Talk:The Hobbit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Would a dwarf of that importance really be traveling alone?

Gandalf was overtaken by Thorin on the Great Road and later invited to the Blue Mountains. Gandalf was headed for the Shire for a rest, someplace he had not been since the death of the Old Took, but why was Thorin alighting from? Where was his escort and guard? Ncsr11 (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A continent as massive as Middle-earth, the storyline speaks of the Road (the Great Road) as being in dis-repair like a 'Roman road' during the 'dark ages', the great cathedral-building era of Europe. The continent is under exodus. Many parts are underpopulated. Perhaps there is a false sense in the west, even though rumors have spread that the tower has been rebuilt?. Ncsr11 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, this is not a bulletin board for discussions about The Hobbit. It’s for discussing the editing of the article. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed about this not being a bulletin board, however, the direction from which Gandalf and the dwarves came from and other vital preliminary information is in Unfinished Tales.

Genre

A book such as this [1] should probably be consulted regarding genre. The difficulty here, in my view, is that Tolkien created a world (fantasy) with it's own mythology and legends. Although Zipes has an entry in his fairy tale book, that's only a small part of the puzzle. Good luck with this, it's a complicated piece to work in regards to comprehensiveness. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's not in the preview but what I could find about any genre, mostly Fantasy, in that book refers to The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's legendarium in general, which was developed and published at a later stage. The Hobbit as such is only treated in terms of themes and motifs and is not classified into a specific genre. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur De728631. As far as I can see, Purtill doesn't discuss genre with regards The Hobbit, but rather addresses his concerns to The Lord of the Rings. His only real commentary on The Hobbit itself cover the theme of Bilbos maturation - he identifies the leadership role (which starts with Gandalf) as being "parental" which could be usefully added to the article. --Davémon (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically the traditional definition between fantasy and realism, in regard to children's lit, is whether the action exists in a place that can be recognized as the world we live in, or a made up world. Clearly Tolkien created a made up world, and because The Hobbit is the first installment in that world, it introduces the world. I need to work at the moment and can't continue this, but will add some specific sources. Will also pick up Carpenter's book. I'd suggest attributing both Carpenter and Zipes, if they definitely place it in the genre of fairy tale - I haven't read the entire Zipes entry but will. Then I'd suggest adding that scholars disagree on the genre, in that some consider it fantasy others fairy tale, and finally that some consider it children's lit and others not. Personally, though were I to work on this page, I wouldn't be treating children's lit as a genre - the genres themselves cross over. If you look at the article on Charles Perrault's Histoires ou contes du temps passé, you'll see that the tales weren't written for children. Off the top of my head, from what I remember of Tolkien scholarship, he wasn't necessarily writing for children at all. One more thing - the dragon is based on the dragon in Beowulf. I have source for that somewhere. Ping me if you have questions and I'll keep this page watched. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned in the article that Smaug's personality is based on the Beowulf epic (Solopova, 2009) and that "the Smaug episode reflects and references the dragon of Beowulf" (Steele, 2006). And one of today's additions was a phrase that Tolkien himself stated he had not written The Hobbit as a children's novel. As to the genre, the article does already mention that children's literature and Fantasy are not mutually exclusive and that different authors prefer different genres, but from what I could find in the sources already present, the novel is mostly treated as children's literature, be it as a top category that includes "Fantasy for children" or a standalone definition. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t grasp the significance of this discussion. I cannot imagine a thoughtful reader coming away from the article with idea that The Hobbit “belongs” in one genre. Classifications are a convenience. They are supposed to aid understanding by stripping away details so that we can focus on essence. They are not an attribute of the thing; they are our distillation of ideas about the thing. The point when classifying something begins to interfere with understanding is the point when classifications are no longer useful—and certainly not worth excruciating over. The article unambiguously states that The Hobbit deeply crosses genres. It states which genres the story crosses. It gives references scholarly criticism in a balanced way. There is no more understanding to be gleaned by adding more “influential” votes into the mix and stirring. Strebe (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentences such as this: "Tolkien intended The Hobbit as a fairy story and wrote it in a tone suited to addressing children" are absolute and at the very least should be attributed. Many scholars would disagree perhaps. My point, as a reviewer, is that all the point-of-view need to be considered. That's integral to the FA process and the criteria. As a courtesy to the review, I moved the discussion from there, but certainly it can be taken up there again. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter to me where the discussion takes place. My point is that the book deeply crosses genres. Everyone agrees it does. The article says it does. The article gives all significant points of views and describes them really rather thoroughly within the scope of an article that is supposed to cover all aspects of the book. Therefore more excruciating over the genre “puzzle” does not further the quality of the article. The quote you give is attributed as reference #54, so I don’t know what you intend by stating it needs to be attributed. The article does not state that the book is a fairy tale; it states that Tolkien intended it as a fairy tale, and that on the authority of Tolkien’s principal biographer. If your point is that we should qualify the statement as someone’s opinion, then I merely say of course it is someone’s opinion. Any such statement is an opinion, but in the absence of credible dissenting opinions, noting everything as an opinion simply becomes clumsy writing. Do you have some reason to believe a mainstream scholar disagrees with that opinion? I don’t. They may disagree about whether Tolkien actually created a fairy story, but I’ve never seen any dissent about his intent. Strebe (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The largest problem is this: almost every source I've looked at is showing text that's verbatim or close to verbatim. The first sentence in the genre sections says: characters that pre-adolescent children can identify with and the source says: characters preadolescent children can easily identify with -- all of which has made me look more closely at the text. So, let me say this: first the text needs some scrubbing. The example above is easily taken care of with quotation marks and a page number (which is lacking). Second, yes, my suggestion as a reviewer, a person who writes about fiction, and an editor familiar with the scholars and the genres, would be to attribute Humphrey Carpenter by name. He's a very reputable scholar and thus his opinion holds weight. Equally, Zipes is a reputable scholar whose opinion holds equal weight, and yet in his entry about The Hobbit, (a sentence from which was presented here verbatim until I changed it) explains that it's not a typical fairy tale. It's not necessary to reconcile the two - but it is necessary to explain which scholars hold which view. Furthermore, both the source mentioned above and Zipes explain the book has many folkloric attributes, but that's lacking in the article. But this all my opinion only and clearly we disagree. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not addressing the problem of verbatim excerpts or the suitability of the article for FA. I am addressing the topic of genre. I’m puzzled now by the new claim that the article lacks mention of the folklore elements. They’re right there in the section on genre: Many fairy tale motifs… and folklore themes, such as trolls turning to stone, are to be found in the story. The Hobbit conforms to Vladimir Propp's 31-motif model of folktales. I do not think the article is obliged to quote any particular reviewer’s favorite sources as long as the article’s treatment of concepts is balanced.

As for listing who says what directly in the article rather than in references, I have no strong opinion other than to note the typical reader isn’t going to know those names, so dropping them into the text isn’t going to help most readers. Quite the opposite, it just puts people off because the names are meaningless words to them. It starts to read like a research paper or literary criticism. It’s not; it’s an encyclopædia entry, and it happens to be one about the entire book, not one about critique of the book. Is there some Wikipedia guideline we can refer to about the appropriate level of in-line citations before we go stuffing lots of names into the body text? Strebe (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading carefully the section re folklore. No, as far as I know, no policy that requires attribution. Let's just let it go. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work in a short time. I know how hard it is to come up to speed on a major article. Especially thanks for checking the references. Strebe (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam Research

Apparently Highbeam are offering free accounts to Wikipedians to use their service for a year. I don't have the time right now, but (http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm="the+Hobbit") shows a good many articles (4,401) some of which could be used to improve the article (and maybe flesh out Adaptations of The Hobbit too). Narrowing the search, such as http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm="the+Hobbit"+genre might help focus research. Highbeam also have an archive of Mythlore articles (http://www.highbeam.com/publications/mythlore-p770) which may prove very useful to this and related Tolkien topics. Davémon (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the article have a redirection with Saint George?

