Jump to content

Talk:Middle-earth canon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Extensive rewrite

I've been carrying out an extensive rewrite during the AfD (now relisted). I stripped out most of the theorizing, unsourced opinions and rank speculation. Hopefully what is left is more a collection of statements that can be referenced and bound together with some prose. Please help tidy the article up further if you can. Carcharoth 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I tidied the article up a bit more, getting rid of the speculative musings about canonicity. I followed the concept of literary canon used in articles, restricting it to the actually published works of Tolkien and his son. The original article tried to define the ME canon as some internally self-consistent narrative that you can extract from the published and unpublished works. No such canon in that sense exists, and an attempt to define one would be OR. Djcastel 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite clarifies what canon is and separates 'consistency' as another issue, quite lean. Now 'canonical consistency' seems to needs work, however. Tttom1 02:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • question regarding the list of canon works. Should it include all publications of JRRT's works that concerns Middle-earth? e.g. The Road goes Ever On, and/or those works by Tolkien published with permission of the estate by others? Tttom1 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive notice

Initial archive carried out (see Talk:Middle-earth canon/archive1) and relevant discussion at Template talk:Mecanon has been archived to Talk:Middle-earth canon/archive2. Carcharoth 01:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

letters?

Should Tolkien's published letters be mentioned in the discussion of canonical sources? Certainly they are at least as important as the various unpublished linguistic writings, no? john k 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

-indeed, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien should be included in the canon, thank you for bringing this to my attention, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would leave the book out, its published by the "tolkien estate" and everything so theres no excuse to leave this valuble book out of the canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.65.121 (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Gil-galad's parentage

This passage could perhaps be recast- the only idea which Tolkien maintained over repeated documents was Finrod, an idea he definitively rejected: the Orodreth-version, we need to keep in mind, was one scrawled note on a late scrap, and really of no more canonical weight than the Fiingon-version (which was at least an annotation to one of the principal source-texts).

In fact It's misleading IMO to say that CRT generally 'defended' his decisions, in HME: often as not he expresses regret for liberties his younger self took.Solicitr 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As shown by the article, 'what is canon' is not decided by being the latest version. What you are describing is- consistency, or inconsistency, within the canon.Tttom1 18:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The only sources given for the statments in this article are primary sources. Can anyone help and source some of this stuff properly, using reliable, third party sources? --Davémon 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "there isn't a single secondary source". Now you are talking of third party sources. Anyway, one thing that might be causing confusion is whether or not Christopher Tolkien writing in The History of Middle-earth about his father's works is a secondary source. He is clearly not a primary source (he is not his father). Anyway, regardless of that, I can find secondary sources for you, but they will simply point you back to the primary sources. Would you prefer to have a quote from a reliable source, or an independent party reporting what was said? Maybe both would be better? The one to show that others find it notable, and the other to avoid the distortions introduced by secondary sources. Carcharoth 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The first reference in the article is to dictionaries to establish a definition of 'canon'- which are tertiary sources.Tttom1 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Secondary or tertiary sources would help (and ones that relate to the subject of article, not only defining commonly used words like "canon"). I would suggest that if the History of Middle Earth is itself canon, as the article claims, then it must be seen as a primary source - unless cannon only refers to the story-bits, and not the CTs commentary. A clearer (cited) defintion would help. For wikipedia purposes CT's independence and reliablility are questionable, so other sources would always be preferable. Has CT been listed at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard ? is there already consensus? I fully understand secondary sources will be refering to the primary, but it's part of the whole WP:V/WP:OR that we need to use secondary / tertiary sources. --Davémon 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
From Wiki: "Definition of secondary sources: ... a secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources." That about covers your arguments about CT. He's a scholar, he wrote about the topic, he uses primary and other secondary sources (he frequently refers to Carpenter, Fonstad and others works on M-e and his father). I've added some 2nd and 3rd refs. Carc there may find more. The statement about JRRT feeling bound by what was in print is somewhere a couple times in HoMe or Letters and will turn up. The article has and had references so the tag at the top of 'no references' is inappropriate and should be removed. The Me fact notes are sufficient. Thanks.Tttom1 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tttom. Davemon, I'm going to take a break from this until the weekend. I'll dig out my sources then. I hope that's OK with you. For now, I would suggest that you read around the subject and find out more yourself about whether Christopher Tolkien is reliable and independent. Try the secondary literature about Tolkien's works. You could list him at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard if you like, but how reliable are the answers that are given at that noticeboard? Carcharoth 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Added more refs and removed unref tag.Tttom1 20:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

There are no sources for this article that actually discuss "Middle-earth canon". With this article editors have actively attempted to define something that hasn't been defined by reliable sources elsewhere. The whole subject of the article is WP:OR. None of the citations given actually mention the idea of a "Middle-earth canon", they all discuss minor points of detail, such as the Tolkiens' occasional claims of attempts at consistency within the works, but not the central proposition that there is, could be, or should be a body of work recognised as a "Middle-earth cannon". These sources must be added - I've searched and found none (reliable sources at least), and have begun to suspect they don't exist. --Davémon (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

