Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pronunciation

The first syllable of the name "Tolkien" has not the vowel of "toe", but the vowel of "pot" according to J. R. R. Tolkien's own phonetic transcription published on an illustration in The Return of the Shadow: The History of The Lord of the Rings, Part One. [Edited by] Christopher Tolkien. London: Unwin Hyman, [25 August] 1988. Pp. [iii]-xii, 497 pp., [1] plate. (The History of Middle-earth; 6) ISBN 0-04-440162-0. Therefore, I suggest the transcription be changed from current /ˈtəʊlkiːn/ to /ˈtɒlkiːn/. The current pronunciation references to a website that does not indicate any further references, so I think that Tolkien's own account on his name's pronunciation should be preferred. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ 12:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

There are several non-free images in this article whose use is not justified by WP:NFCC. Some of them have been recently changed to having non-free unsure tags, but the publication dates listed (despite their creation dates) make them non-free. Unless there is evidence that these were in fact published before 1923 (which strikes me as unlikely, considering he wasn't well known then), I will be nominating these for deletion. Specifically, these fail WP:NFCC8 because they do not contribute significantly to the article (readers don't need to see young Tolkien or standing-by-the-tree Tolkien to understand the article). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for any copyright law other than U.S. but presumably there are treaties in place. You are a dumbass. Publication date has exactly nothing to do with copyright. The image creation date is the only thing that matters. "Specifically", YOU fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.174 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that not only are you incorrect in your extreme interpretation of NFCC policy, but you are also incorrect in you evaluation of the importance of these images to a rounded presentation of the life and work of J.R.R. Tolkien. For instance, Tolkien was a great lover of trees, and the fact that that particular photograph shows him next to his favorite tree is irreplaceable. Description by itself can't do justice to the way Tolkien's hand rests on the trunk, or his expression, or the way he stands. We can see – and feel – an awful lot from that photograph, which is essential to the article. Similar reasons can be given for the other images, and their contribution to the article in dealing with the various phases of Tolkien's life, but I won't rehearse them here, instead I will bring them to any IfD you initiate. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Stalking ed here. I can't see which images you are talking about. A biography of a notable subject requires depiction of the subject at different stages in his or her life. Those images (specifically the standing by the tree one) provide irreplaceable illustration of the subject and that more than meets NFCC 8. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to all: I've watchlisted all of the images in this article, so in case an IfD (Image for Deletion) on one of them is initiated, and by an oversight a notice isn't placed on this talk page, or on the talk page of the uploader of the images, I will attempt to make those notifications myself. I would then encourage everyone here to attend those IfDs and make your views known there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just another note: Calliopejen1 has raised NFCC violations as an issue to resolve in the current FA review for this article. -- Avenue (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of Death

It says in the article that he died in 1971, yet one of the pictures was taken in 1973? 24.182.202.133 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the article consistently gives his year of death as 1973. -—RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wagner

See Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences#Wagner:

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

Someone should correct this (I'm new, can't do it myself yet):

Two of the characteristics possessed by the One Ring, its inherent malevolence and corrupting power upon minds and wills, were not present in the mythical sources but have a central role in Wagner's opera.

Yet the link says:

Wagner's Ring is about the power of love juxtaposed against the love of power. It has also been described as the rape of the purity of Nature in the pursuit of power. Whatever power the Ring has, any evil associated with it comes from without, or from the curses. Unlike Sauron's Ring, it does not have or possess the evil power of its maker. ... [Wagner's] Ring is not inherently evil. But whoever takes the Ring takes it subject to its curses.

Darth Predator (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronoun: please clarify

In the section about Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, this article states:

Tolkien and Lewis might have grown closer during their days at Headington, but this was prevented by Lewis' marriage to Joy Davidman. Tolkien felt that Lewis expected his friends to pay court to her, even though as a bachelor in the thirties, he had often ignored the fact that his friends had wives to go home to.

Who is the person referred to by the underlined "he" and "his"? Grammatically, and from context, both Lewis and Tolkien are possible antecedents. The friendship began roughly in 1927, when Tolkien was 34-ish and Lewis was 28-ish. So they were friends in their thirties, although Tolkien was not a bachelor in his thirties, so I suppose this must be Lewis. But we shouldn't have sentences that are not comprehensible without a timeline of the two lives.

In interest of NPOV, it might also be good to clarify whether Lewis in his thirties ignored his friends' marital status (objective fact), or whether Tolkien claimed that Lewis had done this (allegation). Either of these requires a citation, of course. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It refers to Lewis. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Manual of Style : Quotations: "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins."

I have moved single-sentence quotations to their parent paragraphs, with quotation marks to distinguish them. However, it is clear that WP policy is for blockquotes of over four lines. I am fine with only putting quotes of three sentences and less back in the main paragraph. Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien's Religion

I believe his religion should be placed by his brief biography on the side panel. His religion was very important to him, and not recognize that I believe is unfair. His religious ideas were very prominent in his books. Also, in all other Wikipedia articles they have the persons religion right next to their brief biography. Why not Tolkien's? --Mantyxc (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some solid arguments against adding a religion field to Template:Infobox Writer, and there has not been consensus to override them. (So far, I have been opposed to such an addition.) For example, see here. Pi zero (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien himself mentions how big of a role religion played in his works. Without his faith, Tolkien would never have written the Lord of the Rings. I also believe his religion should be placed by his brief biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.255.101 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Prussian origin of Tolkien name?

The German Wikipedia article on Tolkien gives the origin of the name as referring to the East Prussian (now Polish) village variously called Tolkynen/Tolksdorf/Tołkiny, a word apparently of Old Prussian (Baltic) rather than German or Polish origin. This would relegate "tollkühn" to no more than a folk etymology that Tolkien personally liked. Somehow this sounds rather more probable to me, as German surnames are far more commonly derived from (former) places of residence than from personality traits.

If you have any more information on this, please discuss and/or change the article to reflect this. Sources are given in the German article (the first two footnotes). -- 92.229.172.12 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There may also be some leads here. -- Avenue (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Lithuanian "tulkas"? Interesting coincidence, if it is one. Anyway, I've added the information to the article now, including the two sources, which unfortunately are German off-line books. -- 92.230.2.104 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Inklings

Does anyone know about the relationship Tolkien had to the Inklings, the literary group that included C. S. Lewis and Owen Barfield among others? I am trying to update the Owen Barfield page, and if anyone can include information about Barfield in particular -- and link it to the Owen Barfield page -- it would be much appreciated.

--Dlb012 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien was one of the leading members of the group. He may have been among the original members but I cannot think of a reliable source of information about the group's founding (available online) that would confirm as much. My own books are a bit disorganized. The Inklings were the group to whom Tolkien read part of The Lord of the Rings and other works he composed in the late 1930s and early 1940s.Michael Martinez (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, the founding (as such) was centred around Lewis and his brother. When Barfield first attended, I don't know, though I have Carpenter's Inklings book and recall references to Barfield in the Tolkien secondary literature. I'm a bit late here, but if anyone still needs the information, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on the books

Does it say anywhere on who holds the copyright on the books? Is it his children, wife, or anyone else? Is it a big corp? Logictheo (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, copyright is held by Tolkien's estate. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed,Tolkien Enterprises. Misortie (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien Enterprises holds only film and merchandising rights. Ed Fitzgerald is correct that the copyrights for Tolkien's written works are the property of the Tolkien Estate. Deor (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

According to Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing, this is the FA most in need of cleanup. Hopefully, editors will get on it right away, or the article should be submitted to WP:FAR for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Harrogate plaque?

The blue plaque table had the following unsourced entry: "96 Valley Drive, Harrogate". If anyone can provided a source for this, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This may not exactly be a reliable source, but I've found a couple of photos on Flickr that shed some light on this.[1][2] The plaque's at 93 Valley Road, in fact, and it's not blue but brown. The hotel is listed here, although their website address doesn't seem to be valid. -- Avenue (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at the last entry in the table (Sandfield Road) as well. This was added fairly recently and looked odd to me at the time, but I know nothing about blue plaques—is there a distiction between "official" blue plaques and other plaques that various parties may have affixed to sites? If one follows the link in the ref, one finds that the plaque in question is rectangular and looks as if it might be homemade; it certainly doesn't resemble the ones that are circular and blue, as pictured in the article. (The paragraph above the table needs to be edited as well. Among other things, it still refers to the Harrogate plaque, which has been removed from the table.) Deor (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up now by Avenue (thanks!). Not sure if listing all commemorative plaques is the way to go (there are others), but these ones are reliably sourced, so that's OK. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statements reviewed (from FAR page)

Copied this from Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. R. Tolkien, as it was suggested that this level of detail would be better on the article talk page: [3].