Other than Beowulf, the most basic source of the dragonslayer story is that of Saint George and the Dragon. Notably as to this story being Children's literature. Ncsr11 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source where that comparison is drawn, please add it to the article. Otherwise that is original research. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Some references to St. George do appear in the litearture (Rateliff gives as an example of a 'symbolic' type dragon which I've added to the article) - but not much comparison is found (nor is it much warranted in my opinion). Farmer Giles of Ham, however is much more obviously based on it. --Davémon (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Author could have given more information on Bag End

A major gap in the story is when was Bag End begun on its construction, and more information on Bilbo's upbringing and occupation. There are some indications that Bag End and the Bagginses' occupation being to procure barrels of alcohol from the king's cellars and to store them in Bag End. Bilbo also has a fascination with elves. Ncsr11 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hobbit Article Grammar

(Moved here from my talk page) -- Elphion (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Collective or group nouns only take a plural verb agreement if the noun is being used to refer to the constituent parts of the group. For example: "The Cabinet fought amongst themselves." In this case the "Cabinet" refers to the constituent members of the group and not the group as a whole, and in terms of the verb agreement, answers to the pronoun "they" (... fought amongst themselves.) However, when the group noun is used to refer to the group as an single entity, for example "The Cabinet makes a key decision" - then the noun takes a singular agreement since it answers to the pronoun "it" (... makes a key decision). There's no distinction or difference made between UK and US, or international variants of English on this point. There are numerous grammar guides on the internet which explain this, and the paradigm of 'English' Grammar, Fowler's states the same. isfutile:P (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The books I'm looking at, including Fowler (2nd Ed.), suggest a more nuanced view. While Fowler does enunciate a guideline similar to your observation, he also says that there is a wide gray area: collective nouns ("nouns of multitude") are "treated as singular or plural at discretion" (my emphasis) -- in other words, if you the author are thinking of them as individuals then use the plural. It's not at all clear whether "the army go over the top" (with their bayonets fixed, say), or "the army goes over the top" (en masse). Farther along, he says: "In general it may be said that while there are always a better and a worse in the matter, there are seldom a right and a wrong, and any attempt to elaborate rules would be waste labour."

For an American perspective, I turn to The Handbook of Good English by Edward Johnson. He says: "Collective nouns ... can take either singular or plural verbs, depending on whether they are being thought of as singular or plural." and then goes on to say "The British almost always use the plural." And that is certainly the impression I get from reading British books and periodicals, which use the plural construction far more often than my American ear would lead me to do.

The cases that were changed en masse in this article strike me very much as falling in the gray area, and in a British publication I would expect plural constructions in most of them. The style guides certainly give you license to choose; but not, I think, license to change with no other authority.

-- Elphion (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Additional food for thought at 1 and 2. This has been a recurrent issue in this article, and consensus to date has always come down on the side of the plural. While anyone is free to seek a different consensus, the stable version should remain in place in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own grammar page suggests a *singular* would be appropriate given that "company" refers to one group, and not the sum of the individuals.

In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example, "Germany have won the competition.", "Madrid have lost three consecutive matches.", etc. In American English, collective nouns almost invariably take singular verb forms (formal agreement). In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "The team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or simply "The team is fighting.") See American and British English differences - Formal and notional agreement. - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun#Metonymic_merging_of_grammatical_number isfutile:P (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Collective noun#Metonymic merging of grammatical number is incomplete. Rivertorch’s links give a much clearer picture of contemporary British practice. On the other hand, indiscriminate plural verbs on collective nouns is a (comparatively) recent development in British English; Tolkien himself was much more conservative and nuanced in using the plural form.‡ The article follows British syntax, which is why I reverted the switch back to plural verbs. Which British syntax? Oxford. Does Oxford have anything to say on the topic? I am not sure, but if so, that is the authority we need to be referencing to settle this. If Oxford has nothing to say on it then I would defer to Tolkien himself. That satisfies historical British usage, modern usage for some British, and historical and contemporary American.

‡E.g. “The Company were footsore and tired…”, “…while the Company was moving.” Both from The Fellowship of the Ring: A Journey in the Dark. Same book, Lothlórien: “By strange paths has this company been led.” Such examples are uncommon because simple past tense carries no grammatical number. Still, it is clear that Tolkien uses the plural only when implying heterogeneity in the collective, rather than indiscriminately, as in the article. Strebe (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Concise OED's (11th ed., 2004) Appendix 11, Guide to Good English:

Singular and plural nouns

Singular nouns treated as plural

Some nouns are singular in form but are used with a verb that can be either singular or plural, or in some case only plural. The commonest of these are the collective nouns which stand for a group or collection of people or things, such as audience, committee, crew, family, generation, government, group, jury, team, and many others.

The general rule with words like these is to treat them as a singular when the emphasis is on the group as a whole and as a plural when the emphasis is on the individuals that form the group:

A group of four young men in overalls was standing close to him. (singular)

The jury retired at the end of the day to consider their verdict. (plural)

By this description, the present text of the article is acceptable here:

…the company are saved by eagles before resting in the house of Beorn.

But unacceptable here in all three cases:

The company enter the black forest of Mirkwood without Gandalf.

The expedition travel to the Lonely Mountain and find the secret door.

The reason the first is acceptable (and preferable by Oxford guidelines) is that the individuals were all saved individually, resulting in the group being saved. The reason the others are not acceptable is that the group action is not distinguishable as individuals. If those sentences are appropriate as plural under the Oxford guidelines, then there would be no instances when singular would be appropriate, which contradicts Oxford. It also contradicts Tolkien's usage. Therefore I will leave the first instance as plural in the article and change the remaining three to singular. Strebe (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as a reasonable compromise. I can foresee instances where it gets a bit fuzzy whether the emphasis is on the individuals, but I think you've made a good case for the examples currently at issue. Rivertorch (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rivertorch. No further comments seem forthcoming, so I will make the change now. I agree that some situations could be written either way under Oxford guidelines. In those cases we should defer to the editor who wrote the text. Strebe (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've just protected for three days to let things settle down here. I am happy if any other admin feels things are settled enough to unprotect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot section references

