Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Misspelling in search autofill

I notice that if you type "J.R.R." into the Wikipedia search bar, the autofill suggestion for the subject's name is misspelled as "Tolkein." I don't know how to correct that kind of thing.

Rick Ellrod 1/3/22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by REllrod (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"J.R.R. Tolkein" is a redirect to this article, so a Wikipedia page of that name exists. I think it's just by chance that the autofill suggestion for that comes up before the correct spelling, and someone who chooses it will still wind up at the correct article. Deor (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Catholic or Roman

Guys, this is a bio article not a theology text. If it matters to you whether Tolkien is called "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" then please argue it out here. I have no preference in the matter but you can't edit-war it out in a featured article text. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The church in question calls itself "Catholic Church" and that is what we should use, not the misnomer "Roman Catholic". There is also no danger of confusing the church Tolkien is a member of with any other church using the word "Catholic" in its name. Hence, it is also simpler. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And in the Christianity Project it has been discussed several times that when there are multiple denominations, we list it as Roman Catholic. There is no need to use an ambiguous term as it could be Eastern Orthodox Catholic, or several others. We follow the project not the denomination's preference here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And it has also been discussed and longstanding practice to call the Catholic Church by its actual name. Especially here there is absolutely no danger of confusing Tolkien's church with Eastern Catholics - "Eastern Orthodox Catholic" however does not actually exist - it's Eastern Orthodox (not in union with the Pope) or Eastern Catholic (in union with the Pope). Eastern Catholics BTW are also part of the Catholic Church. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See Catholic Church (disambiguation), under "Catholic Church may also refer to". I know plenty of Anglicans who consider themselves Catholic. That said, I see little chance of confusion no matter which wording is decided on here. Str1977 is, however, perilously close to violating 3RR, and I'm not averse to fully protecting aricles or handing out blocks for edit warring. I recommend that the wording be decided by consensus here before any more changes are made to the relevant sentence in the article itself. Deor (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

So, if I read your comment correctly, the argument for denying the simple term "Catholic Church" to the church headed by the Pope is that the term "Catholic" is also used by others, e.g. some Anglicans. The self-perception or self-description of other groups or individuals is put in opposition to the self-perception or self-description of the church headed by the Pope.

However, no Anglican calls the Anglican Church the "Catholic Church", not even Anglo-Catholics. If one were to ask people for directions to the next Catholic Church, almost everybody would immediately assume that one is looking for the local representation of the church headed by the pope. I doubt anyone would point you to the local Anglican parish or the local Old-Catholic church. Common usage thus supports naming the church headed by the pope Catholic Church and its adherents simply Catholics. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not read it complete correctly, no. Some do call themselves "Catholic". Also, catholic is equivalent to varied or all encompassing. I could link to several dictionaries, but I trust that you understand that there could be confusion. Again, I stand by the Christianityy Project's approach. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not overlook that at all. However, even these people would not call their church "the Catholic Church". Also, this is akin to arguing that the subjective self-styling should override common usage.

Your defintion of "catholic" as "varied or all encompassing" is false. It means universal in the sense that it is not restricted to one country or one time. Also, we are not discussing the mere word "catholic" but the name of the church headed by the pope, of which JRR Tolkien is a member. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite your dancing around the subject, Deor's point is that "Catholic" is ambiguous.

While I understand that in churches, it is taught that "catholic" means "universal". What you call, "my definition", is actually from dictionaries:

1. Websters: including many different things.
2. Oxford: including many or most things
3. Cambridge: including many different types of thing.
4. Collins: If you describe a collection of things or people as catholic, you are emphasizing that they are very varied.
5. Lexio (powered by Oxford) Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.
6. MacMillan: including a wide variety of different things

So you might want to start a letter-writing campaign to correct their misinformation campaign (but first, I'd learn how to spell "definition", as that would go a long way to convincing them you're literate). You will find more details at Catholic (term).