"Articles with unsourced statements (Oct 2007, Mar 2008, May 2008, Jan 2009), Tolkien articles with unsourced statements, Wikipedia articles needing clarification (Feb 2009)"

• January 2009: "He lived there in the shadow of Perrott's Folly and the Victorian tower of Edgbaston Waterworks, which may have influenced the images of the dark towers within his works."
  • Multiple sources mention this. Am trying to find the best one, and to use the best wording here to indicate that it is (as most of these things are) merely speculation, if persistent and persuasive. If speculation persists in the literature (to the extent that it is used in tourist guides and has become part of the "legend"), can it still be included, with wording to that effect, or is it original research to say that? Might be moot, as I think I can even find sources that confirm that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Robert Blackham's The Roots of Tolkien's Middle-earth describes these two towers (and another one) in great detail, but is non-committal, saying only "the two towers are locally believed to be Minas Morgul and Minas Tirith". Presumably the local tourist websites aren't acceptable sources for this (see the articles on the towers themselves). Will keep looking. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The best sources I can find here are [4] and [5]. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• January 2009: "Another strong influence was the romantic medievalist paintings of Edward Burne-Jones and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood; the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery has a large and world-renowned collection of works and had put it on free public display from around 1908."
  • Used this source - hope that is OK. Does the bit about the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery having a collection on free display from 1908 need sourcing? Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• May 2008: "Tolkien also may have felt jealous about a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage."
  • This looks dubious to me. I've seen speculation about Edith's attitude towards Lewis, but not the reverse. Will have to check this. 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oops. Misread this entirely. I thought it was talking about Tolkien's attitude towards his own wife, but I see it is about Tolkien's attitude towards Lewis's wife. Ugh. I've just checked this in Carpenter's biography, and the whole passage:

    "Tolkien felt that Lewis expected his friends to pay court to her, even though as a bachelor in the thirties, Lewis had often ignored the fact that his friends had wives to go home to. Tolkien also may have felt jealous about a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage." - from the Wikipedia article J. R. R. Tolkien, 09/03/2009

    is a very close paraphrase of Carpenter's biography (page 237). It needs rewriting. The passage from Carpenter is as follows:

    "...he and Lewis might conceivably have preserved something of their old friendship had not Tolkien been puzzled and even angered by Lewis's marriage to Joy Davidman [...] Some of his feelings may be explained by the fact that she had been divorced from her first husband before she married Lewis, some by resentment that of Lewis's expectation that his friends should pay court to his new wife - whereas in the thirties Lewis, very much the bachelor, had liked to ignore the fact that his friends had wives to go home to. But there was more to it than that. It was almost as if Tolkien felt betrayed by the marriage, resented the intrusion of a woman into his friendship with Lewis - just as Edith had resented Lewis's intrusion into her marriage. Ironically it was Edith who became friends with Joy Davidman." - J. R. R. Tolkien - a biography (Carpenter, 1977)

    This adequately sources what was being said here, but the question now is finding suitable wording without plagiarising or engaging in inappropriate close paraphrasing. I'll try and do that at some point. The whole article will need going over with a fine toothcomb for similar instances where the text may need rewriting. Carcharoth (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Done as much as I can here. Am now checking over the whole article using my copy of Carpenter's biography. The redone sentences are as follows:

      "Tolkien felt that Lewis expected his friends to visit and socialise with both him and his wife, even though as a bachelor in the thirties when the Inklings had met, Lewis had often ignored the fact that his friends, including Tolkien, had wives to go home to. In his biography of Tolkien, Carpenter suggests that Tolkien may have felt betrayed by the marriage and resented a woman's intrusion into their close friendship, just as Edith Tolkien had felt jealous of Lewis' intrusion into her marriage."

      Will now go and update the FARC page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• January 2009: "...and received the insignia of the [CBE] Order at Buckingham Palace on 28 March 1972."
  • Not sure what is being queried here. If it is the date, that is trivial to source (it is in 'Letters'). If it is the use of the word "insignia", I think that is standard phrasing. I've sourced this in the article to Letters number 334, where the editorial note says "Tolkien received the CBE at Buckingham Palace on 28 March 1972. [...]". Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• March 2008: "Use of religious references was frequently a subject of disagreement between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, whose work is often overtly allegorical."
  • I've reworded this to better match the source I've cited. -- Avenue (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• ME-fact, October 2007: "However, guided by an intense hatred of their past work, Tolkien expressly forbade that The Walt Disney Company should ever become involved in any future productions."
  • I thought this one would be easy to deal with, but the "Disney veto" is actually in Letter 13 from 1937, and refers to The Hobbit, while the article text is part of a section on the LotR film proposals being vetted by Tolkien in 1958 (the proposals by Zimmerman). It is entirely possible thought that Tolkien said something specific in the 1950s as well, so I will keep looking here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Here are a couple of somewhat relevant links: [6], [7]. Neither confirms the unsourced claim in our article. I think that section works better without it anyway, so I've deleted it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Clarifyme, February 2009: "Characters in The Lord of the Rings such as Frodo, Treebeard, and Elrond make noticeably Boethian remarks. <!-- what/how are noticeably Boethian remarks? Example? -->"
  • This has been finished off nicely by JerryFriedman (thanks!) -- Avenue (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I've looked through for HTML comments (like the Boethian one above), and found the following that flag up potential concerns (some are just explanatory notes that maybe should be explicit, but leaving those for now):

• Many<!-- Many what ?? -->have commented on a number of potential parallels between the Middle-earth saga and events in Tolkien's lifetime.
• Found one "unformatted citations and cite needed tags in the article" comment. Fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Four bot-generated titles are present. Presumably FAC standards require bot-generated titles to be manually checked? Should a future version of the 'cleanup list' look for and list the "bot-generated" tags for FA articles?

I'm going to carry on working through these as I find sources for them (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have worked on the points raised above. I have updated the featured article review (please see here). I will now address the final point above and note that at the FAR. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien reading day

According to this blog and these websites March 25th is "Tolkien reading day." Couldn't find very reputable sources on that one though. Worthy of inclusion? If not, at least I brought it to the tolkien-geeks' attention =) --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 07:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

tolkien photo

i've just stumbled upon this photo of tolkien, beautifully conveying his spirit.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/20080211/tolkien.jpg

Twipley (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FARC cleanup

Over at the FARC, the following comment has been made:

"Cleanup still needed: this article is not yet ready to be kept; there is still extensive need for cleanup in the citations. There are raw URLs, unformatted citations, and incorrect bolding, just on a quick glance. I haven't looked deeper, other than doing a bit of quick MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)"

Can people here please help out with tidying the article up? I'm away for the weekend, so ask around if there are any questions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Article has now been kept. Many thanks to all who helped out with tidying things up. Continuing improvements and maintenance still needed to avoid a trip back to featured article review in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Specialization at Oxford

I've undone the reversion of an edit by the anon 76.69.61.66, which changed "Ancient Greek" to "English" in the discussion of T.'s education at Oxford. I don't have at hand a copy of Carpenter's biography, which no doubt discusses the matter in detail, but The Ring of Words says, "After initially continuing with classics, he subsequently changed to the School of English Language and Literature, and took options in comparative philology and Old Norse." Therefore, "English philology" does seem the better description of his area of specialization. Deor (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did check before I reverted that the version of he article that was featured said "Greek" philology. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Writings

This section seems to contain a certain amount of confusion and redundancy (for instance, there are "The Silmarillion" subsections both under "Publications" and under "Posthumous publications", and "On Fairy-Stories" is included in a list of otherwise fictional works). Anyone object to my taking a stab at rearranging some of this material? Deor (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

LOTR movie pics

Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is arguably the biggest Adaptation of Tolkien's work, and we need a thumbnail picture of the trilogy in that para. How about the cover image? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential influences

I think perhaps some research should be done to determine if E. Nesbit's The Enchanted Castle was an influence, as it did contain an invisibility ring with other mysterious powers (and when one wore it one could see things not perceptible to others). I should also note that the ring was the center of all the magic, they say in the book. E. Nesbit was British, and a popular children's author at the time Tolkien was a child—so it is quite possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.157 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The ring also had other peculiar features. For instance, it made one fearless of the things wished for (at times it was a wishing ring), unless they touched the wearer, in which case the wearer would become extremely afraid of them (this also applied to the things not perceptible to others, which were constant no matter what the ring's current powers were). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.157 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

++re Potential Influences=

The motif of a magic ring is an ancient one which occurs in legends like the Germanic 'Nibelungenlied' and the Wagner operas derived from it, which Tolkien certainly knew well, and probably Nesbit too. I would imagine they were both expressing this influence, rather than one being influenced by another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahgbr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

'Imaginary' World?

- - I would take issue with the statement that Arda and Middle Earth are imaginary worlds. This is quite a common misconception. In fact if you read through the early work of Tolkien as presented in the 'History of Middle Earth' collated by his son Christopher, it is fairly clear that Tolkien intends MIddle Earth to be understood as *this* world, but at some distant time in the past, before the last Ice Age, and 'Arda' as the same universe we inhabit now, rather than some parallel one. Unfortunately I can't give the references in the books off-hand, as I don't actually own copies, and anyway they are vast in scale! But anyone interested in this subject should be able to find them if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahgbr (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All the geography, culture, and history are invented. I'd say it's an imaginary world set in the past of our world.

Also, though Tolkien started with the fictional idea that his stories were part of our past, hobbits still existed, he somehow came across the Red Book and translated it, etc., he didn't stick to it. In the second edition, he took out the explicit claim that he had translated the Red Book. And one can't reconstruct an "original story", even one without someone who knew that a pyrotechnic dragon sounded like an express train. How did Frodo know what the fox thought or what Gothmog the lieutenant of the Tower thought? How did Sam know what Frodo saw as the ship approached Eressëa? And of course there are various mistakes and inconsistencies.

You might be interested in one of Tolkien's comments. As is mentioned at Middle-earth, in the fifties Tolkien talked about what Age we're in now, but in 1971 he said Middle-Earth wasn't in a different era but in a different "stage of imagination". The interview is here, and the relevant part starts at about 5:40. This may not prove anything except that he knew he was writing fiction (which speculations about which age this is might lead us to doubt), but I think it has some relevance. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,the way he words all of his Middle-earth themed books it would seem as though he was writing about an imaginary past, and I think that that's a unique form of writing not much seen today. -Onyx Sturm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.104.134 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

pronounced

How dose the “Reuel” pronounced？Can somebody give a IPA？ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.152.119.79 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien and Racism

Please do not delete this, I know it violates the rules, but regarding the section on racism, I MUST point out, as I did on the "Orcs" article ("Orcs (Middle Earth)") that, being born in 1892, of all times, and having an 1890's early childhood, and born in SOUTH AFRICA no less, had Tolkien been racist he'd have just come out and said it, unabashedly. I need to point out that another author of that generation, Lovecraft I believe (well more or less of that generation), was a racist, and he wasn't ashamed about it. Far from it he was proud of it. Coming from that generation of whites if anything the man was "ahead of his time." I use quotes because, true ethics are timeless; some time periods are just misguided by corrupt ideologies.

67.148.120.113 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

I doubt anyone will delete what you wrote.