External links show the idea exists and is a topic and its discussion is quite heated. Tolkien Estate link is prima facie of the actual existence of the canon.Tttom1 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you point to where on the Tolkien Estate website where it directly discusses what works by J. R. R. Tolkien are "middle-earth canon"? I can't see any reference to it. Fans do like to argue and debate these things, and perhaps that is the tone that the article should take to avoid it's current WP:OR / WP:SYN problem. Then again, self-published fan articles as sources are indicative of cruft and disinformation, they don't constitute reliable sources required for an Encyclopedia, so a large WP:Notability problem remains, as well as bringing the veracity of the content into doubt. --Davémon (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The article has clarified that canon is simply and self evidently the author's works and, in the case of Middle-earth canon, a part (albeit the major part) of this author's literary output. Previously, the original article was a debate between some editor-fans as to what works by the author should be considered his true intent couched as some form of 'canon'. The website doesn't need to discuss what is Me canon as all works on Me by the author are, by definiton, canon just as they are - by definition - writings (or drawings for that matter) of that person. The current article attempts to retain an understanding of what canon is (for any author), in whole or in part of that author's output, as opposed to the opinions of the earlier state of the article which attempted to set some material up as 'gospel' while delegitimitizing other material based on, as near as I can make out, an artificial and arbitrary order of publication. I can't see that stating these works are the canon, as output, of the author on a particular and related section of his writing is any more OR than saying such and such works by Conan Doyle are his 'Sherlock Holmes canon' while other works by Doyle are the, say, 'Brigadier Gerard canon'. I'm sorry I can't see that any of your WP citations have any bearing on whether an article can or can't be written about a notable author's canon. Your suggestion that the article return to its previous state of the misapplication of the word canon, instead of noting and discussing the the debate within the context of text consistency where it belongs seems a return to the original Ouroborosian state of the argument between Jensen and Martinez which is more than adequately covered in their respective websites.Tttom1 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"Self-evidence" isn't the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia, WP:V is. I can cite reliable sources for a "Sherlock Holmes canon" with ease, citing a definition of a "Middle-earth cannon" however seems impossible both for me and you. My suggestion is that the article needs reliable sources in order to stop it being WP:OR. As one example: who says "The History of Middle Earth" is canon? The fact is that no reliable source does, so the article is evidently WP:OR. Can someone please point to any reliable source that defines the "Middle-earth canon" and add what it says to the article. --Davémon (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Article is not OR. Defining 'canon' seems only impossible for you as canon, the noun, is defined in refs. Me canon and Sherlock Holmes canon both described sections, or specific parts, of their author's canon. You are confusing just plain canon as a noun with 'canon' as a fan description of something. Me canon is part of wikiMe. If you want to improve the article you can expand the part that lists what's in the canon and categorize it more completely. If the title still disturbs you I suggest it be changed to 'JRRTolkien's Middle-earth canon' so as to distinguish it from 'JRRTolkien's canon' which would cover all his works including Mr Bliss, Sir Gawaine & Green Knight, Heorst and Hengist, lectures, etc. Self evident isn't a threshold for anything, it means you don't need something else to show it exists and self evident material is everywhere in wiki. Outside evidence for Tolkien's canon is self evident - if you must see proof of its self evidence, check the shelf in the bookstore or the publishing house list for the author.Tttom1 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That something simply 'exists' (in some peoples minds or conversations) doesn't mean it has passed the threshold for inclusion. If no reliable sources have covered the material in this article, then the article consists of original research. If no reliable sources have published on this subject at all, then the subject isn't notable either. Neither Houghton Mifflin [1] nor Harper Collins [2] list works as being of a 'Middle-earth canon', nor does my local Waterstones [3] or library[4]. As explained, I want to improve the article, but the only way of actually doing that is to find reliable sources on the subject and I keep not being able to find any. --Davémon (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It does in the case of existence in the Webster Dictionary definition of the noun - 'canon'. Tolkien's canon is total of Tolkien's works, books mostly. Middle-earth canon is Tolkien's work related to his invented world of Middle-earth. If you're interested in improving the article, great, I may help, if your interested in continuing the Martinez/Jensen thru wiki rules I suggest you see: WP:IAR. Otherwise, I'm afraid I can't go around this bush again with you.Tttom1 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm looking for is sources. I can see lots of factual errors with the article as it stands, but I'm not going to bother fixing and citing those unless it can be established via reliable sources that the concept of a "Middle-earth canon" is notable, and a definition of it can be properly sourced. I could argue (with citations) that, 'The Father Christmas Letters' contain pictures of Smaug, Gollum and an elf named "Ilbereth" (which is an obvious minor variation of 'Elbereth') so conclude that it is "connected" and so belongs in, and also that "Smith of Wootton Major" contains obvious thematic references to both Eärendil and the Undying Lands and also belongs in it, and heck even Roverrandom has a person that lives on the moon, connecting it both with the Book of Lost Tales and The Lord of the Rings. I could also argue that any derivative work which has been authorised by Tolkien Enterprises should also be included in a 'Middle-earth canon' as it has been 'officially' licensed by the only body legally entitled to claim such a thing (as far as I'm aware "Middle-earth" is their intellectual property). That definition would then include everything from the movies, ICE's roleplaying game, Games Workshops wargames etc. etc. My point isn't in the detail of these arguments, but rather that it's not the job of wikipedia editors to be making the decision of what is or isn't a "Middle-earth canon" based on logic or their ability to persuade other editors of the rightness of their case, but rather report on the decisions already published in independant, non-trivial, reliable sources. --Davémon (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice rewrite, however it lacks citations demonstrating the notability and currency of the so-called fan debate of 'canon' which you haven't defined for all sides. The websites for Martinez and Jensen are several years old - any real publications other than fan vanity publications dealing with fan canon & showing the frequency of debate?WP:VERIFYWP:SOURCE Tttom1 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The fan debate of canon on websites is explicitly mentioned by Leitch - so something is notable! No mention of Martinez/Jensen is being made in the article, so I'm not sure what is being referred to there. I've removed the 'weasel' statement "oft-debated" - please "Be bold"! and just go ahead and change that kind of stuff. The definition is derived from Fleiger. If I've overstepped in interpreting then rewrite as appropriate. If there are other citable definitions or significant viewpoints please add them. I'm still not convinced there is enough material to warrant an article, and I'm concerned the main body of the article reads like an essay on "consistency within certain of Tolkien's writings" rather than an encyclopedia entry on "Middle-earth canon".--Davémon (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Try using actual quotes and pages numbers to support your statements on writing technique - while I don't doubt that that may be Tolk writing style you havenot so demonstrated and supported it. Tttom1 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete it if you don't like it. --Davémon (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Its necessary to keep the distinction fictional canon vs canon. The definition of canon is well established as the works of the author by the references, including wiktionary:
Look up canon or canonical in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

"The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic.