Once again, the Christianity project itself has generally agreed that in cases where the topic is not obviously about the church headed by the pope, or involves additional denominations, we state the common "Roman Catholic". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's see what your linked dictionaries ACTUALLY say:

1. Websters gives two essential definitions of the adjective, first "of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church". You quoted only the second definition which is dubbed "formal". Further down the noun is defined as "a person who belongs to the universal Christian church" and "a member of a Catholic church especially".
2. Oxford Learners actually has as the first definition (adjective) "belonging to or connected with the part of the Christian Church that has the Pope as its leader". It also lists - as a specialist usage - "connected with all Christians or the whole Christian Church" - and your example comes last and is dubbed "formal".
   The same dictionary has a distinct article on the noun which has the sole definition "a member of the part of the Christian Church that has the Pope as its leader" (though it refers to the compound "Anglo-Catholic" in another distinct article)
3. Cambridge: the definition you quoted appears for an adjective written in lower-case. Right after that there follows an upper-case word that can be both a noun or an adjective with the explanation "Roman Catholic" - this is exactly the context our dispute revolves around.
4. Collins: the first definition (adjective) refers to "The Catholic Church is the branch of the Christian Church that accepts the Pope as its leader and is based in the Vatican in Rome" and mentions also "Catholic priests" and the "the Catholic faith". It goes to define the noun "Catholic" as "a member of the Catholic Church". It also mentions Anglo-Catholic but only as that compound. The definition you quoted - or dare I say: cherry-picked - comes at the very end of the article.
5. Lexio (powered by Oxford): here again you only quoted the first meaning (adjective) but omitted: "Of the Roman Catholic faith". While there is also "Relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church", which in its example includes and Anglican example, the noun "Catholic" is more important: A member of the Roman Catholic Church.
6. MacMillan has different articles on lower-case and upper-case words. You neatly only cite the lower-case article. The upper-case adjectve is defined as "connected with the Roman Catholic Church" while the upper-case noun is defined as "a member of the Roman Catholic Church"

So the dictionaries overwhelmingly define especially the noun "Catholic" and all forms written in upper case in reference to the church headed by the pope.

I don't see where I have to start a letter-writing campaign - except maybe to persuade them not to split word over several articles, as that would confuse certain readers that are easily satisfied with just one definition. I am not talking about you as you obviously were out to cherry-pick even the most obscure meanings if it suited your case. The definitions you quoted have one thing in common: they all are blind to context.

If you are so concerned with Catholic (term), I suggest you focus on that article. But I suggest you keep the snide remarks and personal attacks to a minimum. Not like you did here. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

PS. You claim "the Christianity project itself has generally agreed ...." - only I couldn't find anything of that sort at the project page. OTOH, the talk page archives of Catholic Church are full of discussions of that issue and they paint a different picture. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Two questions regarding the dictionary definitions:

1. Were the definitions I provided present or not?
2. Was our agreed-up theological definition present or not?

I am not concerned on any other article, nor should you suggest that I or anyone else focus on any other articles. I suggest you keep your advice to yourself.

I'm sorry, I don not see it at the Christianity project either, but it was a consensus at one point. I'm not sure where it was, but there was another editor who was making mass changes of the WP:COMMONNAME of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic Church" in articles just like this one, and that editor was censured by the project and later an admin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

C.S lewis

should we add more about C.S Lewis. Tolkien and him were friends, and yet he is not mentioned at all in this page, yet he is mentioned 27 times on the C.S Lewis page. One insect...no links... (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that Lewis and Tolkien's friendship with him are mentioned several times in this article, as in the second paragraph of the lead. Deor (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia announcement

Hello all. I'm going to be making a spoken-word recording of this article for the Spoken Wikipedia project. JRennocks (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Bournemouth is in Dorset.