I don't think your argument follows. You seem to be assuming that the only reason to hide one's racism is changing social views. But racism, especially the blatant kind Lovecraft believed in for much of his life, is obviously irrational and does obvious harm. Furthermore, racism contradicts one straightforward interpretation of Christianity. Thus a person with racist feelings might prefer to hide them, even if he was born at a time and in a place where others expressed them without harmful consequences. In doing so, he might be ahead of his time.

I consider the present article biased in Tolkien's favor, since it gives evidence against racism on his part but none for it. I don't know of any racism in his personal statements. The only evidence for it I know is in LotR: the frequent association of light skin with nobility and dark skin with plebeianity, and the nearly constant association of light skin with good and dark skin with evil (complicated by Tolkien's complicated attitude toward Sam, who's good but a suntanned member of the lower class). If that's going to be discussed, it might belong at The Lord of the Rings rather than here. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't making an argument, as the rules state Wikipedia is not a forum, at least I wasn't trying to anyway; I was just making a point, that given his time period Tolkien would have just come out and said "yes, I'm racist, and I hope my book inspires the white race to kick some non-white ass." Christianity or no, Tolkien's generation was full of hipocrisy, far more than now. And no, no, please lets not get into a discussion; "forums" or rather editing talks, are to make points regarding the article and correct misconceptions to help people read the article better, that is, I was making my point so that when people read the article, hopefully they will see what I'm talking about. How can I say this more efficiently? You point things out in the talk page to help people understand an article better, given as to how this is only an online encyclopedia, and a limited one at that due to the lack of credentialed contributors, it is impossible, for wikipedia to have a truly "complete" article. That is why you need talk pages, not for personal viewpoints, but to enhance the article reading for others. I TRY, but sometimes what I say comes out as soapboxing.

67.148.120.103 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Whether you call it a point with reasons behind it, or an argument, isn't important. I'm not suggesting that you were soapboxing; no doubt you're trying to improve the article, and I for one have no objection to your procedure. However, in my view your point doesn't follow from your reason. I think it was quite possible for people of Tolkien's time to fear or dislike or despise other races without being willing to say so overtly. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jerry, it will very much depend on what exactly you mean by "racism". If "racism" is the position that "races exist", every educated person between 1880 and 1930 was obviously "racist". Your implication that racism is irrational and in contradiction to Christianity suggests that you read "racism" as "racial supremacism", as in "some races are objectively better than others", which is quite a long cry from the mere "races exist". It is very often neglected that the current terms "racist" and "racism" are coinages of the 1930s, very much influenced by the rise of fascism at the time. It is anachronistic to apply them to earlier periods without qualification (are we using a post-1945 term to describe pre-1939 ideologies, or are we using "period" terminology?) Now the LotR was written during WWII, which gives it sort of a watershed position in terms of "racism". What we need to do is quote evaluations of the question by people informed on these issues, and refrain from giving screen time to naive debates of "Tolkien was racist, see LotR -- no he wasn't, see Letters", our level should be significantly above this sort of thing. Tolkien obviously had views on race, as had everyone else of his generation, but these views were in no way peculiar or removed from the norm at the time, nor were they prominent in his thinking. Thus, the tendency of singling out "Tolkien and race" as an issue tells you more about Tolkien's post-modern readership and their relation to the prewar generation than about Tolkien as a person. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right in interpreting my use of "racism" as meaning more than "believing that human races exist", though there are more possibilities than just "some races are objectively better than others", as you'll find at Dictionary.com.

Your point about the normality of Tolkien's attitudes at the time supports my suggestion that this material belongs at the LotR article, not here. I agree that we don't want those naive debates. However, as you say, many modern readers have perceptions of racism in LotR and react to them. I'm sure there's a good deal on both sides of this in sources we can take seriously, and a short, balanced account would go well at The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Reception or Reception_of_J._R._R._Tolkien#Literary_criticism—as would a similar discussion of the modern criticism that Tolkien's books reinforce sexist views of women. A difficulty with my suggestion is that one response to "LotR is racist" has been "but Tolkien wasn't racist, see Letters", which does belong here. However, I think a summary of that argument would be okay at one of the "reception" articles, maybe something like "Tolkien's defenders also argue that he was not a racist, pointing to a number of passages in his letters condemning apartheid, anti-semitism, and other forms of prejudice.<ref, ref, ref>"

Unsurprisingly, our coverage of Middle-Earth is far more complete than our coverage of real-world commentary on Tolkien. I don't have time to take on a big project now, but I hope people don't mind some suggestions on it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say that what we have now is, 'Some people say Tolkien was a racist.<reference> But he wasn't, because of this quote "" and this one "" and this one "" etc.' I don't think that's the way to do it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the Númenóreans, who are portrayed as a (usually) benevolent "master race," the very best of humanity (not quite on a par with the Elves, but it's still their Elvish ancestry that seems to be the basis for the superiority of the royal bloodline)? The Anglo-Saxon Rohirrim seem to be viewed as nobler than other races of Men, second only to the Dúnedain; at the bottom of the human racial hierarchy are the ("swarthy") barbarian "Easterlings" and "Southrons;" and Orcs are the lowest of all. The Tolkien Gateway, http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien%27s_Works, discusses this and other suggested manifestations of racism (in various forms) and cites a few references.

Regarding when LotR was written: much of the material existed long before he actually put it down in the form of a novel, so it may not make sense to date it to WWII. (Mind you, I'm sure that the war and the spread of fascism influenced him (although he hated it when people suggested his work was an allegory :) ).

I don't think there's anything anachronistic about using the term "racist" in its modern sense(s) to describe attitudes prevalent in the early 20th century, any more than it's anachronistic to use the word "feudalism" (a 17th century coinage) to describe the economic system prevalent in Medieval Europe.

While he certainly wasn't overtly racist like Lovecraft (and many others), I do think Tolkien had some implicit beliefs that could easily be described as racist; I'd describe his attitudes as closer to those of Kipling (à la "White Man's Burden"), although perhaps not to the same degree. Still, he really was, as stardingo747 noted above, significantly ahead of his time: he was racist, but less so than most of his contemporaries. (In the early 20th century, eugenics was a very popular idea among the intelligentsia, and for many proponents, eugenics included preventing "pollution" of the gene pool through intermixing with "inferior" races.) 174.111.242.35 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your summary, but I also think this is very easily blown out of proportion wrt WP:DUE. The whole "was Tolkien a racist" thing is a rather petty debate of limited notability. It can be referred to in a brief paragraph, but it should not be given more weight than it has in the real world. --dab (𒁳) 07:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with that. It is something that's been noted by just about every major critic (and probably every non-major one too) of Tolkien's work. I don't know if there's some other article where it might be more appropriate, but I think it deserves a bit more than just a mention. OTOH it is only one issue in the broader context of Tolkien criticism. I dunno, I don't really feel I have a very good sense yet for what is an appropriate amount of detail in Wikipedia (it seems to vary so much!)...I just don't think it's quite so clear that this is as trivial an issue as you seem to be saying. 174.111.242.35 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WW2 spy stuff

The Daily Telegraph article and others like it seem inaccurate, see {removed link triggering spam filter}/x-11527-JRR-Tolkien-Examiner~y2009m9d28-Tolkiens-career-in-espionage-greatly-exaggerated Tolkien's career in espionage greatly exaggerated. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1981) states he trained for four days not three, and he did not decline but was informed his services were not needed for the present. This is supported by The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide (2006). So I used these references.

What's funny is that the "keen" scribbled beside his name may not refer to his disposition as the newspaper reported, but rather the correct or preferred pronounciation of his name (tol-keen not tol-kine or tol-ki-yen), as noted in the second website. Uthanc (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I agree with the edit and comment about parentheses by The Man in Question ( 21:11, 15 January 2010), but I feel that the problem has arisen because too much information is being provided at one time: the pronunciation of Tolkien's name and the dates of his birth and death are really separate textual elements. An alternative (and perhaps better) solution would be to present the description of pronunciation in a separate sentence – or even in a separate paragraph, in which case some of the material in the citations could be taken into the body of the text. Old Father Time (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been bold and taken a crack at it. I don't think a whole paragraph in the main text is necessary for the matter, though; leaving it in the notes seems better to me. Deor (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. Unfortunately the initial "/" has been separated from the rest of the phonetic transcription and appears on a separate line. I don't know how to fix this since the transcription is generated by software. Old Father Time (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The lines break differently in my browser, so I can't see that problem. Has the fix I've attempted corrected it for you? Deor (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. Your fix has corrected that problem, but it has also had the effect of placing the line break after "His surname is", i.e. taking "pronounced" onto the next line together with the phonetic transcription, and leaving a noticeable amount of white space after "His surname is" – perhaps not important, but it does look a bit ugly. Old Father Time (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the {{pron-en}} template generates both the word "pronounced" and the following IPA, I don't see any way around that problem while the template is used. I've therefore replaced it with a plain {{IPA}} template and added "pronounced" to the running text. I hope that fixes it for you. Deor (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deor. That's perfect. Old Father Time (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The emendation by Andymcgrath (12:27, 18 January 2010) cannot be correct. We now have a full stop in the middle of a sentence, and, if that is removed, we return to the situation of either having two parentheses following each other (which has already and rightly been rejected) or placing the pronunciation of Tolkien's name and the dates of his birth and death in the same parenthesis (which has also rightly been rejected). Old Father Time (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir?

I'm no expert on the subject, but if he is a CBE, doesn't that make him Sir J.R.R. Tolkien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The cows want their milk back (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No. He would have had to be appointed a KBE (Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire) in order to have had the title "Sir". Old Father Time (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hemlock, ref. 46

I have changed the American vernacular names of Conium maculatum and Daucus carota to the usual ones in British English (hemlock and wild carrot, respectively) since this article is written in British English, its subject is a quintessential Englishman and the episode described took place in an English county. Old Father Time (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Automobile/car

Since this article is written in British English I am changing the Americanism "automobile" to the British form "car". Old Father Time (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Celtic influences

I am changing "Celtic (Scottish, Welsh and Gaelic)" to "Celtic (Scottish, Irish, and Welsh)", since the term "Gaelic" encompasses both Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) and Gaeilge (Irish Gaelic), and it is the latter which is meant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Father Time (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Publications

Although it does not say so explicitly in the heading, this section seems to be about publications during Tolkien's lifetime: there is another section immediately following called "Posthumous publications". So, should an entry about The Silmarillion really appear here? Shouldn't the material appear under The Silmarillion (an entry which already exists) among "Posthumous publications"? Old Father Time (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at #Writings above. I never got around to doing anything about this. Deor (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

His name?