I see that the Plot section has been tagged for primary sources (later changed to no sources). I'm not really objecting—just curious. What sort of secondary sources should we be looking for to support the section? Like most such sections in articles about novels, it summarizes the plot itself, rather than discussing it in a larger context, and I find myself at a loss to think of what other than book itself could be used to verify the events that actually unfold in the book. (CliffsNotes?) Theme, character, writing style, and so on—all those demand secondary sources to avoid original research; plot, not so much so, as long as we're careful. Rivertorch (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any plot summaries for other novels referencing secondary sources so why do it here? Delete the tag? Deagol2 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer the plot section to be cited to secondary sources, it would make the section verifiable, and potentially increase the utility of the article. But, in terms of wikipedia guidelines, there is no need for it, most Literature Featured Articles (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, amongst others ) do not have cited plot summaries. In that light, my opinion is that the tag should be removed. Davémon (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not going to have been written with Wikipedia synopsis length requirements in mind, so Wikipedia editors would be obliged to make decisions about what should and should not go into the article from the secondary source. That’s the same job as making editorial decisions about the book’s plot directly. If the secondary source just happens to be the right length, then it would have to be carefully reworded, but the ideas that went into distilling the plot into that length are still intellectual property. Secondary sources run greater risk of plagiarism charges, would cause pointless work on editors’ part to reconcile differing emphases from secondary sources, and in general bring nothing to the table. Strebe (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You make some very good points, and I agree. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I certainly do not agree that secondary sources would "bring nothing to the table". There is no need (as far as I can see) to only cite sources that are themselves a synopsis, which would indeed cause the problems Strebe highlights. However, citations could be provided to support the synopsis text. We have had editorial differences regarding "evil wolves" and "Bilbo hosting a party for Thorin & Co." and probably some other minor issues of wording, tone and emphasis, while these issues have resolved themselves to a result which I wholeheartedly approve, if such editorial decisions were supported by citation to independent, reliable secondary sources, I think that would create a more encyclopedic and robust text, giving the casual reader more confidence in the article and more avenues for further research. Yes, of course, you can just check The Hobbit to see it uses the word "party" and "evil" in these contexts, if they worry you, but surely additional support from reliable sources for the emphasis of these views can only be a positive thing? Davémon (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There are too many secondary sources that get even the obvious points wrong. The original work is the best source of references about the plot except for points that are not clear in the text. A secondary source that illuminates obscure points would then be helpful. -- Elphion (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that using editorial judgement and consensus-building, based on the primary text is the best way of deciding upon the content of the summary (in a similar manner to how we treat secondary sources in other sections - we still have to make editorially sound decisions to include, exclude and how to neutrally present material). By way of example, it could be (wrongly) argued that the Thrush is an incidental character, of little importance to the story, and does not really belong in the synopsis. To counter this, the article text could be supported by a footnote, from say, Exploring J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" By Corey Olsen (Google Books) that usefully expands the readers understanding of the significance of the Thrush and supports the inclusion of the material. The question in my mind is would this improve the article (by providing supplementary material that doesn't really fit elsewhere and supporting the article text), or degrade it (by needlessly muddying the synopsis with lit. crit.)? If it is the latter, then I feel that each point in the synopsis should be supported in the lit. crit. sections (in a similar manner to how the lede is supported) - if no secondary source finds a certain plot-point significant enough to discuss it, why should wikipedia? Davémon (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The plot synopses in most of our Tolkien articles are way too long, notwithstanding that the books are long, with crowded plots. The synopsis is not the place to be delving into the deeper symbolism of the characters. Unfortunately I cannot fairly evaluate your example of the thrush, as the linked page at Google Books is not visible for me; but as far as the synopsis is concerned, it is a minor player. It deserves mention there, but the discussion of its significance (supported by secondary sources) belongs elsewhere. -- Elphion (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations states: "All interpretation, synthesis or analysis of the plot must be based upon some secondary source" and: "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source ... For example, primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc of the quote within the work." Unless you see something in the plot summary that falls into one of these categories I can see no need for source citations. Deagol2 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Names of the dwarves, and new article for criticism characters?

User:MaRoWi added the names of the twelve dwarves other than Thorin (Balin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Dwalin, Fili, Gloin, Kili, Nori, Oin, and Ori), which was reverted by User:Strebe with the edit summary "This comes up periodically. The article needs to be kept tight; it’s already way too long. The names of these characters are not consequential". I disagree with this analysis. A question that people frequently ask is "what are the names of the dwarves in The Hobbit?", and naturally they come to Wikipedia for the answer, and I imagine most of them are astonished that this article does not provide the answer to this most fundamental question relating to the novel. Therefore I support the addition of a list of the names of all the dwarves in this article. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly support the addition if it was done as a quote from the text and supported by discussion of Tolkiens use of the Dvergatal and/or the poetics of the name-listing. Otherwise they're not really all that important as characters or to the plot, and it seems a bit of trivia to just name them all. Davémon (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Davémon. Despite the length and detail of the article, the other dwarves do not show up in the synopsis or literary analysis anywhere. They’re important in aggregate but not singly. A list of names would be trivia. The Völuspá as the source of names is interesting in the literary context and is fitting for the article (though I am not aware of any critic postulating that the name chosen for each dwarf in Thorin’s company has any meaning connected to the eponymous character from the Völuspá, which means the connection itself is somewhat trivial). Given the length of the article, I am of a mind that literary criticism should be broken out into its own article. Then there would be room for the Völuspá connection and the list of names and plenty more. Strebe (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is bordering on being too long, but the discussion of what needs doing about that is a separate issue ("Adaptations" is already split off, and the section here perhaps goes into too much detail). The Völuspá influence isn't entirely without significance, as noted at Dwarf (Middle-earth)#The_Hobbit - Tom Shippey sees the Dvergatal as an inspiration for the central narrative (indeed the idea of a list of dwarves is a recurring motif) and Tolkiens creative work in other areas with "asterisk texts" seems to support this. The etymology of Gandalf (a dwarf-name from the Dvergatal) is significant to his character, in being descriptive more than anything, and that is covered in Gandalf#Concept_and_creation (along with Tolkiens characteristic post-hoc denouncement of the whole idea). No doubt these could be brought together, perhaps we need to start developing better footnotes, or perhaps these existing sub-articles could be developed further. This article has remained reasonably stable for years, so it is hard to imagine any newly-potted article getting the care and attention it would need to really take root. If you'll forgive the horticultural metaphor - I'd be inclined to allow this article to overgrow a little with something on the nature of dwarves, and then take cuttings to replant, rather than trying to encourage saplings. Davémon (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. We could try to gather more information on the dwarven theme from the articles on Dwarves and Gandalf and present it here as part of the concept and/or theme sections. And perhaps we shall now call you Dave Gardner. :) De728631 (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I came to this page seeking (despite how trivial it may seem-) a list of the Company of dwarves who appear in the book, and yes, I was astonished to find not one mention of them, despite the fact that the dwarves are central characters in the book. It doesn't matter whether the article length is too long (?) or that you may find it trivial. I suggest you add, as I have done twice already (though was deleted), a section under Characters for the Company of dwarves as they are central characters in the novel. The article mentions "boulder-throwing giants" who appear in the novel for 2 line, but not the remaining 12 dwarves who are in the majority of the book. There is no discussion necessary.2nyte (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Characters starts: "The plot involves a host of other characters of varying importance, such as the twelve other dwarves of the company" (emphasis mine). So they are mentioned. Whether they need to be mentioned individually, by name, is a matter for discussion. The dwarves, by themselves, are not really seen as individual characters (evidence to the contrary is welcome), but I would maintain their importance as a group (or as a list), but in my opinion, that significance needs to be enlightened by the views of secondary sources. Davémon (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We could link to the List of Middle-earth Dwarves article. That way then an interested user could get a list of all the dwarves in Tolkien's work, not just The Hobbit GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The List of Middle-earth Dwarves article doesn't give easy access to a list of dwarves in the Company, so doesn't really help. I can't see a good reason not to add a list of the names in brackets where they are already mentioned in the second paragraph (preferably using Tolkien's own order rather than alphabetical). While most regular editors of this article could name the 12 dwarves without much effort, I would think that it would be useful to readers with only a basic knowledge of the storyline. Agreed that a table names is excessive, but the increase in article length from adding 12 names would be negligible. Deagol2 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked at List of Middle-earth Dwarves the other day, after noticing this thread, and I also found it unhelpful. While I'm sympathetic to the aim of keeping the article (relatively) tight and personally am dubious that characters who are individually minor need to be named, I can well imagine readers coming to Wikipedia looking for precisely that information, and I think they should be able to find it. So I'd support either naming them here or reconfiguring List of Middle-earth Dwarves to faciliate their finding it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia really is the most inconsistent place at times. When you have characters like Gothmog (Third Age) having their own pages, and now we're arguing about 12 words. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we add said 12 words as a simple, comma-separated list as in "twelve other dwarves of the company (Fili, Kili, etc...)." This doesn't draw as much attention as a bullet list or even a table and just naming them won't over-emphasise their importance either. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this move. Wikipedia’s primary problem is not accuracy, but editorial cohesion. Unlike many articles, a lot of effort has been put into this article to keep it balanced. The topic of The Hobbit is huge. Understandably some people are interested in the names of the dwarves and don’t care about the rest of the article. That does not mean the article’s balance should be broken to accommodate that want, just as it ought not be broken for someone whose primary interest is a list of the songs that appear in the text. Wikipedia is a flexible medium. There’s no reason these needs cannot be met on another page, where they can reach whatever depth satisfies the audience. If someone wants to create a page devoted characters from The Hobbit, by all means please do so, and add a link to this article. But also please understand that secondary sources do not support the idea that a list of the names of dwarves helps understand the text. The article is about understanding the text, not about lists of stuff from the book. Strebe (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea—starting a list of Hobbit characters sounds like another viable option, assuming it would meet the guidelines and not get AfD'd in a hurry. Any idea if it would stick? Rivertorch (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a good idea, and I think it would stick, unfortunately Bilbo Baggins is in a terrible unsourced, in-universe state, Thorin Oakenshield is a little better for at least mentioning the Eddas, and Gandalf considerably. But there are definitely enough sources that discuss the characters in-depth to make a character article work if people are prepared to do the work. Davémon (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to put work into a page called Characters from The Hobbit, and soon, since it is obvious the impending release of the movie is bringing a lot of new visitors to the page.