the entire Shakespeare canon" while 'fictional canon' is clarified in the wikilink - a second 'link' maybe redundant but continuing to refer to it as what it is a necessity.Tttom1 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There simply isn't any need to talk about a "Tolkien canon", there is nothing at all in the article about the "The works of J.R.R. Tolkien that have been accepted as authentic", there is no questioning of authenticity nor summary of the works. Perhaps if you can find any sources on the subject you could start a new article that is about the whole "Tolkien canon"? --Davémon (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work on this article both! I'm becoming increasingly dubious about mentioning 'literary canon' because this also invokes a wholly different sense, such as that intended by Harold Bloom in his The Western Canon — this sense is discussed in an article in Mythlore #90 (Fall / Winter 2002), 'Applicability and truth in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion: readers, fantasy, and canonicity' by Sara Upstone, but that is completely different from the sense intended here. Discussing other kinds of canon in order to make it clear what this is not is probably going too far. Troelsfo (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why edit CoH section? It bears directly on fan debate of Me canon and CT's editorial role which is the debate. Fits fine in CoH but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit here. It is an extension of the debate in Sil section and answers some of the arguments there directly.Tttom1 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really much better content for the TCoH article. The definition of "Middle-earth canon" that I think you're working with : "a body of work considered to be authentic", and subsequently questioning whether Christopher Tolkiens editorial judgements are seen as "canonical" or not. This isn't the same as the one that the article is using, which is "a fictional canon presenting a consistent narrative within the body of works" (derived from Flieger). The Silmarillion section is precisely about Christopher Tolkien creating a "consistent narrative". The Children of Hurin section was about the fact that it has been edited - no notion of fictional canonicity or narrative consistency across the works is being discussed, so it's not relevant to this article. --Davémon (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also removed a section on "published in lifetime / posthumous / HoME" - without a citation of how this relates to the idea of a "fictional canon", it looks like OR. --Davémon (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't agree Davemon - so its back in. Narrative consistency is discussed - as editorial technique. You wanted source for Tolkien canon, canon of=works by, you got it- from TCoH list. actual M-e canon is a subset of actual canon. Fictional canon debate is the debate of Martinez and Jensen - check archived talk to see where Flieger stands, he is probably on one side or the other, see links. Globe review refs that. I have no problem with you using this elsewhere just with removing it from here. Personally, I am not trying to argue any side just showing all sides NPOV. There was an attempt in the edit during the deletion period to move away from the fan debate to define canon since it implied an authority on the works it (fictional canon) does not have - hence the introduction of actual canon. Clearly stating 'fictional canon' is better but still implies some sort of authority over what is actually there but inconsistent.Tttom1 (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I've no intention of edit-warring. You need to provide sources for the information you are trying to add, and to establish the basis you are trying to add it under within the article (not on the talk page or previous talk-page discussions):
  • "Fictional canon debate is the debate of Martinez and Jensen" - please cite.
  • "Narrative consistency is editorial technique" - please cite.
  • "TCoh list is the actual Tolkien canon" - please cite.
Without citations for the basic premises you are proposing, the section clearly fails WP:OR, so must be deleted. --Davémon (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't cite Martinez/Jensen in article- they cite themselves in outside links. Their version of this article is in the 'history' and their debate is archived in these talk pages. If you think their links to their fan pages constitute OR on fan debate you should remove them.Tttom1 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • CT, as editor of JRRT, is criticized thru article (I believe this is in origin Martinez's position) as overstepping his authority and, as article was previously written, violating then so-called canon, not distinguished as fictional canon v. actual canon. This was modified in the rewrite to 'consistency' and NPOV was covered across the actual canon after canon was given its dictionary definition as "the works of an author". Above you asked for proof of the prima facie: 'canon of = work by' this simply means that according to the dictionary refs given 'work by' is synonymous with 'canon of' and Houghton Mifflin edition of CoH gives a third party list of 'work by' that confirms there is a 'canon of', not as OR but simply as the synonym for. The TCoH list is the cite and the one you asked for above: "Neither Houghton Mifflin [1] nor Harper Collins [2] list works as being of a 'Middle-earth canon', nor does my local Waterstones [3] or library[4]." Houghton Mifflin lists the most current list of 'works by' (synonym: 'canon of') Tolkien within which there is a subset of works that constitute an actual Me canon just as it would include a subset canon of Tolkien's poetry.
  • Perhaps we should restore the initial paragraph which clarified 'fictional canon' as opposed to actual canon as the basic premise for this article.
  • Your opening passage for the current article has changed its direction which is generally good but that paragraph would probably be better in the wiki article: fictional canon in the section already existing for M-e which could use some reffd info there as the entire article is unreferenced unlike the section of this article on TCoH which is referenced with primary, secondary and tertiary references and quotes.Tttom1 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the section. Removing citation requests from the article without providing the requested citations is just gaming the system. The relevance of this material to the subject of the article is not clear. If you continue to insist on adding irrelevant, uncited material and not providing citations when asked for, we'll have to seek arbitration. --Davémon (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"*CT, as editor of JRRT, is criticized thru article (I believe this is in origin Martinez's position) as overstepping his authority and, as article was previously written, violating then so-called canon, not distinguished as fictional canon v. actual canon." This was a terribly misinformative statement. I am not the originator any such point of view. It was Christopher Tolkien himself who stated -- in The History of Middle-earth -- that he overstepped his bounds. The comments in the above discussion contain many erroneous statements, possibly couched in an undisclosed bias. They certainly convey a great deal of ignorance about the the field of Tolkien studies ("Flieger", for example, would be Verlyn Flieger -- her gender has not been altered as best I am aware).
This article does, in fact, constitute original research. A great deal of the Tolkien and Middle-earth articles here at Wikipedia constitute original research. They reflect primarily the views and opinions of Conrad Dunkerson (using posting as CBD in discussions) and do not in any way meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view. The example provided under "Editing the Silmarillion texts" of the Balrog passage is a classic point, in which Conrad's argument deliberately omits relevant information about the other sources Christopher Tolkien used for the texts (one might reasonably infer from this article that the chapter "Of the Ruin of Beleriand" was derived primarily from one source, which is a complete fabrication.Michael Martinez (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

The previous form of this article was nominated for deletion last year, there was no consensus for deletion and a good deal of work went into re-editing it meeting most if not all the criticisms. Perhaps it should be nominated again.Tttom1 (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If no sources present themselves, then taking it to AfD with a strong case that the article is an essay, that the subject itself fails notability guidelines (multiple independant, reliable sources) and consists of OR and no reliable sources can be produced would be the next logical step. However, I'd rather editors spent some time actively hunting proper sources than taking it to AfD prematurely. --Davémon (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't support the motion for deletion. The concept of a 'canon' is sufficiently well established among on-line 'fandoms' of sub-created worlds, including that of J.R.R. Tolkien, for such a concept to be important to cover. I agree that the only workable way is to use the literary sense (works by J.R.R. Tolkien pertaining to Middle-earth), and that this should be the only actual definition offered, but some effort should be done to refer to 'fan-sense' of the word as illustrated in Canon (fiction), even if this can only be done by referring to the disagreement with some references (e.g. the Jensen / Martinez). Troelsfo (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Online fandoms are not reliable sources, the argument given actually supports the deletion of the article as being fan-cruft. The definition "works by J.R.R. Tolkien pertaining to Middle-earth" is uncited and vague (which works? who decides?) which isn't really enough. Without reliable sources to support any definition given, the article will be deleted at some point. If you see value in the article, helping to find reliable sources is the answer to stop that happening. --Davémon (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
On-line fandom is an excellent source to the question of what issues concerns on-line fandom, which was all I suggested it be used for. 'Canon' in the literary sense is authentic work written by the author in question (sense 4 given here: [5]) and that definition can easily be applied to sub-sets of the full canon of the author, though I don't know of any reliable sources applying this usage to Tolkien's Middle-earth writings in particular (and I doubt that any can be found that will satisfy the requirement of reliability). I quite agree that there is a lack of reliable sources for this article, but my point is that the concept is so important in some parts of fandom (as illustrated e.g. by the Jensen/Martinez debate) that this alone should justify an article, even if the main focus of the article possibly would have to be to explain the debate about the concept rather than the concept itself -- for the debate it is, at least, easy to provide reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troelsfo (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
"Importance" isn't the same as notability. The Jensen/Martinez or other online fannish debates are not notabie enough to build an article around, and it would eventually get deleted. Unless the doings of fandom are reported by reliable sources. I still have some hope that a large enough body of reliable sources discussing this subject can be found which anchor the core concepts. Perhaps back issues of Mythlore [www.mythsoc.org/mythlore.html]? --Davémon (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm awaiting my copy of the Mythlore index, and I've asked about to hear if there's anything in either Amon Hen or Mallorn (the journals of the Tolkien Society: [6]). If anything turns up, I'll get back to this. Troelsfo (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Flieger and the Gone with the wind book fail to define what the fan debate issues are and are insufficient as sources to establish the notability of 'Fan canon'. Readers come to this subject to find out what the Middle-earth canon of Tolkien is - and that is the actual canon, not what this fan or that fan thinks it ought to be. Its necessary for the article to clarify and discuss 'consistency' between the texts to disabuse the notion that 'fan canon' has any authority over the actual canon.Tttom1 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no clear, definitive, authoritative declaration of what constitutes the "Middle-earth canon". There cannot possibly be any such definitive statement as J.R.R. Tolkien himself introduced inconsistencies and contradictions into the published texts. All discussion of "canon" is purely a theoretical concept, regardless of whether it is put forth by fans or scholars, and in no way constitutes a verifiable dictum of fact. If readers are in fact coming to this article to find out what Tolkien's Middle-earth canon consists of, they are being mislead by the presumption that he had such a canon. He did not. This article only exists because the original subject for this section was proposed on the basis of a community agreement to a standard selection of texts that would be considered authoritative sources for the purpose of writing the Wikipedia articles about Middle-earth. That entire process has long since been diverted and by some people perverted into a very deliberate publication of original research.Michael Martinez (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This section is to help establish multiple, reliable, independant, sources for any definition of "Middle-earth' canon".