What name did people call him? Was it John, or was it one of his middle names? Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The usual custom of the Oxford crowd was to refer to people by their surnames, so his colleagues would have called him Tolkien. I believe the other members of the Inklings often used the nickname "Tollers". Deor (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In a letter to Allen Unwin, Tolkien invites Unwin to call him "Ronald", so I suppose that was what his intimates called him. 69.15.90.216 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

American pronunciation

As long as the footnote on American pronunciation contains an unsourced speculation, I added another. I didn't take out the one that's there, but I have grave doubts about it—normally we Americans use /ɑ/ or /ɔ/ (for those of us who have such a phoneme) where the British use /ɒ/. It seems quite unlikely to me that Americans in the '30s heard the RP for Tolkien and approximated it with /oʊ/, and quite likely that they saw the name and thought the only decision for the first syllable was between polka and folk. In addition, it's not true that Americans don't have the [ɔ] sound. We all have it before /r/, and lots of New Yorkers have it for "aw" etc. as well. So unless there's some reason I'm not seeing to believe the phonological explanation, I suggest deleting it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Main portrait

It appears Tolkien's main portrait image has been deleted. Are there any replacements that are not already used in the article? Hayden120 (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Friendship between Tolkien, Lewis and Roy Campbell"

Under the headline of "Anti-communism", there is a discussion of the meeting between Tolkien, C. S. Lewis and the poet Roy Campbell. I have altered some of the things said there, using good sources, and I have also deleted the claim that "a lasting friendship began between the three which lasted until Campbell's death". Considering how hostile Lewis was to Campbell during the evening, as related, for example, in Tolkien's Letter 83, it is hard to credit that such a friendship arose. Certainly Tolkien's letter does not suggest that the evening was a social success. In order to believe that a friendship was formed between the two men, something more substantial is needed than a reference to Joseph Pearce's biography of Campbell withotu as much as a page numberOjevindlang (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Childhood

In the paragraph on Tolkien's childhood the words house-boy is used in the following manner: "In another incident, a family house-boy, who thought Tolkien a beautiful child, took the baby to his kraal to show him off, returning him the next morning.[19]" The term "house-boy" is a derogatory term used for an African male servant. These men were adults and detested being referred to as boy. I suggest the word "house-boy" be replaced by "African male servant". 196.38.83.194 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Adriaan Louw

And how about replacing "kraal" with village? since that term has no meaning outside of South Africa and seems to be misapplied also. Hardyplants (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that "house-boy" is likely a verbatim quote from the source, and would probably not have been thought of as derogatory in the 19th century. I'm not claiming that justifies keeping it. Just sayin'. 192.35.35.34 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion?

Nothing is mentioned in the info box about his Catholic faith. He's rolling in his grave right now. He got mad at CS Lewis because he chose to convert from Atheism to the Anglican Church and not the Catholic Church. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there is no field for religion in that infobox. So, though you added it, it is not visible. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rashbold" in family origins section

I cut the material referencing The Notion Club Papers in the Tolkien family origins section. Not only is it irrelevant to that section, but the citation does not support the claim that it's related to his real name. Nor does it establish that "Rashbold" is in fact a compound of two words with contrasting meaning. Actually, on its face, "Rashbold" is a compound of two words of similar meaning, arguably chosen because it could be read as having a similar meaning to "Tolkien". But even if that was true and cited, it would be irrelevant to the section. 192.35.35.34 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Yoenit (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The original edits where the presumed copy vio was introduced are [8] and [9]. The combination of grammar errors "Tolkein", "batchelor" with complex words like "cessation" and "imperceptibly" suggests retyping from an offline source. The entire C.S. Lewis section was a derivative work from this edit and thus had to be removed. Yoenit (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Friendship" section

How long has that been here? This is a featured article, you shouldn't embark on sketchy essays on random angle on JRRT's life here. Even without the CS Lewis plagiarism issue, this would be problematic. Now the Lewis item has been blanked, this is simply an emparassment to an otherwise good article. Tolkien cultivated numerous friendships throughout his life, and it is pointless to address this in a list-like manner, mentioning a few of the more notable ones. This would be a project for a separate WP:SS sub-article. For now, I am cutting the material below: --dab (𒁳) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

W. H. Auden

W. H. Auden, who had spent much of his life as an avowed Marxist, began corresponding with Tolkien during the mid-1950s. By this time, Auden had broken with his former beliefs and returned to the Anglicanism of his childhood. They remained close friends for the remainder of Tolkien's life. In one letter, Auden recalled,

"I don't think I have ever told you what an unforgettable experience it was for me as an undergraduate, hearing you recite Beowulf. The voice was the voice of Gandalf."

In addition, Auden was among the most prominent literary critics to praise The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wrote in a 1971 letter:

I am [...] very deeply in Auden's debt in recent years. His support of me and interest in my work has been one of my chief encouragements. He gave me very good reviews, notices and letters from the beginning when it was by no means a popular thing to do. He was, in fact, sneered at for it.

Roy Campbell

At a meeting of the Inklings in October 1944, Tolkien met and was charmed by the South African poet and Roman Catholic convert Roy Campbell, who had been discharged from the King's African Rifles after being severely injured in a motorcycle accident. Campbell had been active as a war correspondent with Francisco Franco's Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War, although he had not served in his armies. Campbell vividly described to Tolkien and Lewis Republican atrocities which he had witnessed including the massacre of 17 Carmelite monks in Toledo by Marxist death squads.

In Campbell's eyes, the Spanish Civil War was an uncomplicated battle between the Roman Catholic Church and Stalinism. Tolkien, who shared his opinion, admiringly compared Campbell to the Ranger Aragorn from his Middle Earth legendarium. C. S. Lewis did not agree with Campbell's assessment of the Civil War, and had composed poetry attacking what he referred to as the latter's, "mixture of Catholicism and Fascism". In his poem, "To the Author of Flowering Rifle", Lewis had declared,

--Who cares

Which kind of shirt the murdering Party wears?

During the evening, Lewis, who had consumed several glasses of porter, insisted on reading his poem aloud while Campbell laughed off the provocation. Describing the evening in a letter to his son Christopher, Tolkien accused Lewis of carrying residual anti-Catholicism from his upbringing in Northern Ireland. Eventually, however, Lewis and Campbell patched up their differences. Campbell joined the Inklings at the The Eagle and Child several times before moving to Portugal in 1946.

---

this material goes off on tangents. It isn't clear how details of the dispute between Lewis and Campbell, including details on the drink Lewis had enjoyed that evening, is relevant to the main biography article of JRR Tolkien. This article really needs to stay more focussed. --dab (𒁳) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Granted, some of those paragraphs might need rewriting or clipping (and the one concerning C S Lewis looked a bit sloppy perhaps); but generally I would wish for this section to be reinstated to the article. I remember reading it for the first time and not thinking: "This is bad choochoo!", but rather finding it quite interesting. (Wikiwise, it is quite extensively sourced.) An article on Tolkien should have a section on his more notable friendships, especially C S Lewis and Auden. Trigaranus (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, normally I would just have tagged the section for cleanup. But the FA status of this article means that it should only have to accept polished additions, not preliminary stuff marked for later cleanup.

Writing a discussion of Tolkien's friendships is a complex task. It certainly cannot be done by picking out three of his more notable acquaintances and present a few anectodes about them. I grant you it is interesting, but it doesn't do the section scope or its place in the bio article any justice.

Any discussion of Tolkien's friendships needs to begin with his youth, his eagerness to join all sorts of clubs and associations, the loss of all of his friends during WWI, and the blooming of various personal friendships in his mature age, as well as the role of the Inklings. I do not think Tolkien was a personal friend of Campbell's. Tolkien admired Campbell based on his reputation, and Campbell was a notable visitor of the Inklings, not of Tolkien personally. All this Lewis-Tolkien-Campbell interaction should be discussed at the Inklings article, not in a section about Tolkien's personal friendships.

furthermore, there is secondary literature that interprets Tolkien's friendships, I think Shippey has an essay linking the eagerness in his youth to join clubs to his status as an orphan, and the loss of all his friends in WWI as particularly traumatizing because of their status as a family replacement, all of this ultimately contributing to the profound theme of alienation in his stories, especially Frodo going West etc.

what I am saying is that a "Friendships" section in this article should be done along such lines or not at all. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, the entire "Friendships" section appears to have been introduced as an attempt to rehablitate Roy Campbell, who was not only a Catholic but also an avowed Fascist. I don't think it should be reintroduced in any form. That stuff has no place in the article about Tolkien.Ojevindlang (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

well, it sort of crept in over the years. I remember how a brief and quite reasonable mention of Campbell was introduced a couple of years ago. The way things go on Wikipedia, with 95% of editors assuming that piling up content automatically results in a better article, this was gradually blown out of proportion. --dab (𒁳) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question on grammar

and that [should] be a measure (from J. R. R. Tolkien#Total war)
To me, the addition in brackets does not seem grammatically neccesary. The original wording seems sort of old-fashioned, but correct. I'm not a native speaker, so I might be wrong, but that is how it looks in my eyes ...--Hannesde Correct me! 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it needs some word, even by the standards of the archaic (or pseudo-archaic) English of parts of LotR. "Should" is one of the better possibilities. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Second Vatican council

Did he generally dislike the new policy or does this only apply to the language?--Hannesde Correct me! 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"common" name

I dont think the phrase "commonly known as ronald" is very accurate. I suspect most people outside his circle of friends knew him by his pen name, J. R. R. Tolkien, which is not described as his pen name in this article. This seems to me to be a big oversight. I would be bold, but im sure there are lots of good editors constantly watching this article who, if i am correct, will make this change. I would love to know if i am wrong, and why. ps im american if that matters.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

it was a well-meaning but rather ill-advised recent edit.[10] JRRT was not "commonly known" by any of his Christian names, he was commonly known as "Tolkien", or to more intimate friends as "Tollers".[11] --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. Its amazing to me how often i will go to a page on WP for the first time and catch a less than ideal edit (in good faith, often) that was just added. I suspect we have all had that happen. I didnt even think to check recent edits, simply assumed that it had been here a while. I should have guessed that people here would fix anything quickly. I am a tolkien reader, not a fanatic, but a great admirer, so i understand the passion that surrounds him.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mabel Tolkien

Based on JRRT's published letters (the nearest thing to a Tolkien autobiography we possess) it would seem that the author's mother Mabel was one of the most important influences in his life, excepting only (according to the same source) his wife Edith Tolkien, and possibly his guardian Fr. F.X. Morgan.