Ta 2A00:23C4:2229:F400:ACDA:47ED:99F:3035 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Bournemouth was in Hampshire until 1974. Place names, counties, countries are intended to be correct for the time, not the current ones. A865 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Bournemouth is in Dorset

Bournemouth is in Dorset not Hampshire 89.240.6.22 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

See the thread immediately above. Deor (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It was in Hampshire until 1974, after Tolkien's death. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Replace two instances of "instalment" with the corrected "installment" Jrobertburgoyne (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 04:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I have reverted the change using a script that applied the correct spelling. @Jrobertburgoyne: This article uses MOS:OXFORD spelling which uses the single "l" in words like instalment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Names

What was he called in everyday life? I think that he would be "Professor Tolkien" formally. I read that he was called Tollers (with Oxford "-er") by his academic friends. What did his family call him? Jay Ar Ar? John? Ronnie? --Error (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ronald. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Could we have that in the article? --Error (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's already there (and was when you made that comment), in the 'childhood' section. Modest Genius ^talk 14:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

1916 Tolkien portrait nominated for deletion at Commons

I wanted to notify watchers that I nominated the 1916 photograph of Tolkien (File:Tolkien 1916.jpg) for deletion at Commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tolkien 1916.jpg. There are several indications that the image remains copyrighted under UK law. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 05:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tolkien 1916.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Change: Rebeliant-husky (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Descendance finally proven

Descendance from the Baltic tribe, the Old Prussians in East Prussia, finally proven: https://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2021/03/tulkin-zu-wogau-or-primus-gentis-of.html und https://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2019/11/important-news-about-professor-tolkiens.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF14:A200:AC08:4F26:352A:2621 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Except blogs are not reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Source of quote

Of his time working for the OED, Tolkien said, "I learned more in those two years than in any other equal period of my life". The quote is found in Carpenter's biography (p.101 of my hardback); it is also given (unreferenced) in Gilliver et al. The Ring of Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary (Preface, p.vii). I cannot find it in The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Is an ultimate source known? Or is it hidden in family papers that only Carpenter was given access to? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Carpenter is obviously a WP:RS. The Letters are an edited selection from Tolkien's very large correspondence. Carpenter had access to many other documents (and letters), mostly now in either Marquette or the Bodleian collections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• J. R. R. Tolkien, 1940s.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Write nationality

He was a *South African* writer. 41.147.0.22 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

He moved to England aged 3.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Rings of Power

Please can someone update the line about Amazon with the link and release date for The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power? Cheers 78.152.233.7 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does "kh" stands for voiceless uvular fricative?

הראש (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Kh" in what? Are you referring to spellings in The Lord of the Rings? In representations of the Dwarvish language, "th and kh are aspirates, that is t or k followed by an h, more or less as in backhand, outhouse" (The Lord of the Rings, Appendix E). In representations of the Orkish and Adûnaic (Númeanorean) languages, kh represents the same sound that is represented by ch in spellings of Elvish languages—that is "the sound heard in bach (in German or Welsh)", with Tolkien's "in German or Welsh" perhaps indicating that he was not distinguishing between the voiceless velar fricative and the voiceless uvular fricative. Deor (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Different editions of the same book in different places: The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide

Er, we now have the 1st, 2006, ed. of The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide cited (repeatedly) in the text, and the revised 2017 ed. listed as "Further reading". This ain't ideal. Much better would be to list just one edition and to cite it throughout. I suggest we move the book to "Sources", and use "sfn" links in all the citations, updating the page numbers from the 1st to the 2nd edition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, although I don't possess either edition of the work and thus couldn't update the older-edition page numbers to those of the "revised and expanded" edition. Does any editor hereabouts have the 2007 edition, with which to verify and revise the citations? Deor (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Note my edit of the citation to the 2006 citation: The J. R. R. > The J.R.R. on the basis of https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780618391011/page/n5/mode/1up?view=theater. Mcljlm (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What was his call sign?