If a new page can be set up and linked then that sounds like a fair compromise. My chief concern would be to make the info available - I don't consider it mere trivia, but we will have to agree to disagree on that I guess. Would adding the names to the article in the short term be an option until the new page is up? (I think I know the answer already!!) Deagol2 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd go for Characters in The Hobbit and it's great to hear some enthusiasm for putting a good article togeher. But rather than just "agree to disagree", could you explain why you think the list should be added to this article? --Davémon (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have explained my thinking above, but this discussion and the addition of a link to a separate article has persuaded me to change my opinion. A separate article is preferable to a list of 12 names. Deagol2 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly support adding the 12 names of the dwarves. Seems like common sense to me, given the fact that Bilbo spends virtually the entire book in their company. Arguments to the contrary hold little weight in my view... brevity can be found elsewhere, if it is that much of a requirement for this article. I will start a subsection to determine consensus. Let's figure that out, then move on. Jusdafax 22:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sketch of the Characters in The Hobbit article and a link to it in the Characters section of The Hobbit article. Strebe (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a great start, a well planted seed! I hope it continues to grow and prosper. Davémon (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Add the twelve names of the dwarves to the article

The proposal is simple: to add the twelve names of the dwarves to the article.

• Support - As I say above, the matter seems to be common sense. Brevity is a poor argument to keep these twelve words out of the article. Bilbo is in their company virtually the entire journey to the mountian, and during the subsequent events at the mountain. Jusdafax 23:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a good idea to list the dwarves names? --Davémon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been years since I read the book, and my memory is not the greatest. But Thorin Oakenshield is the leader, and a powerful presence in his own right: Owner of the secret map and rightful King Under the Mountain. Balin is the lookout, and a particular friend of Bilbo's after the latter uses Gollum's ring to sneak back into the camp. Fili and Kili are the youngest and have the best eyesight, which comes in handy when they are trying to toss a rope across an enchanted stream. They are later killed in The Battle of Five Armies. Bombur is the fattest, complains and grumbles often - so much so that Thorin warns him against it because something bad may happen to him - and when Bombur falls into the enchanted stream and goes into a coma, he becomes a serious burden to carry through the forest. Need I go on? Frankly, I am at a loss to explain why anyone opposes including these twelve names. Not every dwarf has characteristics I can remember after years, but Wikipedia is a source of facts and a lot of people are going to be coming here for information in light of the upcoming movie release. Trivia? Fah, I see movie billboards on busses with these characters on them. Adding the names is simple and surely a good move, and again, just common sense as I see it. Jusdafax 23:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Thorin, is of course already mentioned. I agree that Bombur and Balin do have a little more to do than the others, but still, falling in a river and being a little friendly don't make them primary characters, these are minor incidents - we don't mention Beorns horses or Roäc son of Carc, the Master of Laketown or a whole host of other minor characters and incidents that occur, because they aren't important to a general understanding of the text. I still fail to see how the likes of Oin and Gloin are so important to the story they must be named. Advertising for a movie is not a good source for understanding the novel. Davémon (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is becoming clear to me that for some reason you are fixated on "being right" about these twelve words to the extent that you will minimize and trivialize my reasoning. A quick check of your edit history shows me you have been editing this article for years, and may be in violation, to be blunt, of WP:OWN. To briefly respond, Bombur stands out in my memory as a significant character who not just "fell into a river" as you dismissively put it, but who fell into a magic stream and became a major burden to carry. When he finally awoke he had a predictive dream regarding the feast of the elves that highly annoyed his companions. When captured, he had enough spunk to kick one of the spiders right off a tree limb. Your use of Beorn's horses as a rhetorical comparison to the dwarves is, to be candid, laughable. In short, your argument carries no weight. There are a lot of people coming to read this article, and the information of what the dwarves names are is of use. Again, there are now pictures of the individual dwarves all over the media. It is not too much to ask that we give them names in the body of this article, in my view. And if you want to dispute this further, I strongly suggest that you play fair and use polemics that are not obviously slanted in a mean-spirited way. Jusdafax 11:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have been upset, but do not confuse stewardship with ownership and try to remain wp:civil. My position is that the list of dwarves names should be added within the context of discussing it's origin, poetics and meaning, as that will deepen the readers understanding of the text. I have stated this clearly above, suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. Just adding "12 names" is trivial, the characters are minor and involved only in minor incidents. Can you point to any reliable secondary sources that discuss the minor dwarves importance to the text? That would help substantiate your position better than citing a movie marketing campaign as a reason to add content to an encyclopedia. Davémon (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to characterize me as "upset" and uncivil, Davemon, is noted. Since you fail to address my points, including your questionable comparisons of the dwarves to animals per WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and instead make new "requests" of me, I nod at my keyboard. I feel I have stated my position, fairly and clearly. Jusdafax 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So you can provide no sources to support your position. OK. --Davémon (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