So my question is, why does Mabel Tolkien have no article in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.222.254 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

Based on "Letters by J.R.R. Tolkien", edited by Humphrey Carpenter, and "Life of JRR Tolkien" by the same writer, while CSL & JRRT were friends from 1926 on, Tolkien went increasingly off Lewis during the last 5-10 years of Lewis' life.

It is not clear what the actual reasons were but according to Carpenter they included Lewis' late marriage to a divorced, ex Communist American woman - Joy Gresham, nee Davidman; Lewis's "Ulster Protestant" insensitivity, as perceived by Tolkien; and Tolkien's dislike of "The Space Trilogy", and especially, Lewis' fantasy series "The Chronicles of Narnia", compared to Tolkien's own work. So it wasn't all sweetness and light.

Based on JRRT's comments in his letters, it was only after after Lewis' death in 1963 that his markedly favorable opinion of Lewis returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.222.254 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's an article by Douglas Gresham stating Tolkien visited Lewis in hospital when he was dying, and offered his stepsons a place to stay. So it seems their disagreements were quite exaggerated (Lewis loved a good argument afterall). Alientraveller (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Images added 11 Feb 2011

I have to agree with Deor and say that the pictures being added to the article are excessive, mostly only tangetially relevant, and result in a very cluttered look. However, I didn't want to sweep in and delete them without flagging it up first.

What are people's thoughts? Arthur Holland (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A picture of the Queen of Denmark now? Really? This is way, way too much. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be a gallery for remotely related topics. I've removed most of these images, especially the copyrighted ones like the film poster and the book cover of Sigurd and Gúdrun. I'll also leave a message to Kingstowngalway about this. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien Estate Lawsuits

The Tolkien Estate has attempted to eliminate the name of Tolkien in fiction. But historical figures are frequently used in fiction. I don't need to cite a list here, do I? There are pages of lawsuits about this kind of thing on the Harry Potter pages, so...does this fact of litigation not deserve some attention? Would that not have a section here? Or would it be here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_Estate http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2011/0221/J.R.R.-Tolkien-as-fictional-character-fair-use-or-a-step-too-far http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/mirkwood-jrr-tolkien-legal-battle http://www.publishersglobal.com/news/news-detail.asp?news=JRR+Tolkien+novel+Mirkwood+in+legal+battle+with+author's+estate&source=Guardian http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2011/03/13/mirkwood-might-be-the-next-novel-ripped-from-your-kindle/ http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/22/34331.htm

And this is after an earlier lawsuit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125243432279493109.html http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117980703?refCatId=13

Freelance-writer-editor (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This would belong on the Tolkien Estate page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_Estate, and not the page about the author. isfutile:P (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

I object to the removal of the fair use images. The article passed FAC with these, and rightly so. The US have fair use laws, and there is no reason for us not to make use of them. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument would be: where do you stop? There is a good argument for minimising, not maximising, fair-use. I would be quite happy only having one or two fair-use pictures, and linking to websites that have the rest. As for the article passing FAC with the pictures - standards have changed. The other point is that attention needs to be paid to the requests for citations. The images are not the only area of the article that is being reviewed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses fair use images. Fair use has a strict definition in US law. If an article fails to pass FAC because of its use of FU imagery, the problem lies with FAC, not with the article. If en-wiki was to decide to stop using FU images, this would be a huge new direction taken by the project and would require a widly publicized discussion and a community-wide consensus. As long as this doesn't happen, FAC should bloody well accept that articles use fair use images. Tolkien is dead. There are only so many photographs of him. There is no way there can be a free replacement of such images as there are. This is a textbook case of justified fair use. --dab (𒁳) 06:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's not beautiful, but this is the only depiction of Tolkien that I've found under a Creative Commons Attribution license so far. Use it if you like it. I kind of don't, but thought I should mention it due to the FAC/licensing discussion. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 07:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly derived from the 1972 Billet Potter photo, i.e. it's a derivative work. The artist needs permission from the holder of the copyright to the original photo before they can release it under a CC license, and no evidence has been presented that they have permission. We would have to rely on a fair use defense to use this too. This was discussed in the current FA review. -- Avenue (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1972? No mo' copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.197 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

to the best of my knowledge, there are no PD or GFDL photographs of Tolkien (other than the out-of-copyright pictures of Tolkien as a young man prior to WWI, and even those are dubious because they remained unpublished until the 1970s). Sure, if he was alive today, people would queue with digital cameras at book signings and lectures and we would be swamped with low quality snapshots. But not back in the day. We are reduced to using non-free photographs in this article, which is not a problem because Wikipedia allows fair use as a matter of course in such cases. --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the uses still need to be minimised. In this case, I believe using one photo as the lead image, and using the JRRT monogram as well (i.e. a total of two non-free images for one article), is a reasonable compromise. You have to draw the line somewhere. For the other images, direct people to where they can see them (on the internet or in books). Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can see no reason why someone still needs Tolkien to be portrayed as an old-old-old man, while there's a brilliant and free photo of him in 1916? He is not necessary should be portrayed only in his sixties-seventies.Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, because Tolkien wrote the majority of his works we know and love after WWI. Well, technically, he spent his entire life writing them, but the point is, when we think of Tolkien, at least, when I do, I reminisce upon the photo of an elderly Tolkien smoking a pipe and looking into the distance, in a very contemplative and Oxfordian mannerism. "I can close my eyes and see him now, wreathed in smoke like Gandalf as he lit his pipe with a flaring Swan Vesta match and spoke in a deep voice about dragons and dwarves." (Simon Tolkien see Huffington Post link) THAT is Tolkien. Why? Because Tolkien is remembered for not just being a writer of fiction, but a famous philologist at Oxford who happened to dedicate his life to creating a mythos for Britain. That is more than just "the ideas of a youthful man", but "the ideas of an esteemed mind, dedicated to the lifetime's work of creation". It is also the image noted by Tolkien's grandson, Simon Tolkien, during an interview about his estranged relationship between he and his father, Christopher Tolkien, and his loving relationship with his late grandfather, J. R. R Tolkien. If memory serves, the article said something about he wanted to remember him that way. I don't see why we can't too. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-tolkien/jrr-tolkiens-grandson-in_b_550097.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1422943/J-R-R-Tolkiens-grandson-cut-off-from-literary-inheritance.html) If all that isn't clear enough, try this: Tolkien eventually became like his great creation, the wizened old man with grey hair, puffing his pipe. All he was missing was the beard. Old Tolkien = Gandalf, in the words of his own grandson. I think that is epic and aptly justifies the use. But, I'm a geek and a Tolkien nerd, what do I know? Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see what is wrong with having more photos of Tolkien, seeing that this wiki article is the centerfold for all people looking up Tolkien. It has the highest search percentage, and it should allow for users to see Tolkien as a young man and as an old man without having to perform undue page searching. I've never seen this much paranoia when it came to Fair Use, especially when it was such a classic and textbook example. The worst case scenario is that a picture or two would have to be taken down, but isn't the first purpose of wiki to be an encyclopedia? It was when I first using it. If that is still the case, then a biography with some of the most important and memorable photos of him would be relevant to the topic matter. Dragoon91786 (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable works in infobox

There are currently five works listed as "notable" in the infobox, which I think is a reach. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion are, by far, his most notable works. I suggest the other two be removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

English?

It says that his nationality is english, but he was born in Orange Free Country? Wont that make him a boer?--83.109.224.48 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth does not determine nationality. And even if it did Boer would be wrong anyway. --Nutthida (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"If your dog gives birth in a china cupboard, that doesn't mean that the progeny are teacups..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.50.225 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Father of modern etymology"

Abbreviation has this passage:

During the growth of philological linguistic theory in academic Britain, abbreviating became very fashionable. The use of abbreviation for the names of "Father of modern etymology" J. R. R. Tolkien and his friend C. S. Lewis, and other members of the Oxford literary group known as the Inklings, are sometimes cited as symptomatic of this.

A quick websearch finds the phrase Father of modern etymology only in this sentence (and one other where it's misapplied to Jean Henri Fabre). So who called him that?

The father of modern philology, by the way, is either Sir William Jones or Christian Gottlob Heyne. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. "Father of modern etymology" is nonsense, and I just removed it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actual Death Date?

Has anyone else noticed that Tolkien's death date is different in the beginning of the article (1973) than at the end in the "Death" section (1971)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.102.110 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's for his wife, Edith :) "Edith Tolkien died on 29 November 1971, at the age of 82." it is slightly confusing how that comes right at the start though --Nutthida (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Right you are... it is extremely awkward as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.102.110 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nordicism?