In daily life, was he called Jonathan or ronald? shouldnt that be added to the article? Sjobenrit (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien/Archive 6#Names. Deor (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Why Jonathan when that isn't one of his names? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Among University friends, he was 'Tollers' (see Carpenter p.146) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien's mother

Section 1.2 Childhood refers to Mabel as "née Suffield" but in Tolkien family Section 3.3 Mabel Tolkien as "born Suffield". Perhaps one or the other should be changed. Mcljlm (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

They mean the same thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHNAME allows either; née should be linked at first use - it now is. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Jack Upland I know they mean the same thing. I was suggesting the same word should be used. Mcljlm (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

@Chiswick Chap: Dear Chiswick You should assume good faith rather than trying to own this article. I will be happy to discuss my edits one by one now that I know that you aren't a drive-by reverter. I did not make any bold edits, I altered a few syntactical and grammatical errors. The word "outmoded" is wrong, it implies that there was ever a mode which is historically untenable. Regards PS I'm English, I write in BritEng ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not doubting your good faith, and if you regularly ignore WP:BRD by assuming other editors are drive-by, that certainly wouldn't be in anything resembling good faith on your part. I'm not at all attached to the "outmoded", but find the introduction of "bigoted" into the text on the part of any editor unhelpful. The cited sources however explicitly say "racist" and "racism" so we have a clear mandate for the use those terms. I suggest we leave it with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You make a fair point, I do get trigger happy at times and I apologise. I only looked in to try to get an answer for the Observer crossword. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed treatment of second middle name

The "second middle name" in Tolkien's published name was not on his birth certificate, and is an add-on imposed by Edward VII (also spelled "Edouard" in French title). Reuel is code for "rule," as an informal trademark of the monarchy. Edward VII had heard that Tolkien's prose was "amazingly working," and because he didn't like the liberal (ie. non-monarchist) intellect in it, decided to impose the monicker, and thereafter claim ownership of Tolkien's works.

Tolkien's most famous work, The Lord of the Rings, was "barrel pulbyshdt" ie. "barely published" in the United States (Harper's and Lee Pub.) due to a "paperwork error," rather Woodrow Wilson liked it so much that he "decided it," and arranged it's publication, through Victoria of England's "friend," a female descendant of Prince Frederic, Duke of York and Albany. -Druid Fiesta (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Two things. We need a WP:RS for each claim. And we must not include trivia, gossip, or hearsay. Blogs, forums, groups, wikis, and social media are not reliable sources. None of this material sounds prima facie like encyclopedic fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:RS will need to be provided to include it in the article GimliDotNet (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Such sourcing will be somewhat hard to find, as Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) had been dead for 30 years by the time The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954–55. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the users previous contributions, I think this is a case of someone who is not quite all there. Perhaps a case of WP:COMPETENCE failure due to insanity. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Beware WP:PA, please. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 09:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m fully aware of WP:PA. I’m also fully aware of WP:COMPETENCE, and the ramblings of the user indicate someone who is not all there. This is honesty, not an attack. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Judgements on competence are indeed legitimate, based on an editor's actions. Judgements on mental health can not be so justified. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 13:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they can be, if the competency is lacking due to clearly vague ramblings. Now please kindly stick to the topic at hand if you have something to add to the discussion. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Bournemouth isn't in hampshire

Bournemouth is in Dorset. Please correct. 148.252.133.100 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, but it was in Hampshire in those days. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

From Bournemouth: "Bournemouth lies in the historic county of Hampshire. Following the local government reorganisation in 1974 the town was governed by Dorset County Council." Therefore when JRRT died in 1973, he did it in Hampshire. (UK Local Government - almost as complicated as a hobbit family tree.) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Red Indians or Native Americans?

While I am content for this article to use the term "Red Indian" to refer to Native Americans, I can understand that others do disagree, and that the term can be seen as pejorative. Therefore I will put forward my reasons, and hope that others will do likewise, for the better understanding both of Tolkien and our current context, so as to result in a consensus on this issue.

Tolkien used, or is said to have used, the term "Red Indian" in two places that I know of (further evidence welcome). In Carpenter's biography, p.22, we read that as a child "... he liked Red Indian stories and longed to shoot with a bow and arrow." Then, in 1944 (Letter 58), in the context of explaining English culture to an American Officer, he writes "...[certain things] had as much connexion with 'Feudalism' as skyscrapers had with Red Indian wigwams,...".