“Again, there are now pictures of the individual dwarves all over the media.” No, pictures of Peter Jackson’s individual dwarves are all over the media, not Tolkien’s. What Jackson does with those characters and how he develops them in the movie is not relevant to the article. Those dwarves other than Thorin are not mentioned individually anywhere else in the article despite its considerable length. Why? Because none of the considerable critical literature built up around The Hobbit finds them in need of individual attention. The guidelines here ought to be in play here. As recommended there, a separate article has been created to deal with this sudden “need” for the names of the dwarves, as well as any other character in the story. Again, there are lots of minor facts in The Hobbit that people might come to this article in search of and be disappointed not to find; fixating on the names of the dwarves when no support for it in secondary sources has been trotted out (not to mention ridiculing people who have put considerable effort into a balanced and well documented article) does not promote a good article or a good Wikipedia community. Strebe (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well said, as ever. --Davémon (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - trivia, the individual characters do not play a significant role in the story. Further, this "proposal" is disruptive to the consensus building discussion above, and divisive to the aim of improving the article. Please see WP:POLL Davémon (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - for reasons I state above. The fact that Bilbo is in the company of the dwarves most of the time is a reasonable observation, but on the other hand, if there were only seven dwarves (for example), the story would not change in any meaningful way. Likewise if there happened to have been 123 dwarves, again the story would not change meaningfully, and would we still be debating a list in the main article? I do not think so. The names are trivia. Strebe (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per Jusdafax. I think the names are both of interest to the general public (like other names in the work, they're directly taken from Völuspá) and, obviously, the crew of dwarfs are primary characters in the work. It's silly not to list them here. In fact, I may build a list of dwarf names in Norse mythology soon that we could link to in relation. Finding a reference referring to it shouldn't be difficult. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is do you support the addition of the list without mention of the Völuspá? --Davémon (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dave, you're about a step away from trolling. Get a grip. Whether or not Völuspá is mentioned in this article is irrelevant and not up for proposal here. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Asking a reasonable question is now "trolling". Well done. Davémon (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloodofox hit the nail on the head, and I would suggest we are dealing with a case of WP:OWN verging on WP:TEND. I see we are heading in the direction of needing to bring other eyes to this article to gain perspective, which is a shame. This is not all that uncommon: long-time editors who see themselves as "stewards" who are always right, badgering others and newcomers with condescending, all-knowing language. Jusdafax 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome other eyes, and I’m sure Davémon would as well. While he and I have not always agreed, with enough careful discussion we’ve always managed to come to a workable solution. Articles don’t reach this level of completeness, balance, and sourcing without the years of efforts like his. He’s asked for secondary sources, like Wikipedia requires. None has been forthcoming. What has been forthcoming is petulant insults, all of which can easily be inverted to apply to those slinging them. We can’t structure articles around people’s pet minutiæ, belligerently pressed. Strebe (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what sources are you asking for? Primary characters are hardly "pet minutiæ" and I'm going to go ahead and ask you to withdraw the term "petulant" (i.e. 'childish'). Trolling is certainly a reality here on Wikipedia, and I'd nominate Davemon for the title any day after dealing with his nonsense elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources that claim or list the dwarves are Primary characters would be useful. Your ad-hominems are noted. Davémon (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Find yourself a source dividing up what is a primary and secondary or minor character in the work. Meanwhile, it's been made pretty clear that these dwarfs play pretty crucial roles in the work. However, I'm not going round in round with you about this; I'm not here to feed edit warriors and trolls. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doing your research for you, see [WP:TEND] No. The dwarves do not have "crucial roles". --Davémon (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I can't believe we are arguing about this - the names are a sort of poetry unto themselves and there has been plenty of scholarly discussion on their derivation, even on earlier drafts of the hobbit where some of them were changed etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is do you support the addition of the list without discussion of their derivation or poetics? --Davémon (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - the list gets recited often when the book is discussed; it's a key item. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of the recitations from high-quality, reliable secondary sources? Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously pretty well known. Just do a search on books.google.com and there are plenty of such sources to choose from, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing the toss, I'm interested in seeing sources. Here are some that do not list the dwarves:

not listed: The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy [2]

not listed: International Companion Encyclopedia of Children's Literature [3]

not listed:Companion to the British Novel, 18th and 19th Centuries [4]

not listed: 100 Best Books for Children [5]

A bare list of dwarf-names doesn't seem to be widely regarded as 'encyclopedic' content from this small sample. Providing some counter-examples could help us reach consensus. Davémon (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Davemon, what on Earth are you rambling about? Do you have any idea how many sources in the English language mention the name of these dwarfs? Or is this simply the saddest attempt at WP:LAWYERing I've encountered, complete with inappropriately bolded letters? There's no shortage of sources out there mentioning these dwarfs, which are primary characters in this particularly work. You digging through a bunch of blurbs and summaries that don't mention the dwarfs by name is a pointless exercise that has no influence on Wikipedia's article, which is well beyond the scope of must encyclopedia blurbs and we have far more space available to us. You're going to need to switch to a new tactic. But, at the end of the day, after dealing with you on other articles, I think it's pretty obvious that you go into straight out troll mode whenever you don't get your way, grasping for whatever straw you can find and attempting to wear down other editors over time. Other editors beware; this is not a productive way to edit. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I agree 100%. I have not encountered this editor prior to this page, but your experience confirms my concerns regarding his style and approach, and it appears remedial measures should be considered per WP:TEND. Jusdafax 22:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You cannot support the inclusion of a list of names by recourse to tertiary sources, whereas I can support the non-inclusion. The ad hominems and tone are noted, and no, they won't work here either. Davémon (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here can dump a ton of links on you from published sources mentioning these dwarfs. However, that would be pointless and, in fact, patronizing when the point is obvious. It's best that you return to valid methods of debating or you'll simply continued to be called out for how you're behaving. Hunting around on Google Books for small blurbs that don't mention the dwarfs doesn't help a thing. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm specifically looking for examples where the Dwarves are listed in plot-summaries and character lists so we can establish the precedent for their inclusion in those sections, if you have those sources it would be helpful to provide them. Your continued use of ad hominems is again noted. Davémon (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nothing wrong with it. In fact if the test AFD of Gothmog (Third Age) fails, then I am personally going to create individual articles for each of the twelve dwarves anyway. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - A link to a separate page that can give more detail than a bare list of names would be more useful. This could also give details of other minor characters not notable enough to be mentioned in the main article. Deagol2 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking note of the upcoming movie release in the lede