The letter cited in the article isn't actually about Nordicism, and the quote itself actually displays a Nordicist sympathy. Conflating Nazism with Nordicism is kind of intellectually lazy. --NotGodot (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nibelungenlied

The article suggests (no doubt inadvertently) that the Nibelungenlied is a Norse saga, when of course it is a mediaeval German poem. 24.69.174.26 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Image

The image used is fine, it has an attributable date and source. It doesn't need changing to a random one from an unknown source. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated that image for deletion as it was lifted from a random web site and is improperly licensed. The offending user's talk page on Commons has to be seen to be believed. BabelStone (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey Bache Smith

I was surprised to see my name correction/expansion reverted so rapidly. What was the reason? I am no expert on Tolkien but reading John Garth's biography his TCBS friend is always referred to by that name (or as G.B. Smith when brevity is required), never as "Geoffrey Smith". He also appears in my family tree by that name, it wasn't just vanity vandalism, honestly... Geoff Bache (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The names as written in the article are lifted directly from Humphrey Carpenter's commentary on Letter No.5 in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Over thirty years of further research, especially John Garth's book, has shown that Carpenter was not always correct. Surely the preferred option, given that this is an encyclopedia, would be to give the three friends full names? Any dissenters? Deagol2 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Recovery in Little Haywood?

What's the origin of the information in this section?

During his recovery in a cottage in Little Haywood, Staffordshire, he began to work on what he called The Book of Lost Tales, beginning with The Fall of Gondolin. Throughout 1917 and 1918 his illness kept recurring, but he had recovered enough to do home service at various camps and was promoted to Lieutenant. It was at this time that Edith bore their first child, John Francis Reuel Tolkien.

There's a reference elsewhere on Wikipedia which gives the address of his wife as being in the general area, but it's not Little Haywood. Source, please? Madgenberyl (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Page 96 of Hammond & Scull's J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide: Chronology records that Tolkien travelled to Great Haywood between the 9th and 16th of December 1916. Page 79 notes that Edith had moved there in April 1916. Page 351 of Hammond & Scull's J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide: Reader's Companion adds that they rented rooms from a Mrs. Kendrick. Deagol2 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:JRR Tolkien signature.svg

The file File:JRR Tolkien signature.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:JRR Tolkien signature.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the file for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 4 since I don't see a way to keep it under a fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Although this might seem debatable the Tolkien Estate has trademarked JRRT's signature and it is therefore not practical to keep this up: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4001:oqdecf.2.51 M.Buelles (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But does the trademark registration cover _any_ JRRT signature or just that particular example? Deagol2 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

McKellen's Gandalf impersonates Tolkien

(cross-posted at Talk: Gandalf and Talk: Ian McKellen)

At Gandalf we now say that the film actor who played him, Ian McKellen "based his accent on Tolkien.[citation needed]"

I doubt that accent is the right word. At best, its common meaning is too narrow. Probably impersonate is too strong outside the quoted context.

Anyway, this quotation is from today's interview with Peter Jackson published at Huffington Post (emphasis mine).

... [When] Ian came on board for the first time, we were having conversations about Gandalf and the voice and the mannerisms and everything that you talk about with an actor at the beginning. We listened to audio recordings of Tolkien reading excerpts from "Lord of the Rings." We watched some BBC interviews with him -- there's a few interviews with Tolkien -- and Ian based his performance on an impersonation of Tolkien. He's literally basing Gandalf on Tolkien. He sounds the same, he uses the speech patterns and his mannerisms are born out of the same roughness from the footage of Tolkien. So, Tolkien would recognize himself in Ian's performance.

Good luck with it. --P64 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mount Doom's scene compared with the Lord's Prayer

In the paragraph called "Views", the third section ends with this sentence: "However, Tolkien wrote that the Mount Doom scene exemplified lines from the Lord's Prayer.[91]" Now I followed the source and it refers to an article by Joseph Pearce, writing for the National Catholic Register (details on the article page are as follows: Pearce, Joseph (2003). Why Tolkien Says The Lord of the Rings Is Catholic, National Catholic Register, 12–19 January 2003. Retrieved 1 December 2008.).

Now, Pearce quotes Tolkien as follows:

All of this would be deducible from the story itself but Tolkien makes the parallel even more explicit. "I should say," he wrote, explaining the final climactic mments [sic.] on Mt. Doom, "that within the mode of the story [it] exemplifies (an aspect of) the familiar words: 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.'"

Would anyone happen to know what the source is that Pearce is quoting Tolkien from? I took a quick look at the Letters, but was not able to find this in there. Maybe I overlooked it, maybe it is somewhere else. In the interest of verifiability, it would be good to know of a more specific source. Caedus (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A search turned up this — I guess the source is Letter #181 from The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. I don't have the book, so maybe someone could check? Braincricket (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's in #181, fourth paragraph. (The word "exemplifies" is italicized in the Letters version.) Tolkien explains at length in the following few paragraphs. Deor (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Braincricket! I've checked as well, and it is quite a difficult topic Tolkien addresses here. And certainly it is not so straightforward a matter as Pearce makes it seem to be, hoping this will "silence the sceptics" after loosely citing this letter, without any further exegesis. Maybe it's best to drop the reference to Pearce, now that we have a primary source (thanks again for adding it in the article). Or would this push the sentence in the article too much to original research? Caedus (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edith Tolkien merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. The proposal did not receive support from other editors, and several arguments for individual notability were presented. StAnselm (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

---

For some reason Edith has her own article, I don't believe she is notable enough in her own right. JRR's relationship with her belongs in this article. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Edith Tolkien may not be as famous as JRR Tolkien, but merging the two would make too big an article. Plus, isn't every person documented on Wikipedia important enough to have their own page? Posted by Shrabulator, 17:33 17 October 2012 (GMT)

No. If you follow the link WP:NOTINHERITED you will see being related to or married to someone famous does not make you WP:NOTABLE in your own right, apart from being married to a famous person Edith's life is not notable. Most of the Edith article can be discarded GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Would a merge with the Tolkien family article not be more appropriate? Deagol2 (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The only content worth keeping is her relationship to Tolkien, I don't think she's notable enough even to go into the Tolkien Family article. At least some of them have been published. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, she's already in the article, at Tolkien family#Edith Tolkien. StAnselm (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited but Edith has been treated by at least two reliable sources, i.e. Carpenter's Tolkien biography and John Garth Tolkien and the Great War. So while the article may be trimmed I don't see a reason to merge it anywhere. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Still fails the unrelated test. The ONLY reason she appears in those books is her marriage to Tolkien. She does not have any works about her. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

She was the inspiration for the Tale of Beren and Lúthien, arguably the core of Tolkien's writings. Does that not make her notable? Deagol2 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edith's interaction with J.R.R. seems to have been a major factor in his life. Biographers of J.R.R. have devoted considerable space to his relationship with his wife, and to her connection to the church. Any merge of her article is bound to reduce the amount of content we are maintaining about Edith. At present I don't see the material in her article as exceeding notability, but some of the long quotations might be taken out and replaced by prose summaries. If you read through the Tolkien Family article you will notice that Edith, Christopher, Simon and Tim are the only family members who are provided with their own separate articles. This judgment seems correct to me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox image

I think that an appropriate image of Tolkien during his actual career (not during his youth - long time before becoming famous) is very important for reader's understanding of the topic. That image from World War I shows a completely different Tolkien than how he is known. Therefore I re-uploaded a fair-use image, that did not gain sufficient feedback and discussion during its deletion nomination and was deleted without an evident report here.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Terrible decision. The image in the infobox is there to show Tolkein, and we have free images of Tolkein. We do not use non-free images if we have free ones. This is not difficult, nor should it be controversial. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the image as a recreation of an image deleted per a deletion discussion. Your edit summary was also rather unhelpful. Please have some respect for our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrible decision? Uhh! Allright, thanks. Could you please be so kind and show a trace of neutrality by providing the link to the deletion discussion? That would be spectacular. Thank You!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While User:J Milburn is correct in saying "We do not use non-free images if we have free ones", I agree with User:Lykantrop in that the current infobox picture of Tolkien is not desirable: he is, obviously, known for his roles as an auteur and scholar, not WWI soldier. I would ask the Wikimedia community at-large to do their best to obtain an image from his "Professor Tolkien" days (at least post-1930's).

Additionally, I would invite User:J Milburn to be a bit softer when issuing corrections - it's much nicer for everyone that way. Also, he needs to spell Tolkien's name right.

I advice you to locate a new image of Professor Tolkien. One that all will recognise. Indeed the image should post 1945. --King Dain II Ironfoot (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 White Whirlwind  咨  08:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How to turn an author into an icon.

• rough version
  Take an old photo...
• smoothed version
  ...add a glow...
• colorised version.
  ... now colours. Nice, isn't it?

The picture of Tolkien as a WW1 soldier is still there, presumably for lack of anything better and free - but it had been replaced today by a colorised version. I think this is a very bad idea, and restored the former version. The colorised version's description admits that "hair & eye colors are a guess, uniform colors match the actual British uniform of that time." This is quite misleading; did he really have such piercing blue eyes? Looking on the well-known photo of him, aged, with a pipe in his study, they rather look grey or hazel (for precision: I'm looking at the cover of the French edition of JRRT's letters - and I'm not sure the colours - quite sepia, fitting an old photography - have not been added or modified there too). At least keeping the black-and-white will not induce errors like "sure JRRT was blue eyed, just look at the Wikipedia image!" Why not take something closer to the original photo, imperfect though it is? That's a document that's needed, not an icon! Bertrand Bellet (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Bertrand Bellet, I mean where would this stop, should I Photoshop his head on top of a greased up Adonis so he looks sexy? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't look sexy, that would look weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image: old or young Tolkien?

Half a year ago I changed the infobox image to the bust of "the Professor" as modelled by JRRT's daughter-in-law. While the article had been featuring young Tolkien in his WW I uniform for quite a while, there have always been arguments that Tolkien is not known and notable for for being a young soldier but rather for being a sophisticated writer and academic. See also the infobox discussion above for use of Billett Potter's iconic image of Tolkien with a pipe; since we cannot have that non-free image, I thought it would be best to put the bust into the infobox, but meanwhile this edit has been reverted.