What I see in these uses of the phrase "Red Indian" is not so much a reference to American Indians as we should understand them today, but rather a cultural image of them, drawn from boy's adventure books and their illustrations. (Possibly also in comics and movies, though these may have been more common in his children's childhood, later than his own.) We can be sure that Tolkien, the philologist and expert on fanciful tales of many sorts, would have been well aware of the gap between what was written in those tales and the underlying reality. I suggest, therefore, that he uses "Red Indian" as a description of the typified characters and cultures in those tales, to explain his fascination with bowmanship, and to provide an easily-understood dwelling to contrast with a skyscraper. (C S Lewis was able to use "wigwam" without further explanation to describe Puddleglum's house in The Silver Chair.)

Because of this, it seems to me that to replace the references in this article with "Native American" would distort what Tolkien was actually saying, as he was not referring to an actual people or culture found under that heading.

What I have not addressed is the pejorative sense that is often attached to "Red Indian". I see no evidence that Tolkien intended any insult (perhaps it should be discussed in Tolkien and race?) but I wish this encyclopaedia to be used in comfort by anyone, including American Indians. Is the term so tainted as to be unusable? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this.

What I was trying to say in the edit summary is that we don't need to say that in order to say he liked these stories. It would be different if we were adding an actual quote. But this is just a general statement of his likes. So we don't need this as a description. Especially as the reader - likely not as well-informed about the Professor as you or I - may read more into the usage than the intent. In this context it's not only unnecessary, it's detrimental to the tone of text. - jc37 01:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and Loaded language - jc37 01:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Verbarson and Jc37: I agree with jc37, the context you provided isn't present in the article. The only ways I can see readers interpreting the use of "Red Indian" is either "wow, that Tolkien guy sure is racist", or "wow, that Tolkien guy sure is old" (because "Red Indian" was common way back in then). Using the term does more harm than good, it has the potential to mislead readers on Tolkien's beliefs. – Treetoes023 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Treetoes023 well, I immediately read it as "feather, not dot". guess that makes me racist by today's standards? or just old? 84.215.194.129 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As my revert showed, I agree with Verbarson, particularly with his comments in the third paragraph above. "Stories about Native Americans" just doesn't have the same connotations as "stories about Red Indians". C. S. Lewis, in describing his own interest as a child in stories of "Redskinnery" (his word), wrote that what attracted him was "that whole world to which it [the story] belonged–the snow and the snow-shoes, beavers and canoes, war-paths and wigwams, and Hiawatha names." I don't think "stories about Native Americans" conveys the same world, and if readers get the impression that "wow, that Tolkien guy sure is old", that's certainly not an incorrect impression of either him or the stories he read as a boy. Deor (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I support using the term "Native American" for the reasons given above.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Further grist to the mill:

Primary sources: (WARNING - WP:OR)

• In On Translating Beowulf Tolkien writes, 'If there be any danger of calling up inappropriate pictures of the Arthurian world, it is a less one than the danger of too many warriors and chiefs begetting the far more inept picture of Zulus or Red Indians.'
• In On Fairy-Stories, he writes, 'I had very little desire to look for buried treasure or fight pirates, and Treasure Island left me cool. Red Indians were better: there were bows and arrows (I had and have a wholly unsatisfied desire to shoot well with a bow), and strange languages, and glimpses of an archaic mode of life, and, above all, forests in such stories.'
• Deor, do you have the source for that C S Lewis comment?

Secondary source:

• John Garth discusses the appeal to Tolkien of Native American [sic] stories, with reference to The Song of Hiawatha and The Last of the Mohicans. I note that these are stories about rather than by Native Americans.>