I have placed a half sentence of additional information at the very end of the lede regarding the upcoming movie release. The material is sourced, timely and informative for those who come to this article. It also carries on with the flow and thrust of the final paragraph. However, it was reverted by Strebe, who claims the material does not belong in the lede, and I have reverted him on the grounds that my edit sums up material expanded upon in the body of the article. I invite discussion regarding my edit, and request that we not edit war over this matter. Thanks. Jusdafax 21:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is blatantly unbalanced. The lede isn’t for ephemeral information about a topic. It’s a concise description of enduring and important information about the topic. It’s great you’re excited about the movie. Please don’t use your excitement to distort a Good Article to reflect your mood. The movie isn’t the book, and in particular, if someone is coming to the article because of the movie then they already know about it and don’t need to read about it in the lede, and conversely, the lede should not be an advertisement for the movie. Your verbiage about The Lord of the Rings, by the way, is effusive in an unencyclopædic way. Strebe (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, as is your second revert. My theory, based on your rapid guardianship of "your" Good Article and your patently hostile language, is that you will jealously keep virtually any and all changes to the article that are not your own, or those of long-time editors to this article, from being added. I do not believe your argument carries weight and am reverting you again. However, I will tone down the descriptors to The Lord of the Rings. Allow me to warn you that, as you most likely know, a third revert is serious breach of Wikipedia's established rules and subject to corrective action. Jusdafax 21:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Strebe, this doesn't appear to be lede-worthy, and is already covered in the article itself in an appropriate manner. This article is about the book itself, not "The Hobbit" in general, and there being a film (not the only film) isn't relevant enough to the book to warrant mentioning it in the lede of the article. I'm rather excited about the release of the film, but I don't think putting it in the lede of the book's article is appropriate just because it's a current thing. - SudoGhost 21:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need to include this in the lede to an article about the book. It appears out of place in what is supposed to be a brief summary/overview of the article. Deagol2 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that there is an entire section devoted to adaptations, I'd have to disagree with you there. Again, it just seems like common sense, and when you add in the fact that thousands of people will be coming to the article rightly or wrongly, my addition regarding the upcoming movie gives perspective, especially when you notice how I continued on from the current end of the lede. Jusdafax 22:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thousands of people coming to the article looking for something else is a good argument for a hatnote, not so much for adding something to the lede. There is indeed an entire section devoted to the various adaptions of the book, of which this particular film is only a small part. - SudoGhost 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to discover if "thousands of people" are really looking for an article on the movie, and not the book? It would be interesting to know, and if so the hatnote should go in if it can be established beyond doubt. If it can only be guessed at, I'd say not. The movie is not really significant enough to go in the lede. The editiorial threshold for inclusion of individual adaptations in this article was "Has it been nominated for an award or not?", although it has gathered some bulk, incidentally the sound-track for the new movie has been nominated for some award or other, and probably should go in.Davémon (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is obviously seeing massive traffic due to the movie. It is one of the top Google hits for "The Hobbit" at the moment. Millions of people will be seeing this film. Please pull your head out of the sand and move on. If you've got doubts regarding the hatnote, I don't know what to tell you other than to simply stop wasting the time of others over pointless niggles. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost's suggestion of a hatnote makes sense. There is already one in place on The Hobbit (film series) pointing to this article and the The Lord of the Rings and The Lord of the Rings (film series) also cross link. Deagol2 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I attempted to add one but it was, of course, reverted by Davemon, who claimed no consensus. You are welcome to re-add it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it, but I directed it to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey specifically, though I have no problem with someone adjusting that and pointing it to The Hobbit (film series) instead. - SudoGhost 21:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to SudoGhost and Bloodofox for the hatnote. This is a correct and proper action which I support. Jusdafax 21:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Background Section

This article needs a background section discussing Tolkien's influences. For examples, figures from Germanic folklore and mythology (particularly Norse) are frequently mentioned and referenced (i.e. trolls, elves, and dwarfs). And there's no shortage of Germanic linguistic references. This is no surprise given Tolkien's academic career as a Germanic philologist; quite a lot of this is a result of Tolkien's passion for the subject. This results in the single largest influence on Tolkien's work. Christian themes also need discussion and exploration. Additionally there's a significant Romance influence at play here. I think a lot of readers would be interested in this topic. I don't have the time to delve into this at the moment—I've got obligations elsewhere on Wikipedia—but I invite anyone to put the time in. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Would this not already be covered in the main J._R._R._Tolkien#Influences article and also in the J. R. R. Tolkien's influences article? Deagol2 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Tolkien's general influences are summarized there, but the influences that have specifically gone into this work are important to mention. For example, Tolkien takes major elements, such as the name Gandalf and his dwarf names from Norse mythology. Various other names and concepts also derive directly from Norse mythology. There are plenty of scholarly sources going into this out there that may be drawn from on this topic. For example: [6]. As outlined here and evident to a specialist in this area, the influence is extensive and deep. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good call on the The Limitations of Scientific Truth citation, by the way. Strebe (talk)

Thank you. I was surprised to find it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Although not a "specialist", I am aware of many of the parallels and influences that have been proposed over the years. There is a Hobbit-specific section at J._R._R._Tolkien's_influences#The_Hobbit. Not perfect by any means, but a start and it makes pretty much the same points as Bloodofox. An analysis of the three major works together seems preferable, rather than a look at The Hobbit in isolation? Deagol2 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of the great length of the article (not to mention the boggling mass of citations), I do prefer cursory coverage of matters like these, subheaded with a reference to a main article that covers the topic in depth. Strebe (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember vaguely doing some work there some time ago. But specific influences went into each work, and they're particularly explicit in The Hobbit, where, for example, Tolkien plucks clusters of names directly from Old Norse, something he did less of later. I don't think just directing readers to Tolkien's general influences is the best option. I think the best option would be to handle his general influences on the Tolkien biography page and but also to handle The Hobbit-specific influences here. This is, after all, the article on the subject and a reader would logically expect to find information on what led to the writing of this book here. If we need to keep it brisk, then we could, for example, just give it a paragraph providing some examples. The dwarf names are particularly notable in this regard and we could kill two birds with one stone this way, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As a start I suggest we move the lower third of the Style section, beginning with "The novel draws on Tolkien's knowledge of northern European historical literature...", to the Background section. After all, this part is not so much style-related but rather provides information on motivation and influences that should be presented as the background for writing such a novel. De728631 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved some material around per your request and added a paragraph. It could probably use some editing and smoothing out, potentially more detail. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some very serious weight issues with this, no mention of Andrew Lang, George MacDonald, William Morris or any of the oft-cited influences. Perhaps it should go into incubation before being introduced into the article. Davémon (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should first elaborate on these specific influences in the main article on J. R. R. Tolkien's influences before we go into detail for TH. E.g. Lang and MacDonald aren't mentioned there either. I'm going to add the Mirkwood/Morris reference over here though. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see William Morris brought into the discussion. However, this mirkwood thing is more complicated than the article currently makes it; both Tolkien and Morris were highly interested in and heavily influenced by Old Norse material, which is where the concept of mirkwood derives from (Old Norse Myrkviðr). Morris produced translations of and poetry inspired by the North Germanic corpus and even wrote fictional accounts of the East Germanic goths. In other words, while Tolkien was most certainly influenced by Morris, they were also drawing from some of the same material and some of the same traditions from inspiration. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone keep an eye on Davemon's edits here? He recently made this gem: [7]. I can't be around all the time to watch what this editor is doing. Really, that's nothing less than destructive. If it were just once or twice here and there it would be one thing, but as this talk page and his edit history over the past few days has made clear, we're looking at a pattern of spiteful editing and attempts at slowing down any sort of improvement here. This is exactly the sort of behavior that has resulted in reactions that one can find both here and elsewhere to this user's editing style. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We all keep an eye on everyone’s edits. It’s clear from the following discussion that Davémon has defensible reasons for the edits you’ve complained about. Given that both he and you, :bloodofox:, are honestly trying (and succeeding at) improving the article, could we dispense with the rancor? It’s noise to the rest of us who just want a better article. This is Wikipedia. People aren’t going to agree on everything. Styles clash. Edits get diddled. Pedantic disputes break out. Your complaints of “destructive”, “trolling”, “spiteful”, and obstructionism are just not credible. I greatly appreciate the improvements you’re making. The irritable airing of exaggerated grievances, not so much. Strebe (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you can step in and tell this editor that there's a 'cf" that he's either missed or ignored. Additionally you're missing a series of previous disputes that boiled down to Davemon simply not taking the time to either read or familiarize himself with the material being covered. He has switched his position no less than three times in this particular dispute, as straightforward as it is. Before you judge the credibility of these comments, I invite you tp begin digging through that history, all of which that I've experienced has frankly been a waste of time. I'm all for working together to improve articles—that's what I'm here for—and I frequently collaborate with other editors, but this particular editor has a long history of similar behavior elsewhere among myself and other users. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to separate the sources to avoid WP:SYNTH. Davémon (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And so the angle changes for maximum time wasting. This is, of course, why you are accused of being a troll. The sources employed are perfectly in line, academic, accessible, and I am synthesizing nothing whatsoever. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to separate the sources to avoid WP:SYNTH. Burns in Drout does not claim "Germanic philology" nor "Germanic mythology" as a strong influence. She does say. In Tolkien’s fiction, influence from Norse mythology — especially from the two Eddas, the Elder (or Poetic) Edda and Snorri Sturluson’s thirteenth century Prose Edda is strongly evident. Which is more accurately reflected by the edit at: [8]. Nor Does Burns list the dwarves names, nor does she list the names from the Dvergrtal, so this should not be cited to her. Please make the effort to properly attribute the text, and try to stick to what the sources actually say rather than extrapolate. Your ad-hominmems are noted. Davémon (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Davemon, again with the name wasting. Dronke provides the section Burns refers to, thus the 'cf'. Although you seem to be struggling with this fact, we don't need a citation for the fact that Norse mythology, Old English mythology, and continental Germanic mythology fall under the umbrella of Germanic mythology. Tolkien was a Germanic philologist, thus the intro to Norse mythology in the sentence. But go ahead, shift your position again, but know that until you actually have some semblance of a point, you'll simply be reverted. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloodofox. The point is that you are attributing to Burns statements she does not make. Clear and accurate citations are the cornerstone of writing a good encyclopedia. Burns specifically addresses Old Norse Literature, not the wider Germanic Mythology (incidentally, covered in a separate section in Drout). If you want to cite the influence of Germanic mythology or philology on The Hobbit, I have no doubt you can find a good source to do so. But it isn't Burns or Dronke. Davémon (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time with you on this. See previous comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to cite the name-list separately to Dronke? and have the influence of the Eddas and that the dwarf names are an example to Burns? Davémon (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference Check

