may end up feeling illumined rather than befogged. The lead can then be extended to offer a bit more of a structured overview, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe look for guidance on structure from the most recent 'overview' works, if such exist? Maybe Tolkien and the Study of His Sources which is relatively recent from 2011? Trouble is, most books like that take the approach of a collection of essays, which isn't entirely helpful. One of the essays might be an overview (the one by Fisher?) and the introduction by Shippey will undoubtedly be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are major essays in Drout on 19th and 20th century influences. Much of Shippey is about the older influences, and he's very good on Tolkien's maps and philology, both currently missing from the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article has always been a problem. The reason that it was divided between LOTR and the Silmarillion was that it was originally organised by work. I amalgamated LOTR and The Hobbit because there was so much overlap. I don't understand how a diagram or map would work, or help.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article with a long history. JRRT's influences were many and complex; there is certainly no one diagram that would cover everything, but there are several things that could be diagrammed or mapped within the projected scope of the article, based on reliable sources. I already mentioned a mapping of ME regions to (real) languages as an example; the origins of some of his terms can be summarized in diagrams or tables from one or another scholarly account; tables can be used to summarize scholarly comparison of JRRT's tales with those of his antecedents; and so on. The key thing here is that what we need is the opposite of listcruft (and another conjectured resemblance is...); it's explaining the well-documented structure of JRRT's approach. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a major project involving lots of original research and POV editing which will bamboozle the average reader! I think this list we have is simple. I don't see why a reader would be "befogged". The truth is that's all we have: a list of things that influenced Tolkien or might have.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No! Exactly the opposite: sharply-sourced diagrams, maps, or tables based directly on reliable sources, as I thought I had just said. As for befogging, the article as it stood for the past 12 years could be thought to have done quite a good job of it, though I doubt anyone has attempted to measure that. Talking about "the truth" always echoes Pontius Pilate; instead, let's speak of verifiable accounts from reliable sources, something that can be checked by anyone interested. If your point is that matters literary and philological cannot be illustrated or analysed, however, or that no reliable sources have constructed theories of JRRT's methods, I certainly beg to differ. I note, finally, that arguments of the form "No swans are black" or "No theory on JRRT's methods can be illustrated", can be defeated with a single counter-example. Time will tell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pilate would have told you that the Latin word for truth is veritas. Please don't oppose the concepts of truth and verifibility. I have seen plenty of black swans, and of course literature can be analysed. But, as I said, it sounds like what I said. No one is stopping you from hatching your swans and following your rainbows.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're straying into forum territory, but a quick search will demonstrate that there is a long tradition in philosophy exploring just that opposition. I'm glad to hear you agree that analysis, at least, is possible, and this weakly-structured article needs more of it from the available scholarly sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no opposition. Wikipedia has it wrong and is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. It is not an opposition, but a progression. We progress towards the truth by verifying it. Making the truth a forbidden word in Wikipedia is stupid, and it is linguistically ignorant to prefer verifibility.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly what Jack Upland is getting at here (though the talk of black swans and rainbows doesn't help) is that not all literary opinions on Tolkien's works should be given equal weight. There are some very strange theories out there that certainly should not be given equal weight. What weight is appropriate is very difficult to determine, but I would say that if something is contested as being too 'fringe' or that is contested between different critics, then you need at least two independent sources for it. What is harder still to determine is which Tolkien 'scholars' are reliable enough to be included. Some are obscure, some verge on self-publishing (e.g. what counts as a fanzine - some fan and literary societies publish scholarly journals, others are less rigorous), while other critics or authors are credentialled academics holding relevant teaching and research posts at universities, or are published by academic presses. It is quite a mix. It is partly because it is not always clear where to draw the line that I've held back from too much in this topic area before (well, that and not having enough time to do it justice). Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly endorse all of that. Now that all of us are insisting on normal standards (WP:GNG, WP:RS among them) for the legendarium, the quality is increasing rapidly. There are two components to this: the removal of WP:OR and other flaky materials, and the insertion of solidly-sourced discussion. I've done my fair share of the former; scholars like Shippey, Chance, Lobdell, Drout, Straubhaar, and Flieger come to mind for the latter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those who edit in science fiction areas may be able to help in any disputes, as that area also has a mix of solid academic presses and sources, as well as a spectrum of less reliable sources. I am thinking more of situations where someone is clearly a reliable source, but may not have the background to be seen as such to the lay person. Some of the early scholarship may fall in this area - it was pleasing to see an article on Paul H. Kocher (off-topic: similarly for Horus Engels). Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, please don't put words in my mouth. And I wasn't the person who brought up black swans.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Campbell