  • The Complete Tolkien Companion (2004) J.E.A. Tyler. [7] Weak. Appears to attempt a definition of a 'Middle-earth canon'. The book is commonly derided: [[8]] and [[9]], for its loose and inaccurate interpretations of Tolkiens and lack of references. Maybe someone with the book or an Amazon.com account could summarise Tyler's opinion in the article. --Davémon (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Silmarillion Google books description [10] Very weak, no indication or author of snippet, but claims the "Silmarillion is the core'.
  • Film Adaptation and Its Discontents Thomas M. Leitch [11], Strongly citable claim that 'canonicity is debated on Fan sites etc.', but no definition.
  • A Question of Time Verlyin Felger [12] Strongly citable, very reliable, and basically calls ideas of canonicity within the literature irrelevant'.

Hopefully there are more, most of these do not seem to be 'substantial coverage' (with the exception of Tyler). Anyone else find any more? --Davémon (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tyler is only weak when misapplying 'consistency within the canon' as canon to what even Tyler recognizes as literary canon.Tttom1 (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Tyler is weak because this work isn't rigorous, appears to contain syncretic or invented material and seems more like a "cash-in" effort than a serious critique or index. Having said that - if he does define a set of books which are canonical, then the article should cite it, as it's the only citable, published definition we have. --Davémon (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My own edition of Tyler is very early, so not much use. In the link you give his compiler's notes indicate he is aware of a canon other than the 'consistent canon' he is proposing in his intro, i.e. restricted to post-LotR. He says: "References to works in the Tolkien canon are generally found...". Hard to say from the following list if it is meant as Tyler view, thinking about what he says in the intro, he probably has listed only the texts he sees as consistent with each other by his definition of consistentcy. Maybe Christina Scull's books would be better.Tttom1 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of this, but it looks like it might be relevant. I found it while looking through Tolkien Studies' review of the literature from 2000-2005 (or more specifically, their review of 2003):

Understanding Middle-earth: Essays on Tolkien's Middle-earth by Michael Martinez (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: ViviSphere, 2003) is a somewhat rewritten and edited collection of Web-published essays by a popular online writer on Tolkien. These explore many general and specific Tolkienian topics, from explorations of Tolkien's lesser-known sources to whimsical speculations and outright guesswork. Unlike Perry, Martinez uses posthumously published material extensively. His most characteristic posture is a forceful intervention in debates over the sub-creation, especially in testing the limits of reliable sub-creational knowledge. He is particularly interested in the questions of to what extent and in what circumstances the posthumous works may be used to supplement the canon of sub-creational facts established in the works Tolkien published. Though his interpretations are sometimes questionable, Martinez's facts are generally reliable. He writes informally and argumentatively but (in small doses) readably in adequate prose, without pretensions to formal scholarship.

The author is, admittedly, more of an active member of the fantasy and science fiction fandom than an academic, but his works, despite this, are highly regarded, widely considered insightful and were certainly reputable enough to publish. Here [13] is the link to Amazon's entry on the book, and the author obviously also has an online presence here [14] where I suspect at least some of the material that ended up in the book may be found online.

Less critically and more canon-y, Martinez has also published an e-book known as Parma Endorion (which can probably be downloaded at a bunch of places, but the first one that I found was here http://www.ebookbroadcast.com/ebooks/parma_endorion.pdf). It's a pretty well-sourced outline of what could pass for a 'Tolkien canon'. Hope this helps, and apologies if these sources have already been brought forward and discarded, Astraflame (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the quote from 'Tolkien Studies' - a very reliable source - and have summarised it in the lead paragraph. I do not have the book - could you possibly add the bibliographic information to the citation? "Parma Endorion" appears to be self-published, so doesn't count as a reliable source for my purposes. I'm trying to satisfy the wp:notability guidelines on this article - basically so it either becomes deletion-proof, or gets deleted / merged into other articles. Once notability is clearly established for the subject of the article then sources like "Parma Endorion" itself will be a great way of fleshing it out. To put it another way - please be bold! and add to the article from Parma Endorion - but beware that the article might not pass an AfD, and your work may be lost (at least as far as wikipedia is concerned)!
As a side-note, you may be interested in the "Silmarillion Project" at the Barrow Downs - where several people are attempting to edit a canonical Silmarillion from the History of Middle-earth texts [15]. Rather than the fan-fiction one may expect, it is a rather valiant, detailed and scholarly attempt to unify Tolkien's unfinished work. I'd love to find a reliable source which mentions the project, as I think it has a great bearing on the significance and dedication people have to the possibility of an authentic "Middle-earth canon". --Davémon (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed statement and obscure minority source. Replaced statements on canon that supplied previously requested sources. Please refrain from deleting same.Tttom1 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I managed to find another source:
  • Manuscripts by Tolkien by Jason Fisher in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment edited by Michael D.C. Drout: 'In addition to these invaluable works, there is an ongoing process, still underway today, to collate, edit, and publish the large body of Tolkien's unpublished linguistic writings. This project, headed up by Christopher Gilson, with the assistance of such Tolkien linguistic scholars as Carl F. Hostetter, Arden R, Smith, and Patrick Wynne, has already resulted in the addition of considerable new material to the published canon (in the forms of the journals Parma Eldalamberon and Vinyar Tengwar).' (Underlining added)
This speaks of the 'published canon' implying a 'Tolkien canon' which consists of everything the man ever wrote. It might be worthwhile to go through the encyclopedia looking for other relevant passages, but unfortunately I am due to hand back the library copy that I've loaned, so I won't be able to do so until I can loan the book again.
Another relevant source, which I, unfortunately, doesn't have myself, is Wayne G. Hammond's J.R.R. Tolkien: A Descriptive Bibliography. Though I doubt that Wayne makes any claims of defining or listing a Tolkien canon, it is nevertheless the best source to the published canon described by Jason Fisher.
Troelsfo (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Identity Crisis surrounding a "Middle-earth Canon"