Currently the article as the text: "Reflecting Tolkien's academic background in Germanic philology, his works incorporate many influences from Germanic mythology." which is cited to: Nagy, Gergely (2008). "Saving the Myth", p. 85 Published in Chance, Jane (ed.) (2008). Tolkien and the Invention of Myth: A Reader. The reference may be seen at google books here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8LLxZXqgJdwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q&f=false . The source seems (to me) to be about how the idea that myths and legends within Tolkiens fictional world are displayed as textural artifacts, The Silmarillion being framed as "translations of the Elvish" being cited as an example (Aragorns retelling of Beren and Luthien springs to mind also). It does not speak to the influence of mythology on Tolkiens work in general, I see no direct support for the article text. Davémon (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take a second look. Much of this page is composed of discussion of Tolkien's preference for Germanic mythology "a system he loved instinctively better than Greek" and discussion of his philological methods and works on Germanic topics, which he employed in his personal myth-making. Of course, if you've got a problem with that, there are plenty of other pages in this book that can spell it out further. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that you can infer the meaning, but that's not wikipedias job. The source does not directly support the article text - it doesn't actually make the same claim about influence. I'd like another editor (other than me or bloodofox who added the text) to take a look. Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the rest of the article? You seem to be missing something here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is "p.85" in the citation a typo? Either way, the article covers Tolkiens creation of fictional mythologies, not the specific influence of his academic background or reading of Germanic texts on his writing. Davémon (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a typo. Read the article. The whole thing. You'll find that the article analyzes Tolkien's employment of philology in his works, including his academic work with Germanic material. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually p. 85 does directly support the Wikipedia text. Just read the following paragraph "On the one hand he relates to the stories that make up Germanic mythology... His philological inquiries into texts led him ... as his articles on the Sigelhaerwan and on Beowulf suggest;" etc. One doesn't even need to infer from this text that Tolkien's academic background influenced the Germanic style of his works because this page in the Nagy article states it pretty obviously. For a wider context we should, however, include "p. 85 ff." as a reference. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. The quotation provided is only referring to a specific form of textuality ("the reconstructive method produced more or less coherent systems from copora of texts." and "he was primarily interested because these texts show how language is adapted to conveying new meaning whilst preserving traces of old contexts") and then applies that to Tolkiens myths within his fictional world for example how the Silmarillion texts have multiple "authors", and how Theoden relates to Ents . It does not, for example, speak of Tolkiens borrowing of names or themes from Germanic sources (which he did quite liberally). As such it does not relate to the general corpus of Tolkiens creative work and how it was generally influenced by his mythological and philological interests. Davémon (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Davemon, please read the article again. As I said, you don't seem to be grasping what is going on here. De is correct. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

De is correct in so far as the text he has quoted uses the words Germanic and philology. Yet the text has been taken out of context, a paragraph which is saying something very specific (about myth-making and textuality) is being used to cite something much more general about Germanic Mythology, which the author doesn't state. "he relates to the stories that make up Germanic mythology" is somehow transformed into "his works incorporate many influences from Germanic mythology". Even ignoring the proper context in which the cited statement was made, these statements simply do not equate. Davémon (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article or not, Davemon? From what you're saying here, I'm getting the impression you haven't. Either that or you're simply not understanding the material. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have read it. The text in the article isn't directly supported by it. It's also factually wrong, as Tolkiens deep love of Norse Mythology existed before he became a philologist, so doesn't "reflect" it. The causality is completely made up. Davémon (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, your comments communicate that you aren't picking up on this material. This article is about Tolkien's philological methods. His non-academic works, like his academic works, as this article discusses, indeed reflect this. Tolkien approached his own myths just as he approached the myths that influenced him. I'm not sure how you're not picking up on this, but you may want to read up on some of the core topics being discussed a bit more. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. "Tolkien approached his own myths just as he approached the myths that influenced him." I agree, 100%. If that was what it was citing in the article I'd have no problem. But it isn't directly supporting the actual article text. The Hobbit is not a myth, and has no myths in it (although arguably it later became one when it was fictionally renamed Red Book of Westmarch after the Red Book of Hergest (a Welsh, not Germanic, influence)). Let's drop the whole "you don't get it" approach, it's silly. Nagy is about "The Recreation of Myths in Plato and Tolkien", as the sub-title makes clear, and I get it, as I've said several times, it's about a specific form of textuality. It is not a source survey. May I suggest "The Road to Middle Earth" by T. Shippey might be a better place to start? Davémon (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Davemon, I'm still not convinced that you're not just confused by this paper. You just seemed flatly confused by this whole "philology" thing. If you want to use another source, go ahead, but this source seems perfectly acceptable and straightforward both to me and the one other person who has commented on it above. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Nagy essay only mentions Tolkien’s interest in the Germanic system of mythology as his motivation to dive into the larger (that is, not just Germanic) framework of traditions and the reconstructive method. Meanwhile this article claims that “His works incorporate many influences from Germanic mythology.” The reason that claim stretches the citation is because readers easily infer that Nagy says Tolkien incorporated specific characters or stories from Germanic myths. While he might have, that’s not what Nagy addresses, nor does it give credit to the depth of meaning Nagy intended. Nagy hardly mentions Germanic influence distinctly; the article is much more about the similarities between Plato’s and Tolkien’s approaches to using myths to enrich the stories the myths are embedded in. One might as easily conclude Nagy thinks the Greek system influenced Tolkien just as much even though Tolkien preferred the Germanic myths. I don’t think the Nagy essay supports the present article text well, and the present article text definitely misrepresents Nagy. And by the way, I question the relevance of Nagy’s essay to The Hobbit in any depth; Nagy only mentions The Hobbit once, and does not pull a single illustrative example from it. Strebe (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We can, of course, expect Strebe to echo everything Davemon says, par for course on this talk page, unfortunately. Exactly what is being referenced here is "Reflecting Tolkien's academic background in Germanic philology, his works incorporate many influences from Germanic mythology." See that word, philology? This is what is being discussed here, and repeatedly in the context of Tolkien's background in Germanic philology and his application to his own personal works; exactly what is being referenced. "One might as easily conclude Nagy thinks the Greek system influenced Tolkien just as much even though Tolkien preferred the Germanic myths" is your own inference and not what is implied in the article; Nagy says explicitly otherwise. Your last lines regarding "The Hobbit" are irrelevant to what is being referenced here. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We can, of course, expect :bloodofox: to lash out at anyone who dares question his infallibility, even failing to realize I wasn’t making the same point as Davémon, he was so unsettled. Trotting out “philology” again as if it is some mystical oracle opaque to mere mortals that trumps logic and semantics has caused quite a bit of holiday mirth over here. Meanwhile :bloodofox: hasn’t exposed any passages in Nagy’s essay that clearly support His works incorporate many influences from Germanic mythology, and of course he has only claimed Nagy explicitly said Tolkien was influenced more by Germanic myths than by Greek but has failed to enlighten us with this explicit quote. Fortunately he did find another source that states more narrowly for Norse mythology what this article used to say for Germanic in general. Glad to get that cleared up.