• File:Tolkien 1916.jpg
• 

What do you think, should the infobox show Tolkien in 1916 or the Oxford professor in the chapel of his old college? De728631 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought the photograph of the bust to be very poor and was relieved when it was changed. An image of the man himself is always going to be preferable to an artist's interpretation. Deagol2 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's much nicer to see the man himself rather than a poorly-framed image with a bust in it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to add the 2013 "The Fall of Arthur"

Page is semiprotected. Someone needs to add info on the publication of "The Fall of Arthur" in May 2013.

Semi-protected means that most registered editors can edit the article unless they are completely new to Wikipedia. So I guess someone will add this information in due time. De728631 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

On a side not The Fall of Arthur article has just been tagged as possible copy-vio. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

this belongs (and is) in J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography. --dab (𒁳) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

20th-century British novelist

Tolkien clearly is a 20th-century British novelists. The fact that his category is also in that category should not mean we do not put the article in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. See WP:SUBCAT GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You should read the specific guidelines there on eponymous categories. For example George W. Bush is in Category:George W. Bush which is in Category:Presidents of the United States, but the article on Bush is also directly in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi - this is an interesting case. The general usage that I've seen of eponymous cats is, they are included in a few places, as needed - while the article is included in many more. For example, Barack Obama, which is well patrolled, is in around 40 categories, but Category:Barack Obama is only in 2. This is pretty standard practice. The problem with excluding an article just b/c its eponymous parent cat is there is that then in the list of articles, the person doesn't show up - it's almost like a punishment for being important enough to have an eponymous cat. The guidance at WP:EPON states that there is no firm rule, and editors have to decide, based on standards in the tree. In my experience, looking at other novelist and writer trees, in general the author article gets placed in any cat that the category is in, and many others besides. The reasoning, IMHO, is that the person themselves can be many things, but the grouping of articles about that person does not so nicely fit in so many places.

There are other cases, like Category:Religion_by_country, where the category itself is mostly empty of articles, and only contains eponymous categories, in which case, the articles does not bubble up beyond the eponymous cat. I think this is done for cleanliness reasons, and because not *all* of the subcats even have eponymous articles.

However, in this case, I agree with JPL - any such categories should be added to the Tolkien article, even if they result in many cats at the bottom, which is typical for well-known people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But obviously the person doesn't have to show up in the list of articles in a parent category once they've got an eponymous subcategory. That's why subcategories are listed at the top of the parent category page, so people are like to check them first. But apparently there's a certain standard at least at Category:20th-century British novelists to include the articles in the parent cat. I still think though that this merely clutters up the article list. It should also be noted that Category:J. R. R. Tolkien is so far only a branch of Category:20th-century British novelists, being his defining characteristic. De728631 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Plato

Have found a reference to The Ring of Gyges by Plato as the inpiration for Lord of the Rings!? 121.222.14.239 (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add it in the "European mythology" section under "Influences", if it's a good reference. Did Tolkien state that he was influenced by Plato? If you found the information online, perhaps you'd like to give the link here first, so others can evaluate it. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC).

I don't think Plato is the source of the Ring of Gyges legend. He is referring to an existing legend (as he did with Atlantis, probably) to make a philosophical point. The real question is how common were rings of invisibility in Western folklore prior to The Lord of the Rings. My guess is pretty common.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

occult

couldnt find any sources online but Jr tokein might have been involved in the occult somewhat based on his works..has anyone come across these sources? Baboon43 (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tolkien was a fervent Christian, so you could say he was I suppose. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the books tend to shy away from witchcraft, which is associated with evil (the Necromancer, the Witch-King etc). What the elves and Gandalf do is very much not occult.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

SFF Hall of Fame

Tolkien has been named to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame.[12] The original name was restored online early this month, after eight years as the Science Fiction HoF; naming JRRT shows that's more than nominal.

The category (complete to 2012) is Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame inductees, presumably to be renamed. --P64 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I added this biography to that category (not yet renamed) but did not revise its text or refs. For the other people named this year (no induction ceremony as far as I know) I am adding to their biographies essentially this:

... and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame named him a member in 2013.

[ref name=sffhof2013> "Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame: EMP welcomes five major players". [June 2013].
 "J.R.R. Tolkien: Hailed as the father of modern fantasy literature". EMP Museum (empmuseum.org). Retrieved 11 September 2013.</ref>

[ref name=sfadb> "J. R. R. Tolkien". Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com). Mark R. Kelly and the Locus Science Fiction Foundation. Retrieved 11 September 2013.</ref>

(That is a half-sentence and two refs citing three webpages, copied from Judith Merril with modifications to fit JRRT in detail.)

Three of the new members do not so much enhance the popular standing of the Hall of Fame as vice versa. Probably I will return to those biographies and add some words from their official citations. --P64 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, our biography of one other SFFHOF member (2 of 74) does not include coverage in prose. There I provided the External link akin to 'JRRT citation at the SFFHOF'. See Mary Shelley#External links. (She was 207 years old when elected.) --P64 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If at all, the SFFHOF should be mentioned in the "Legacy" section of the Tolkien article, but right now I don't see where to put it because there are very specific subsections but none of them deal with awards of this kind. So I think the category entry will be sufficient. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WW2

Any possibility that Tolkien did not get a job at Bletchley Park because he failed security clearance due to his German ancestry and interests???--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The first major article bringing up the whole "Tolkien training as spy" bit was with the Telegraph. As he had already received £800 p.a. for his chair in Leeds and had a family of six to feed why should he have settled for less? And I have never heard of him not being cleared for his "German ancestry"; there was none to speak of. He was as English as they come. --M.Buelles (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobel nomination

Last year, the nobel comitee´s decisions in the 1961 literature prize were revealed. Tolkien was between the nominated writers (he was nominated by his friend C.S. Lewis). Still, he was rejected due to ¨poor prose¨. I think we should mention that on the Retirement section. Though he was harshly rejected, a nobel nomination is a pretty big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elard621 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Successful" Jackson movies

I feel the Legacy/Tollywood section as written is misleading. Simply calling the Peter Jackson films "successful" directly after a paragraph quoting Tolkien's highly critical and somewhat prophetic comments on screenplay adaptions seems to imply the films successfully avoided fulfilling Tolkien's fears, which is arbitrary at best: Despite their immense commercial success and hype, the Jackson films' rather liberal interpretation of the books and the Tolkien legendarium in general has drawn notable criticism from some fans, to the point of scholarly books being published about the matter. Even Christopher Tolkien, a primus inter pares among Tolkienists, said the movies "gutted the book, making an action film for 15 to 25-year-olds" (quoted on in the wiki article about him, with reference). I therefore suggest adding a clarification along these lines:

The films are not completely faithful to the books, making several changes to characters, storyline, backstory and the legendarium at large. This has been pointed out by critics including Christopher Tolkien, who expressed his opinion that "they gutted the book, making an action film for 15 to 25-year-olds."

I also suggest lumping the Hobbit films in with the LotR trilogy, and then summarily discuss the Jackson interpretation of Tolkien's work. 87.164.131.144 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Dead celebrity"

In 2008, The Times ranked him sixth on a list of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945".[7] Forbes ranked him the 5th top-earning dead celebrity in 2009.[8]

Hi, I would like to request that quotation marks be put around "dead celebrity" to make it clear that this very unfortunate term is copied from the source and is not Wikipedia's invention. 86.129.17.132 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC).

Since he is dead, he earns nothing. I assume that the reference is to the Tolkien estate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Unheaded comment

Leaving out this key piece of information a travesty:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.113.8 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps that's a bit too specific for the article in regards to the goings and doings of his ancestors, or are you suggesting there's something wrong with the Catholic bit?--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Maternal Ancestry" post is not part of 68.33.113.8's message—it was a separate, unsigned previous post, and 68.33.113.8 didn't include a heading. On the other hand, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision" is quoted in the article, in the "Catholicism" subsection under "Influences", so I'm not sure what 68.33.113.8 was griping about. Deor (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

0.0 thanks for sorting that out (I didn't see it) and yep - no idea what his griping is about either. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Stalinism?

The section 'Anti-Stalinism' about Tolkien's political views is a bit misleading I find. Since half the section is about his opposition to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War then would it not be more accurate to title the section 'Anti-Communism' instead of just Anti-Stalism?Tomh903 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

His opposition to Stalinism doesn't seem remarkable. His support for the Nationalists in Spain has been used to suggest he was a fascist, falsely. However, the Republicans were not Communists, nor was the violence against the Church primarily Communist. Perhaps this section could be combined with the Nazi one?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

citation 72

Along with the ling to the article it notes "Tolkien scholar Anders Stenström has suggested (Mythsoc Yahoo Groups list, 20 Sep 2009) that "In all likelihood, that is not a record of Tolkien's interest, but a note about how to pronounce the name."" This is not found in the article. Anders isn't mentioned either. What does it mean? 117.199.3.127 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Seem pretty plain to me. Anders Stenström suggested that the reference to "keen" does not mean Tolkien wanted the job, but that it was the pronunciation of his name. The quoted text comes from the Mythopoeic Society Yahoo Group not from the Telegraph article. [13] Deagol2 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2014

Please add the following to the "External Links" on the J.R.R. Tolkien page:

• The Marion E. Wade Center - J.R.R. Tolkien research collection at Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL

The Marion E. Wade Center has very valuable materials for Wikipedia readers wanting to learn more about Tolkien, including all the titles he has written in multiple editions and languages, hundreds of works about Tolkien and the movies inspired by his books, and the writing desk on which he wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

-Laura Schmidt, Wade Center Archivist

Laurielfrodo7 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, although I've skipped the biography page and went straight to the 'Resources' website. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Marriage date is incorrect

The marriage years for Tolkien and Edith Bratt is before Tolkien was born (1889). According to the marriage section, they were wed in 1916. 38.88.149.126 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. This was an error in the infobox which displayed Edith's lifespan instead of their period of marriage. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

German ancestry

I'm curious, is Tolkien's alleged German ancestry backed by any genealogical evidence whatsoever? As far as I can find, his line has not actually been traced back to Germany. And on Rootsweb, here, I could find no German people actually surnamed "Tolkien". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this page which is also used as a source in the article shows quite a number of Tolkiens in modern Germany. Their count is based on current entries in German phone books so it seems to be reliable. And a search directly at Ancestry.com for people named Tolkien who were born in Germany but died in England [14] returns one John Benjamin Tolkien (1753–1819), and we know that JRRT's grandfather John Benjamin lived from 1807 to 1896. So there may be a link. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems the the most distant traceable patrilineal ancestor of Tolkien was his great-great-grandfather, the John Benjamin Tolkien you mentioned (i.e. follow the line here). But I am not so sure that this man was actually born in Germany? It may have been an assumption on the part of whichever ancestry.com user. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is apparently uncertain. His gravestone does not mention any place of birth. Here is an excerpt from Carpenter's biography that tells us about a family legend of how the German name "Tollkühn" was allegedly acquired (pp. 18, 19), but then that was just told by JRRT's aunt who loved a good tale. John Benjamin Tolkien Sr. is attested by Carpenter but he doesn't give any details either. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Tolkien's own view on this, from the 1938 letter to the Berlin publisher who wanted to do a German translation of The Hobbit,

"My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient."