I may be misunderstanding how all of this works on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to point out that there is a pretty good reason why it is extremely unlikely that (outside of the Tolkien fandom) one is going to find any reference to Tolkien "canon" within the reputable secondary literature regarding Tolkien (unless that secondary literature is itself responding to the Tolkien fandom, which considering the size of said fandom, is not out of the question).

As anyone who has read Tolkien's letters would realize (as most Tolkien scholars have, for really, they are a goldmine for the study of Tolkien's sources and his original intentions), while Tolkien did strive for an internal consistency in his work as a final goal, even he did not believe that he really would accomplish it because the sort of consistency he was looking for is something beyond simply stating that such and such a story is a sequel to this other story and hence they are taking a place in the same universe. In his concern with subcreation, such a statement would be simply insufficient for demarcating a universe.

Hence, the scholarship of Tolkien is much more concerned with studying his work as a process of making not a full mythology or claiming any sort of history but a compendium of (passed down, elaborated, and re-articulated) stories from some sort of real mythology. And in the course of mythological study, to even use the term 'real' is a bit illusory, since the way that such things that are passed down through time works is that there was never any time where the complete mythology was actually more complete than the final cobbled-together and revised compendium. The idea of something that has the unquestionable and solid weight of a canon is simply irrelevant to such considerations.

On the other hand, as even Tolkien scholar like Flieger acknowledges (which is, basically, what the section in A Question of Time alludes to), the idea of a canon is something that the Tolkien fandom is always going to look for and try to formulate (at least tacitly). So, in a way, it is not Tolkien or Tolkien secondary literature which is going to be the source of information concerning canon but the Tolkien fandom itself, since they are the one that would ultimately have to create such an idea.

In my humble opinion then, to call this article a discussion of "Middle-earth canon" and to try and cite Tolkien secondary literature is frankly misleading and not useful. It would be far more fruitful to cite Tolkien secondary literature in an article concerning the "Writing of the Lord of the Rings" or "Tolkien's mythology" or some such title. However, to discuss "Middle-earth canon" it is confusing and entirely essay-like, drawing conclusions from the Wiki-authors' own analysis, to be going back to the work of Tolkien or Tolkien scholars. Instead, we should probably actually go to the fandom who I presume actually do talk about "Middle-earth canon" or if we can find it, some "reputable source" discussing fandom ... but if fandom is really such a disreputable source, I think it's past time this article was put back up for deletion. Astraflame (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with your conclusion (if not the route to it!). Troelsfo has kindly offered to try to source some information from Amon Hen and Mallorn, so I would discourage going to wp:AfD for a while, in the hope that they manage to find some. Fandom such as websites, forums, wiki's or self-published pdfs / zines, are not reliable sources, we have to have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, editorially sound sources to establish notability. As both sources in the lead begin to show - the search for canonicity in Tolkiens work by some readers (and editors of secondary literature) - is an almost notable phenomenon, even if the minutiae and substance of the canon-theories never will be. --Davémon (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In my view, articles like Middle-earth canon and Tolkien's legendarium and Mythopoeia (genre) (to take two other examples that people here may not yet be aware of), contain a mixture of material that is verifiable and sourced to secondary literature, along with some primary references, and a sprinkling of original research. The solution is not to give up and delete the lot, but to step back and consider the whole and what is undeniably worth saving and what is not. One of the big problems is the titles. Much of the material would be fine in other articles, but when put under a title like this, suddenly people get worried and the issue of deletion is raised. Try and ignore the title for the article for a moment, and ask where you would put something like "My father came to conceive The Silmarillion as a compilation... and it is to some extent a compendium in fact and not only in theory." or "a complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost." Those are statements that Christopher Tolkien clearly made, and it is not difficult to find secondary sources that take statements like that as their starting points. Instead of arguing for deletion of the article, why not try and put the verifiable material in another article? Indeed, a better way to approach this may be simply to explain what Tolkien wrote and when. See Silmarillion#Development of the text and The History of Middle-earth and The History of The Hobbit and The History of The Lord of the Rings and The Lord of the Rings#Concept and creation. There is more than enough to document in the literature without turning to fandom and definitions in fandom. Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. I completely agree with what both of you are saying, and I apologize if my comment seemed so pessimistic. I did not mean that the search for coherence and consistency and the study of such a search was illegitimate or lacking in ample secondary literature talking about it — it is! there's a ton! Some of it is cited here and that's fantastic! It just seemed to me, in a relatively nontrivial way, that terminologically, looking at it as a "canon" and rather than the building of a "legendarium" was pretty misleading. The cited works looked like they would much rather be and would be much more coherent as an article concerning the construction of Tolkien's legendarium, which I agree would be a highly fruitful and interesting article to write. I just wanted, in a way, to see if there was any interest in doing anything of the sort, or whether there is a more adamant interest in continuing to sort for any sort of canonicity, if it exists, in Tolkien's work.
Sadly, most of my books are scattered in boxes right now as I am in the process of unpacking, but once that is done, I will gladly get to work on the legendarium article. Sorry for being so critical in the meantime. I just wanted to make sure that what information I remembered was out there. --Astraflame (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Have reverted article- with appropriate sourcing - to earlier texts to clarify the actual Tolkien Middle-earth canon as opposed to fancruft.Tttom1 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree the sources are appropriate, they appear to be examples of people using the words 'Tolkien canon' rather than providing actual definitions of 'Tolkien canon'. Using these multiple sources to arrive at a definition is a problem under wp:syn. --Davémon (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put the citations below.. Hopefully we can find good use for them:

  • Jane Chance, The Lord of the Rings p.17: "The publication of the Silmarillion (1977) had disclosed Tolkien's role as a philosopher of language and demanded that the reader attend to the Middle-earth chronology of his canon - The Silmarillion first, The Hobbit second and then LotR ... " The University Press of Kentucky, 2001, ISBN 0-8131-9017-7.
  • Tom Shippey,J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, Publisher's comments: "Other chapters examine The Hobbit, explaining the hobbits' anachronistic relationship to the heroic world of Middle-earth; the fundamental importance of The Silmarillion to Tolkien's canon. ". Chicago Sun-Times, Book review, April 22, 2007,
  • Dan Miller, The Children of Hurin: "A superb addition to the Tolkien canon. . . ". Harper Collins Australia: The Silmarillion: Illustrated Edition, Publisher's notes, "J R R Tolkien′s SILMARILLION is the core work of the Middle−earth canon."
  • Times of India, Book Review, 29 Apr. 2007, Hurin Therapy: "The story is not new. There's a condensed version in The Silmarillion, the epic tale of elves and men published in 1977. This shows that the story of Hurin and the curse that blights his family was central to the conception of the Elder Days, Tolkien's Ancient Age when the elves returned to Middle-earth to battle Morgoth, the first Dark Lord. The version we get in Hurin is both alike and different from other works in the canon. Seasoned readers will flag familiar Tolkien markers —an awe-inspiring landscape, courage in the face of hardship, heriosm and its fall."


I've investigated as well as possible the treatment of canon in the fan sense in Mythlore, Amon Hen, J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment and elsewhere, but I have found nothing that isn't already listed (not counting references to canon-freaks in the Encyclopedia article on 'Fandom'). Of all the citations, Flieger's is the only truly reliable and notable source that, in my opinion, certainly uses the word in the fan sense (i.e. not as applying it to everything written by Tolkien about Middle-earth). The various blurbs and book reviews fail on the reliability issue, and the Jane Chance reference possibly refers to the broader sense of 'Middle-earth canon'.
All in all I've turned nearly about on this question, and now I think this article must be able to derive its notability from Verlyn Flieger's reference or be deleted. And in any case it should be shortened drastically . Just mention that it is being debated among fans what works should be counted as canon in the sense that Flieger refers to, and delete from 'Beginning The Hobbit' to the end. The Hobbit isn't the beginning of Middle-earth, anyway. Troelsfo (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the research Troelsfo. With what you've said in mind, I think we should start copying the cited content from the "Beginning The Hobbit" to the end of the article into the individual book articles. The book of lost tales article will really benefit from some of this content, the more developed ones, like The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings might need more effort to integrate the text properly. --Davémon (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Flieger and the Gone with the wind book fail to define what the fan debate issues are and are insufficient as sources to establish the notability of 'Fan canon'. Readers come to this subject to find out what the Middle-earth canon of Tolkien is - and that is the actual canon, not what this fan or that fan thinks it ought to be. Its necessary for the article to clarify and discuss 'consistency' between the texts to disabuse the notion that 'fan canon' has any authority over the actual canon.Tttom1 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"None of the citations given actually mention the idea of a "Middle-earth canon", they all discuss minor points of detail, such as the Tolkiens' occasional claims of attempts at consistency within the works, but not the central proposition that there is, could be, or should be a body of work recognised as a "Middle-earth cannon". These sources must be added - I've searched and found none (reliable sources at least), and have begun to suspect they don't exist."
Jane Chance, The Lord of the Rings p.17: "The publication of the Silmarillion (1977) had disclosed Tolkien's role as a philosopher of language and demanded that the reader attend to the Middle-earth chronology of his canon - The Silmarillion first, The Hobbit second and then LotR ... " The University Press of Kentucky, 2001, ISBN 0-8131-9017-7.
"As one example: who says "The History of Middle Earth" is canon? The fact is that no reliable source does, so the article is evidently WP:OR. Can someone please point to any reliable source that defines the "Middle-earth canon" and add what it says to the article."
  • Tom Shippey,J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, Publisher's comments: "Other chapters examine The Hobbit, explaining the hobbits' anachronistic relationship to the heroic world of Middle-earth; the fundamental importance of The Silmarillion to Tolkien's canon. ". Chicago Sun-Times, Book review, April 22, 2007,
  • Dan Miller, The Children of Hurin: "A superb addition to the Tolkien canon. . . ". Harper Collins Australia: The Silmarillion: Illustrated Edition, Publisher's notes, "J R R Tolkien′s SILMARILLION is the core work of the Middle−earth canon."
  • Times of India, Book Review, 29 Apr. 2007, Hurin Therapy: "The story is not new. There's a condensed version in The Silmarillion, the epic tale of elves and men published in 1977. This shows that the story of Hurin and the curse that blights his family was central to the conception of the Elder Days, Tolkien's Ancient Age when the elves returned to Middle-earth to battle Morgoth, the first Dark Lord. The version we get in Hurin is both alike and different from other works in the canon. Seasoned readers will flag familiar Tolkien markers —an awe-inspiring landscape, courage in the face of hardship, heriosm and its fall."
Sources added.Tttom1 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a problem under wp:syn:
  • Jane Chance, The Lord of the Rings uses his canon.
  • Tom Shippey,J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, uses Tolkien's canon.
  • Dan Miller, The Children of Hurin uses Middle−earth canon, and isn't an independant source.
  • Times of India, Book Review, 29 Apr. 2007, 'Hurin is both alike and different from other works in the canon. does not specify the canon.
Only one of the sources actually uses the phrase "Middle-earth canon", so these can't be added together as a definition of a "Middle-earth canon". Yes the words "Tolkien", "Middle-earth" and "canon" get used in various orders but the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as per wp:n and these sources do not show significant coverage. If Fliegers comment on the fact some fans need to define a canon isn't significant enough, then we have no notability for this subject at all. --Davémon (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Understanding the Lord of the Rings By Rose A. Zimbardo, Neil D. Isaacs: "All this is in Tolkien's canon." Houghton Mifflin, 2004, p.17
C. S. Lewis, by Michael White,"Christopher, who now lives in France, has written a vast canon of books that fill in the history of Middle-earth." p.250
Telegraph UK, 25 Apr. 2007, Children of Húrin Book review by John Garth, "Only now, for the first time since 1977, has any cohesive and complete narrative appeared to join the other three major books in the Middle Earth canon."
Two separate ideas are expressed and no synthesis is intended. 1. There is a Tolkien Canon as author's works as per dictionary definition given in footnotes from several dictionaries including Wk.'s. 2. There is within that author's canon a Middle-earth canon that is the author's work on his created fictional universe. I agree there is no notability to the idea of a fan-canon as each and every single fan has their own idea as to what that is. Additional sources added.Tttom1 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