As for my last lines about The Hobbit being irrelevant: I call into question why we’re even talking about the influences on Tolkien’s writings in the large when the article is about The Hobbit specifically. The Hobbit is one of his earlier works. Just because something can be said about Tolkien’s writings in the large does not mean it applies to The Hobbit a priori. Claims about his writings in the large belong in some other article unless their applicability to The Hobbit is demonstrated by sources. Given Nagy’s bare mention of The Hobbit, applying Nagy’s essay to The Hobbit in any sweeping way is WP:SYNTH if not an outright misreading. Strebe (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of text for very little. I'm sorry you and Davemon (chimera or not) had trouble with the previous reference; I found it perfectly suitable, as did De above (and chances are plenty others). However, if you two had so much trouble with it, chances are others might. Besides, there are a plethora of references making this point. It was thus changed. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a much better source.Davémon (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

If my previous experience is any indication, the release of the movie based on this book will be attended by considerable IP vandalism. At the first indications of serious attacks, I suggest that those online who have this article watchlisted should add a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP as fast as possible to prevent numerous people, including young children, from being exposed to vandalism that can contain some pretty rough stuff. Thanks, and hopefully enjoy the movie if you go. Jusdafax 11:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. The article is on my watchlist, and I can quickly set the appropriate protection levels if things start getting rough. But I don't see a need for preventive protection right now. Anyhow, feel free to make a request at RPP. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now semi-protected the page due to persistent IP vandalism. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Never out of print claim

The fourth paragraph of the lede claims: "The work has never been out of print" (not sourced) but section 3.2 (Publication) states: "...paper rationing brought on by wartime conditions and not ending until 1949 meant that the book was often unavailable during this period." (Source: Anderson 2003, p.22). Can anyone provide a source for the claim in the lede or does it need to be amended/deleted? Deagol2 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not add that claim of “never out of print” to the article, but I, too, have seen it stated elsewhere though I do not recall where. It does need to be sourced, so don’t let my clarification here preempt proper sourcing, but it’s evident from the printing history that it has never been out of print. It’s true the paper shortages meant A&U could not print sheets sometimes when they wanted to, but there are two reasons that does not (necessarily) constitute “out of print”: 1: Though the printing runs were small, A&U printed copies regularly: 1937, 1937, 1942, 1942 (Children's Book Club), 1946. There was no intent to stop printing or selling. 2: We have no evidence Houghton Mifflin suffered any shortages or stopped printing during the war years. Strebe (talk)

If Deagol2 was confused by the wording I'm sure other readers might be too, I'll look for what sources I can, but regardless it might help to clarify what is meant by "out of print" and what is meant by "unavailable during this period", since they do seem to contradict each other if broadly construed (I don't know what it meant, so I can't reword it, otherwise I'd be happy to do it myself). - SudoGhost 19:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

On point 1: Reprinting at intervals of 4-5 years does not necessary mean that the A&U edition stayed in print. I would think it high likely that the book went out of print after the copies were destroyed in the 1940 warehouse fire. As Out-of-print book notes, books can go out of print unintentionally - the term just means that the publisher does not have copies to supply to booksellers. The production figures reported at TolkienBooks.net suggest that there may well have been other OOP periods as well. (I should say here, I researched and wrote the linked article.)

On point 2: The dates in the Printing characteristics matrix at Early American editions of The Hobbit all suggest that the Houghton Mifflin printings were early, so there is no guarantee it stayed in print either.

There does not appear to be any concrete evidence that the book went out of print, beyond the comment by Doug Anderson, but it does seem to be at least possible, which is why I asked the question about a source for the claim rather than just go straight in and edit the lede. Deagol2 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean “does not appear to be any concrete evidence that the book DID NOT GO out of print”…? Anderson (or A&U) may not have been using the same definition of “out of print” as Out-of-print, of course. The Houghton Mifflin printing history is sketchy, but I own copies of the first American edition that were inscribed by their first owners for practically every year between 1938 and 1951, so they seem to have been available retail continuously in the US—especially around Christmas! Anyway, it’s a difficult statement to document (who can say there wasn’t a two month period in 1941 when the public could not get the book?), but if Anderson is the source of the quote, good luck finding contrary evidence. Strebe (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I did mean my comment the way it was written. Perhaps I should have emphasized _concrete_.

So do you agree that the claim in the lede should go if it cannot be sourced? Deagol2 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m confused. Did Anderson say it went out of print? Strebe (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked what Anderson _actually_ says in his book (always a good idea!):

"The Hobbit was unavailable in England for long stretches of the 1940s". He doesn't say a great deal about the U.S. Having read this, it is now obvious that the Publication section needs to be amended to clarify that the book was unavailable _in England_ in the 1940s. I'm still not particularly happy with the OOP claim in the lede, but if the Publication section is changed then at least the two statements won't actually be in conflict. Deagol2 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This works for me until better sources are found. Strebe (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there was quite a stink back about 1966 or 1967 because ACE printed LOR and the Hobbit ( I think both, if my memory serves me, for sure LOR) claiming that Houghton-Mifflin had lost the USA copyright something about not being in print for years and years. Legal action was taken. My first reads were of the Ace books, which I still had till a few years ago...Anyway, I challenge the statement that the Hobbit has never been "out of print" --- in what country? !! How important is it that in one particular market it was still in print? Unless we have some idea of the sales magnitude, I think it is not worth including.173.189.75.206 (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)