I was a bit surprised that there was no mention of Roy Campbell in the article. The Professor Himself mentions Campbell in Letter No. 83 as being like the hobbit "Trotter", who was replaced by the Dunadan "Strider" in later drafts of LOTR. The description of Strider in LOTR matches that of Campbell's, for what it's worth.

At any rate, more information can be found in the article Roy Campbell (poet) along with references.

Thanks,

Rwflammang (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe a section on the Inklings and others under 'Personal experience'? Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of push on about Roy Campbell???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? There's clearly a place for something on the Inklings, of which Campbell wasn't a member (he just visited); and while Tolkien noticed him as being very like [the existing account of] Trotter at the Prancing Pony, I've not seen any evidence that he influenced Tolkien in any way. "Roy Campbell and the Inklings" is entertaining but I couldn't use anything from it here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tolkien said Campbell was like Trotter. He didn't say he inspired Trotter. Like Trotter, Campbell was scarred and prematurely aged. However, Strider wasn't, so I can see very little connected with LOTR as published.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigelwara

I think this is undue weight. We don't have strong evidence that this influenced his fiction.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's one small component of an increasingly long article; we know he spent 2 years of his life writing that pair of articles; it's reliably cited; Christopher Tolkien confirmed the connection. We can clearly say more about Tolkien's philology, such as from Beowulf (coming soon), but Sigelwara and Nodens (also described here) are identified by Shippey as being among the most significant of his inquiries. Work in progress. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Towers

Some people have said that Tolkien could have been inspired by water towers etc in Birmingham. Tolkien scholars? Apparently not. Is there any evidence? No. Is this likely? I don't think so. Towers are normal in history and folklore, and there's nothing special about the towers in Birmingham. This just seems to be Brummy boosterism.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, but as the BBC is a WP:RS it’s not for us to pass judgement and ignore it. Lava Lamps (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC says "many believe", the Guardian says it is "said". I don't doubt those claims are true, but so what? WP:ONUS says we don't have to automatically include reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The circumstantial evidence is that Tolkien did live there; he was very young, and he certainly saw the towers named. Beyond that, so far, it's just reliable reports of hearsay.

The earliest source I've tracked down to date is from 2005: Edgbaston Reservoir and Icknield Port Loop Development Framework, which captions an image "Tourism potential via links to Tolkien’s Two Towers - (Perrott’s Folly above)": it's the only mention in the document, stated as a given, i.e. those "links" already existed. The rumours have thus persisted for more than 15 years; let's see if any earlier sources can be found. For now, I've marked it as "suggested". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that people might keep on adding it in. Yes, he would very likely have seen the towers when he was young. But was this an influence on him when he began writing LOTR 30 years later? No doubt he had seen plenty of water towers, the Tower of London, the dreaming spires of Oxford, and whatever else since then. The rumours seem to have only developed decades after he was dead, half a century after LOTR was published. Since Tolkien specifically mentioned the Sarehole Mill as an inspiration, his reference to these towers and various drain pipes he saw as a boy is conspicuous by its absence. If we include every nebulous claim of an influence in Tolkien, we will have a gigantic article, but it will be a cloud in trousers.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much to agree with there. However, I've been through both scholarly and popular sources, and have covered 'the main points', so I do not expect much growth from that direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not adding (nor should we) add every claimed inspiration. But if they are cited to WP:RS there is no reason to remove them beyond WP:IDONTLIKE. Every inspiration beyond the ones Tolkien himself confirmed would be removed if we went down that path. Lava Lamps (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speculation from local boosterism, no matter how reliably reported, is hardly in the same league as scholarly analysis. -- Elphion (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless better evidence turns up, I think all we should have is a footnote sufficient to deter repeated addition of the same subject as people come across the reliably reported "local belief". Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norse?