From wp:syn : "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." Summary of dictionary definition and other notable publications is that there is an author's canon, in this case: 'Tolkien's canon' - the meaning of that in the sources is not changed in the article, simply so stated. "The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." Additional different reliable sources establish the claim that there is a subset canon called "Middle-earth canon" using some of our own words, as opposed to OR.Tttom1 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should rename the article "Tolkien canon" and use it to just list all the published works by Tolkien (including his O.E. translations, Roverandom et al.) in first publication date order, and then have a separate section "Middle Earth canon" and use Flieger and that GWTW book to describe the fact that some fans try to define this subject, but not elaborate their theories. What do you think? --Davémon (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think its coming along as is. Even in those cites that don't specifically say 'Tolkien's Middle-earth canon' the context in which they are written make it fairly clear that what they are writing about is that particular subset of the 'Tolkien canon'. In the canon of world literature there is a subset known as the 'canon of english literature' within that canon is a further subset referred to as the Shakespeare canon and within that canon there is an additional subset referred to as his theatrical canon which includes, but is not limited to conflated, edited and collaborative works. If one wishes to write an article on Shakespeare's theatrical canon, or the canon of Shakespeare's poetry, or the canon of Shakespeare's sonnets, the editor doesn't have to title it Shakespeare's canon and list everything ever written by Shakespeare just to discuss one subset like the sonnets. So too here, with Tolkien. Middle-earth canon, as a subset of the author's canon, is established and can have its own article and - just as in Shakespeare's theatrical canon - inconsistencies within that canon (including perhaps specious additions to a canon - such as 'Cardenio' for Shakespeare) can be discussed. So no, I don't think this article should be renamed 'Tolkien canon' but I'm sure you can write such an article should you care to discuss the less notable canon subsets of the works of Tolkien.Tttom1 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You're engaging in wishful thinking. There is NO "middle-earth canon". There cannot possibly be any such canon. The Hobbit was revised three times, The Lord of the Rings was revised many more times (not all by Tolkien). There are inconsistencies between the various editions. The Silmarillion was constructed by Christopher Tolkien (who repudiated himself in The History of Middle-earth). Much of the analysis and discussion of what Tolkien meant by "middle-earth" erroneously draws upon The Book of Lost Tales (which was a pseudo prehistoric English mythology and had nothing to do with Middle-earth). There is in truth no real value to this article. It was proposed as a guideline for contributors to the Middle-earth articles to help them create a Middle-earth encyclopedia through Wikipedia.Michael Martinez (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Tttom - could the article as you envision it also be called "Middle-earth books" or "Middle-earth works"? That would remove the fan-defined-canon problem and open up the article for a less stringent definition than "Middle-earth canon" implies? --Davémon (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of the name-change, but there are already a category Category:Middle-earth_books and another Category:Books_by_J._R._R._Tolkien. We might use 'Middle-earth Writings' (with or without specifying 'Tolkien's') and imply more than just books (to cover also the snippets published in e.g. Parma Eldalamberon, Vinyar Tengwar, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien and elsewhere).
I agree that this article is coming around, though I'm not sure about the implied time-line that covers the four books of coherent narrative: the beginnings of Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium can be traced back at least to 1915 and probably earlier, and if the article, either explicitly or implicitly, should indicate a time-line, it is misguiding to set The Hobbit as the the beginning. A number of the poems in which the legendarium was conceived were actually published at the time, so it should be possible to start there, though I'd rather remove that part entirely.
Should the article reflect that even in the reliable sources the status of various texts outside the list of titles copyrighted by the Tolkien Estate is unclear? Good examples could be 'The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor (Vinyar Tengwar issue 42), 'Ósanwe-kenta' (Vinyar Tengwar issue 39) and 'The Nomenclature of The Lord of the Rings' (in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion and in earlier editions of A Tolkien Reader). Troelsfo (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as The Hobbit does not even contain the phrase "Middle-earth" - it is definately misleading to begin the article with that. "Middle-earth" began with the Lord of the Rings, and (nearly) everything else Tolkien had done before or after it got sucked into that frame. Again, I fear we fall into the trap of defining something that has not been defined in reliable sources, so has wp:or issues. I think something like "Middle-earth (Tolkien)" could work because then we can just add anything that reliable sources have said is "about Middle-earth" or "connected to Middle-earth" in relation to Tolkien, without having to rely on any definition of 'canon'. As long as we can find reliable sources that say the Vinyar Tengwar material is related to Middle-earth, then they would definitely belong in the "Middle-earth (Tolkien)" article. It would also be a much more encyclopedic, out-of-universe version of the current Middle-earth page, the list of books given there Middle-earth#Books isn't cited at all, but could be a good starting point for reinventing this article. --Davémon (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RESETTING INDENT -- Troelsfo wrote: "...the beginnings of Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium can be traced back at least to 1915 and probably earlier..." That is stretching the truth to a near-impossible limit. Tolkien created a mythology for England that had nothing to do with Middle-earth. He reused some of those stories from The Book of Lost Tales -- changing characters, settings, names, and in many cases even motives -- as the basis for new stories in the Silmarillion mythology, which only originated in the mid-1920s. It is misleading to include The Book of Lost Tales in the so-called body of works that are set within or written about Middle-earth. Christopher Tolkien clearly and distinctly wrote in The History of Middle-earth that The Book of Lost Tales was a separate work (he also explicitly stated that the Silmarillion began with the post-BOLT essay "sketch of the mythology"). Even if this article is rebooted into a description of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, it cannot credibly include anything other than oblique references to the pre-Middle-earth writings (except to acknowledge that Middle-earth evolved out of numerous literary experiments he began and abandoned throughout more than 2 decades).Michael Martinez (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE REVERTED - False Statements About "Official" Canon