-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Lewis quotation is from his essay "On Stories" and can be read here (second paragraph). Deor (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Um, with respect to all the learned quotations and carefully-observed sensitivities, I think the point here is that "Red Indians" is not just the name that Tolkien used, but that it conveyed to his generation at least (and I think also to mine) a sense of excitement and adventure wholly lacking in the (wholly anachronistic) "Native Americans". Basically, we aren't here to censor people, far less to put words and concepts into people's mouths. Tolkien would surely have been utterly disgusted by talk of "Native Americans" in his context: he was not talking about anthropology or cultural studies, but about adventure stories that appealed to him as a boy. I'm fine with adding a footnote or gloss to say that we wouldn't create such a phrase today; but resolutely opposed to Bowdlerising our articles into an incomprehensible state of political correctness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. To me the current formulation seems reasonable and using "Native Americans" instead would not convey the same meaning. The term is not only anachronistic (for a statement by Tolkien) but also too wide, as it refers to "the Indigenous peoples of the United States or portions thereof, such as American Indians from the contiguous United States and Alaska Natives", i.e. a much larger group than the adventure-story-characters, the quote refers to. I think it's appropriate to put "Red Indians" in quotation marks (as it comes verbatim from Carpenter) and to add the explanatory parenthesis. The only quibble I have is that the link to "Native Americans in the United States" should be made not from "Red Indians" but from within the parenthesis (as, e.g.: He liked stories about "Red Indians" (the term then used for certain North-American Native Americans in adventure stories...). --Qcomp (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree the link should be moved as it is a bit misleading currently. I didn't click on it when I looked at this discussion earlier. I just assumed it led to an article that explained about the terminology. Michael Martinez (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the link to Western (genre), as Tolkien was discussing adventure story characters. It's already correctly in quotation marks, as you say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's good to link to that Genre. But I have moved the link to "adventure stories" rather than "Red Indians". I find it better to leave "Red Indians" as a not-wikilinked quotation from Carpenter's book and instead use the following explanation to link to further background information --Qcomp (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And I've further retargeted the link. I'm fairly sure that what Tolkien and Lewis were reading was not westerns but material more along Hiawatha-Chingachgook lines. Deor (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are right about Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and James Fenimore Cooper, as stated reliably by John Garth, your link must in principle be correct, but the link target as currently constituted needs rewriting as it barely hints at adventure stories and doesn't mention "Red Indians" at all (and it needs citing). Further, statements in Historical romance#Native American like "Unlike Westerns, where women are often marginalized, the Western romance focuses on the experiences of the female." do not seem to capture the nature of Cooper's work, and that article's other statement, "Native American novels could also fall into the Western subgenre" seems to get a lot closer to what Tolkien was reading: excitingly romantic in a boyish way, adventure rather than dreaming of hugs and kisses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the stories Tolkien read were unlikely to have been ones about the Wild West, which is what the term "western" usually connotes (and the main subject of Western (genre)), but probably involved Indigenous peoples of the Eastern Woodlands in earlier periods of American history. I don't think "dreaming of hugs and kisses" comes into the matter at all; the "romance" in "historical romance" refers to Romance (prose fiction), not Romance (love). Deor (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Which is what I said. The problem is the wording in the linked article, which has in its first sentence "mass-market fiction focusing on romantic relationships in historical periods". Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a completely satisfactory article to link to. How about the general "... stories about "Red Indians" (the term then used for Native Americans in adventure stories)"? I suppose I'd be satisfied with any link(s) other than Western (genre). Deor (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be better, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Tolkien's dislike for spiders

Tolkien did an interview with Jan Broberg in 1961, which Broberg published in Swedish. He asked whether the terrors in Tolkien's fiction came from his personal experiences. Tolkien said he wasn't particularly afraid of anything. Then he said, "Yes, by the way! I don't like spiders. It's not a pathological fear, but I would rather not have anything to do with them." (Google Translate.) You can see a version of Broberg's article in his book I fantasins världar (Fantasy Worlds) at [1], or if that doesn't work, try searching Google Books for "Jag tycker inte om spindlar Det". However, there are no page numbers, and I think this is a later edition, and Broberg's article was "heavily revised" from his original publication. The page number in the URL may not be that in the book. There was an English translation of the interview in Hither Shore 9---all this is from the Tolkien Gateway article on Broberg.