When we say somebody is "of German ancestry", e.g. German-Americans, the implication is that they are substantially descended from German stock even though their German ancestors might have emigrated many generations ago. It does not usually apply for somebody who is "87.5%" English and "12.5%" German by descent. --dab (𒁳) 20:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If the g-g-gfather married an English woman then no more than 1/16 or 6.25% is documented. But we do pay much greater attention to the origin of surnames than we do to "stock". Say perhaps that the surname derives from JRRT's patrilineal (of course) g-g-gparent, an immigrant from Germany, but his other ancestors of that generation were English so far as known. --P64 (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone actually excluded that it is a Jewish name? Reuel is Hebrew. This is a valid part of his ancestry. Tolkien was playing word games about his ancestry. Analyse it. He wasn't ashamed of it, nor should he have been, but the family obviously never publicised it.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source that says his ancestry was in part Jewish, such an assertion can't appear in the article. Frankly, I don't think such a source exists. Deor (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A valid part of his ancestry? Reuel is his second given name, not a surname, therefore it has not a jot to do with his ancestry. You may be unaware of this, but in 19th century Europe it was extremely common for Christians to name their children after biblical (even Old Testament) people. Names such as Ebenezer, Isaac, Hannah and even Mordecai have in times past been very common Christian names. As for the origins of the Tolkien name, there are various sources suggesting that it is of Saxon, German and even Norman origin, but I have found none that claim it to be Jewish. As far as Tolkien himself was concerned, he was of the belief that it was an Anglicised form of the German/Saxon name Tollkiehn, derived from the Saxon tollkühn, meaning "foolhardy". Indeed, an independent source seems to support this theory. Quite an unlikely adoptive name for a Jew, you must surely agree. In the absence of a DNA profile one can easily speculate anything about anyone, but I see no reason at all to believe that Tolkien was anything but what he claimed to be: An Englishman of German descent. Furthermore, you would be well advised in future to avoid attempts at misleading others by asserting your opinion as fact, especially when that opinion is so contrary.--92.239.20.158 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to insert anything. I just wonder why people are discussing his ancestry, but ignoring the obvious. Surely antisemiticism is a bit old-fashioned these days...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid making libellous insults, and assume good faith. Please also be mindful that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your fanciful theories. As for "ignoring the obvious", it seems that you are the only one guilty of that here. Besides there being no evidence to support your claim, Tolkien himself is on record as having stated that he has no Jewish ancestry. Now forgive my impertinence, but who exactly do you think you are to question Tolkien's honesty on such matters?--92.239.20.158 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it is fanciful, and Tolkien wasn't denying Jewish ancestry. Regarding Reuel which is certainly not a common name:

In Letters 309, Tolkien writes: “This was (I believe) the surname of a friend of my grandfather. The family believed it to be French (which is formally possible); but if so it is an odd chance that it appears twice in the O[ld] T[estament] as an unexplained other name for Jethro Moses' father in law. All my children, and my children's children, and their children, have the name.”

Make of that what you will.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

He did deny Jewish ancestry. "But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people." Your quotation is interesting and might belong in the article. However, as far as ancestry is concerned, the only thing I can make of it is that a friend of Tolkien's grandfather might have been Jewish, though the Tolkien family didn't think so. By the way, I believe I'm free of anti-Semitism. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

He was a philologist, and that letter uses some careful wordplay. He used the word "appear". That's not a denial. Given their history, I wonder if the Tolkiens were originally Jewish and the family was denying it. I made the comment about antisemiticism because of the heated way my original comment was treated. After all, it's only a brief comment on a talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In the following text I recitate from 'The Tolkien Quiz Book' by Bart Andrews, published in 1979 by Signet Books. Quiz 38, Question 2: What is the historical origin of the name "Tolkien," and what did it mean? Quiz 38, Answer 2: Because of his daring unofficial raid against the Turks at the siege of Vienna in 1529, George Von Hohenzollern was given the nickname Tollkühn, meaning "foolhardy" 91.44.180.193 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but I can't find any reliable sources that say that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It comes from Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. Carpenter implies that it is a fanciful tale and unlikely to be based in fact. Deagol2 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible typo in the Courtship and marriage portion

In a 1941 letter to his son Michael, Tolkien recalled,

I had to choose between disobeying and grieving (or deceiving) a guardian who had been a father to me, more than most fathers ... and 'dropping' the love-affair until I was 21. I don't regret my decision, though it was very hard on my lover. But it was not my fault. She was completely free and under no vow to me, and I should have had no just complaint (except according to the unreal romantic code) if she had got married to someone else. For very nearly three years I did not see or write to my lover. It was extremely hard, especially at first. The effects were not wholly good: I fell back into folly and slackness and misspent a good deal of my of my first year at college. Boysonicrevived (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)boysonicrevived 18:25 EST, November 18th, 2014

Fixed. HullIntegrity (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Old English literature

The article notes in the "Writing" chapter: "sources of inspiration included Old English literature such as Beowulf, Norse sagas such as the Volsunga saga and the Hervarar saga,[134] the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda, the Nibelungenlied". Except Beowulf, all of the mentioned examples are commonly referred as early Scandinavian respectively German literature!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.198.90 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Volsunga saga, the Hervarar saga and the Eddas are actually written in Old Norse so the sentence makes sense. The Nibelungenlied would arguably have been written in Old German or Middle High German but I don't think we need to make such distinctions. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

For the Memorials section

In British Columbia, Canada, on the borders of Birkenhead Park, a number of mountain peaks have been named for Tolkien. There are: Tolkien, Peregrine, Gandalf, Aragorn and Shadowfax.

50.67.2.205 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done, but I couldn't find a reliable source for Tolkien Peak and Peregrine so I ommitted those. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Grandparents? Great-grandparents?

The "Family origins" section includes a photo of a headstone in Bunhill Fields, London, purportedly for William Shrubsole and Tolkien's grandparents. The claim is also made on the Bunhill Fields page. The inscription (easily legible if you enlarge the image) shows it to be for Shrubsole (no problem there), John Benjamin Tolkien, d. 1819 aged 66 (i.e. born c.1753) and his wife Mary, d. 1837 aged 91 (i.e. born c.1746). JRR's grandparents were John Benjamin Tolkien and Mary Jane Stow, who married in Birmingham in 1856 (see Tolkien family), so it's clearly not them. Possibly great-grandparents? Great-great-grandparents? Or more probably completely unrelated, as it's in the wrong part of the country. The claim has been widely repeated from wikipedia, but the only discussion I can immediately find is this inconclusive thread, with a vague (and clearly irrelevant) suggestion that it might be an uncle. Does anyone know anything more? GrindtXX (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No response to this. The "grandparents" claim is certainly wrong, so I'm deleting the image here and the claim from the Bunhill Fields and the William Shrubsole pages. GrindtXX (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion that the main photo for this article should be of Tolken as an author, not as a soldier.

A photo that better represents Tolken as an author or at least as a more well-known figure should be found for the head of this article. The World War II photo appears to be the only profile photo on the page. As it stands, due to the military photo, someone with no previous knowledge of Tolken would likely have the first impression of a life where war was the most significant and notable factor, and the photo may suggest to someone only slightly familiar with Tolken as an author, that his experience of war played a key role in his writing. Contrarily, as this very article asserts, Tolken "indignantly declared that those who searched his works for parallels to the Second World War were entirely mistaken". How significant a role World War II played in Tolken's entire life is questionable at best. Anyway, surely it's best to have a photo of the person in full expression of their talents. I believe more appropriate alternative photos are available, such as the main profile photo on the Greek version of this page. The Nitty Gritty (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We've had this discussion a few times, the photo (from World War 1 not Word War 2) is out of copyright and therefore free to use. Any other picture will still be under copyright, and as we have a freely available one we cannot use it WP:FREER GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The image of Tolkien used in the Greek article is an obvious copyright violation, and I have nominated it for deletion. BabelStone (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the policy states that the "equivalent" content have the "same effect." Is it really fair to say that an image of Tolkien from his youth, which is not the picture of the author most would have in mind when looking for an encyclopedic source, is "equivalent" to a picture of the author as he is overwhelmingly portrayed in copyrighted works (i.e., as an older man)? KFan II (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise I suggest we re-add the image of Tolkien's bust to the infobox. While one may speculate about the truthfulness and quality of the 3d artwork, the photograph itself is free at least and the bust portrays the elder Tolkien as he is most likely remembered. De728631 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think the bust image is the least satisfactory option - poor photo and not the man himself. If a non-free older Tolkien photo is not allowed then the WW1 image is the least worst option of the two. Deagol2 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)