It looks like user TTom came in late in 2008 and added a lot of edits which give the false appearance that there is an official declaration of canon from the Tolkien Estate. No such declaration has ever been made and the Web site of the Tolkien Trust (which the article now links to) does not in any way endorse, condone, or support such a statement.

The entire article should be reverted to pre-November status, perhaps earlier, to remove all the bias about the bogus "official" canon.

There is NO official canon.

I will check back in a few days to follow up with discussion. If no reasonable objections have been raised, I will restore the article to a previous copy from the history.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see no objections posted yet but I don't have much time for editing right now. Let this discussion section stand as my indefinite stated intention. Before I take any action in the future I'll review the article to see if people have removed the biased edits.Michael Martinez (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of article: no longer necessary?

I've at least skimmed all the discussion since I was last active here, and my current impression boils down to one question: "Is this article necessary anymore?" When I first created this article (or rather, moved the relevant block of Middle-earth to its own article), its purpose was to establish a basis of "true facts" to refer to in Wikipedia's Middle-earth articles (and also a consistent way to discuss "other versions of the legendarium"). At the time, most of the Middle-earth content here was written in a thoroughly "in universe" style, which made such an established definition highly desirable.

Now, though, the articles are being slowly but surely improved to remove their "in universe" aspects, so the original purpose of this article has become moot. (That's a good thing! Choosing one particular notion of "canon" is fraught with POV, as we've seen here in the past... even if I do suspect that some POVs are noticeably more established than others.) It's also clearly unnecessary for this article to be a "List of Tolkien's published Middle-earth writings", since that fits perfectly well on his main page (and has no need for extensive commentary).

Right now the "Middle-earth canon" article mostly explains that the various published texts aren't mutually consistent (indeed, that no two of them are). It's a reasonable discussion of that point. But is it really necessary to have a whole article on the topic? Most people with the interest to read this article are probably well aware of that already. And does the article really address the topic in the title? Apart from a few lines in the introductory paragraph, I'd say it doesn't (unless the implicit message of the remainder of the article is the POV claim that "attempting to define a Middle-earth canon is pointless"). I wince at the thought of adding a section discussing various strategies people have used to select a Middle-earth canon and the pros and cons of each (I didn't enjoy that earlier argument here any more than everyone else did), but without that I don't see how it's possible to truly address the topic.

So with that in mind, why not just scrap this thing? (Could the main idea be simply folded into a sentence or two added to Middle-earth somewhere?) Otherwise, what's it for?Steuard (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article

Nice work on putting this into shape Elphion. Leaner and reads much clearer. Tttom1 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my comments above weren't meant as a criticism of the quality of the current article: I think it reads quite well. I just wonder whether it serves a useful purpose these days. --Steuard (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...Tttom1 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
*blush* Thanks -- though I hasten to point out that most of the material was provided by others. I do think the article provides value, or I wouldn't have spent such effort on it. The article counters the notion that there is a reasonable way to delineate a "canon" in Tolkien's opus, and it gives an overview of how the pieces developed and why they don't mesh. True, this material could be incorporated somewhere (where?) in other articles about Tolkien's work, but it would be a lengthy addition, and it makes a reasonable, self-contained article in its own right. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the development of the Silmarillion material during Tolkien's lifetime, but that could easily blow up into a much larger article that might obscure the landscape. (Something like the History of M-e :-) Elphion (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The numerous mentions of 'canon', in some form, as seen in the various reviews, scholastic works, notable publications, etc. in the reference notes in the article demonstrate the usefulness and purpose of this article - as it has currently evolved. Anyone reading one of those, or something similar, and wishing to better understand what those writers are referring to, or to get a larger description of what they are referring to, can now look it up on Wikipedia and get that information.
I agree that the Silmarillion development could be expanded some.Tttom1 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


I agree that the article does add value in its own right, even if doesn't really meet the Notability standards. The only source that really fits the bill is, IMO, Flieger, and her coverage can hardly be said to be significant. The only significant coverage is found in sources that don't meet the reliability and independence criteria. Other reliable sources use the concept of 'canon' without discussing what it means, presuming the reader to understand it in the usual literary sense ('the authentic works of a particular author or artist.' [16], sense 4).
The historical overview, however, is already dangerously close to being original research and expanding that would make the article fail on at least three Wikipedia policies. I would rather that the current overview was cut down drastically, since its purpose in the current context is just to provide an argument against the 'fannish' concept of canon which Flieger speaks of and as such it is not WP:NPOV.
It should, however, be possible to include a section on the usage of the word 'canon' by reliable sources in the context of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings regardless of whether they use the explicit phrase 'Middle-earth canon.' In the talk section there are already numerous examples that could be referred to. Troelsfo (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the perception that the article's purpose is to provide an argument against fan-canon is a problem of format rather than content. In recent edits fan-canon became featured in the lede - thereby giving that impression. The article would be improved by moving that part to its own subsection following 'sources' where it would be more appropriately placed and also remind readers of the difference in the extended use of the term 'canon'. It would also benefit a section on fan-canon, perhaps titled 'fan-canon', to have more refs than just Flieger.Tttom1 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and have restructured as suggested. Much of the "history" section and the "material" sections needs citing. Also, there seems to be lots and lots of citations in the same refs. Perhaps these could be separated out and expanded upon? --Davémon (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Its better - but the fictional canon section still looks awkward where it is. I think it should be moved to after the ToCH sub-section as a whole new section rather than a sub-section of 'author's work's and expanded to better define 'fictional M-e canon' and the various views on that along with some reliable refs. If possible, some notable fan positions on a 'fictional canon' as they relate to the actual canon inconsistencies above in article could be introduced and discussed.Tttom1 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It could read: 'Fictional M-e canons' as section header and have sub-sections describing the various main views - if these can be expressed. Perhaps 'Exclusionary canons' with discussions of LotR based canon, Sil based canon and 'Inclusionary canons' with HoMe based canon and Linguisitic based canon - or other prominent sects.Tttom1 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're on to something with the 'intertext', Davemon, much of the material is self-consistent but not always intertexually consistent.Tttom1 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Now if only we could find some really good sources! The chapter "the great chain of reading" in Tolkien the Medievalist parts can be read on google books [17] is interesting, it rejects idea that texts can be "uncanonical" in either the real world or the story-internal world and instead proposes that the multiple levels of intertextual relations (including different versions from SiT) of the texts ultimately helps build the mythopoeic effect. --Davémon (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Chance piece could be a source for a general description of an 'inclusionary' view of fictional canon.Tttom1 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image use

There has been a discussion on my talk page on the use of the dust jackets of the books discussed in this article as to whether some aspect of their use constitutes a violation of wp non-free content criteria. None of the dust jackets are used in more than one other article and all are relevant to the discussion of these books and therefore improve the article also they make it look nicer. The discussion properly belongs here as to whether all or any of those can be used so editors involved in the article can see it and chime in, if they care to, hopefully before the next revert.Tttom1 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they don't have fair-use rationales (NFCC 10) and that alone is reason enough to remove them as fair-use rationales are mandatory. Moreover, the usages here do not add significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic (NFCC 8). There is also a weaker issue with overuse but it's largely irrelevant since NFCC 8 and 10 have not been met. I am going to remove them again to enforce the non-free content policy. CIreland (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that the problem is on the image description page (NFCC10) - doesn't that apply to the images' other uses as well? Or does there need to be an additional rationale for each use, even if the rationale would be essentially the same?Tttom1 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There has to be a fair-use rationale for each use of each image. Such rationales should include (amongst other things) an explantion of how the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic and why its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. You should be aware, however, that image uses such as those in this revision have not typically been considered essential in analogous cases. The relevant policy is: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria with extended guidance at: Wikipedia:Non-free content. CIreland (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like more trouble than its worth considering dust jackets, album covers etc. are only barely related to content. Thanks for the clarification. Best to use images from commons.Tttom1 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This is why they were removed in the first place. The use of Commons images is fine. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middle-earth_canon/Archive_3&oldid=961094388"