So I think it would be good to include the quotation from the Broberg interview, but there are difficulties with the reference, which someone with access to Hither Shore (the article is partly available at Google Books, but not the part about spiders) or Broberg's work might be able to solve. Anyway, the main thing is that this isn't a simple case of Tolkien having nothing against spiders. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Glad we're talking, and that sources are identified. Not sure, however, that this article is the place to go into this sort of detail, complete with childhood stories and quotations. As I said in the edit comment, it actually seems rather too fine-grained even for the subsidiary article Influences on J. R. R. Tolkien, which while not as long as the parent article, is already substantial, covering a series of quite meaty topics, each with their own subsidiary articles. I suppose it might go in that article's "Childhood" section, as long as it isn't anecdotal in style. It might actually fit better in Shelob where a discussion of dislike of (large) spiders could be in order; or perhaps we're actually missing a Tolkien's giant spiders article, to cover GlaurungUngoliant, Shelob, and the "attercop" beasts of Mirkwood (does seem to be a bit of a recurring theme). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Glaurung? Perhaps you mean Ungoliant? Deor (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like unencyclopedic trivia to me. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being elsewhere or not on Wikipedia at all. I just don't want this or any article to say Tolkien had no dislike of spiders, based on his letter to Auden, when he said the opposite in other sources. If the spider bite is taken out of here, people might consider also removing the parts about scenes from Tolkien's childhood in Sarehole, and Edith dancing for him among the umbels, or at least the connections with his fiction. I agree with all your suggestions about where this material could go, Chiswick Chap. I'm not particularly fond of Wikipedia articles on specific fictional characters, monsters, etc., unless they reappear in various authors (Faust, Don Juan, etc.), but if we're going to have an article on Shelob, maybe it should be changed to an article on all of Tolkien's oversized spiders. Incidentally, I just did this as a break from grading final exams and such, so I won't be participating much in any discussions or work on this for a week or more. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Annotated Hobbit footnotes a 1957 interview in which Tolkien stated that the spiders were included to frighten his children (particularly Michael). I agree that these multiplying accounts of arachnophobia (or the lack of it) belong best in an expanded version of Shelob. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There's already a bit about this in Cultural depictions of spiders#In literature. My personal opinion is that, as FlightTime said above, it's "unencyclopedic trivia" in this article. I doubt that it's even suitable for mention in Shelob. Deor (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Deor and FlightTime, what's the "this" that you consider unencyclopedic trivia, the spider bite or just the question of whether it led to Ungoliant etc.?

In case anyone is interested in adding material to Shelob—"Letter 163" contains not only Tolkien's denial that he disliked spiders but also his statement "I knew the way was guarded by a Spider" very early in the writing of LotR. Is that trivia or welcome out-of-universe information?

I'll just mention that there's an article on Ungoliant.

I see that a longer version of the quotation I added is in Influences on J. R. R. Tolkien and Tolkien's modern sources, not in reference to the spider bite but to deny that Edgar Rice Burroughs influenced Tolkien. (No assertion that he did influence him is in those articles.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think the mention of the baboon spider incident in this article is probably OK as a biographical detail, but mention of its influence (or non-influence) on his fiction should not be in this article . I don't readily see how material about T.'s experiences with or feelings about spiders, as a child or as an adult, could be worked into Shelob or Ungoliant without it's appearing to be original research or merely some author's speculation (if indeed some author has speculated on the topic). Deor (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm ready to take out the "no special hatred" clause, if no one objects. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've pulled it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Great! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Source for Tolkien's Fellowship at Pembroke

Hey all, unable to edit the page due to its semi-protected status but here is a good source for the single "citation needed" tag on this page, demonstrating that Tolkien was fellowship status at Pembroke College:

https://www.pmb.ox.ac.uk/news/memorial-jrr-tolkien-commissioned  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:5401:D6D0:58DF:4CFE:E916:B793 (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 

Memorials and Legacy

I just emancipated the memorials section from the legacy section. It seems to me that the two concepts are quite distinct and should be mentioned apart. They both are excellent sections as they stand, by the way. This should probably also be changed on a lot of other pages, but I'll try it here first to see how the discussion plays out. Smit1937 (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)