I don't think Norse and Germanic should be treated as the same thing. Norse is a subset of Germanic. Also, I don't think Wagner's modern interpretation should be blended in too.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Germanic is a better heading, and we can mention Norse and Wagner within it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why Beowulf isn't included there.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because what is said fits a whole lot better under Philology; but it's such a major influence that perhaps indeed the article can bear a bit more about B.'s mythology also. Dragons and Golden Halls spring to mind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elves

At Talk:Legolas/GA1 it has been noted that Tolkien's term "Elves" should be capitalised. So we might want to do this here as well unless the article mentions some generic elves from Norse mythology or other sources. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien often did not capitalise it - using both Elves and elves. – Dyolf87 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences/GA1

Elves as Irish and Finnish, but not Welsh? (Map of influences)

I posted this on the map's discussion, but I doubt it'll get any attention, so it's here too: Why does this map claim Ireland as a source for Elves? Sindarin is heavily Welsh-inspired and Quenya is heavily Finnish (with bits of Latin and Greek). There is little to suggest anything Irish in Tolkien's elves (aside from occasionally spelling names with mh instead of v (e.g. Tinúmhiel for Tinúviel in HoME). – Dyolf87 (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, it's an interesting question. You'll see in the article's text that scholars such as Fimi have described parallels between the Elves and the Tuatha Dé Danann. There are numerous scholarly sources so rather than repeat them here, I'll point you to the Celtic section of the article. As for the position shown for Celticness on the map, it's of course only approximate; it would encompass Ireland, Wales, and Brittany, if indeed not also Cornwall. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same Celtic section of the article also shows far more in common with Welsh mythology than it does Irish (Tuatha Dé Danann being the only one). There seems to be something in the zeitgeist in which people seem to think 'celtic' = 'Irish' (and Scottish by association). Celtic is Irish, but far more of it is British - Welsh, Cornish, Cumbric, Pictish, Northumbrian, Breton (minus its French influence). The idea that Ireland is somehow the homeland of Celticism is nonsense. The fact that the map also points to Finland but not to Wales is staggering. – Dyolf87 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're going much too far here, with a tone that is becoming non-collegiate. The dot is as I've politely explained purely diagrammatic, pointing to the Celtic region as defined in this instance by the areas from which Tolkien is attested by scholars to have derived influence. That area does not in Tolkien's case include Scotland or Northumbria, for instance. No assertion is being made about anywhere being "the homeland of Celticism", and I have read enough Tolkien criticism and indeed his own essays to know about his love of "Welsh". I can move the dot into the Irish Sea to indicate a more general position if that's bothering you, but the areas noted by scholars are Ireland, Wales, and Brittany, so there is no position for the dot that would please everyone. Further, the area around Britain is already crowded with map symbols; I have repositioned the Celtic dot for you, but no doubt the Irish Celt contingent will now object that Ireland is under-represented, etc, despite the evidence etc etc. The correct answer is to go on the reliable sources; imputing motives to other editors is never a good idea, especially when there is no evidence for such things. I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image Map

What source is the image map drawing from? As it sits right now, it looks like original research to me. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which part specifically is the original research you are complaining about? The image map has citations to it's sources and is just a way of displaying information that is useful for some users. There is no original research in it that I can see. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/tolkien-inspired-by-welsh-language-2141617

[2] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-13472344

[3] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z2hthyc#ztfsfg8

[4] ttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zWzAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&lpg=PT64&dq=%22go+in+for+celtic%22+tolkien&source=bl&ots=-ROXhsg7Za&sig=ACfU3U3Wj2CDEfe7_YYhO8rL81ZWgUkVqA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_1amYl63iAhWCUhUIHR2iDacQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22go%20in%20for%20celtic%22%20tolkien&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]