# Talk:William Morris's influence on Tolkien

"On the other hand, Morris was a socialist and atheist, while Tolkien was bourgeois and Catholic."
This dualism is a statement of opinion, but is presented as a statement of fact. Also, while it can implicitly be connected to a source cited later in the article (Murphy 2019), no source for it is given at this point. It is also unclear why this source is so relevant as to warrant being included in the opening paragraph, if unacknowledged, over other sources referred to in the article.
The opinion is also ill-defined, since 'socialist' is a political and 'bourgeois' a social category, they are not opposites. William Morris for example can plausibly be called a 'socialist' in his political activities an a 'bourgeois' in his social position. As the source is not publicly accessible, I cannot verify whether this dubious opposition is put forward in it, or is an interpretation by the contributor to this arcicle. 91.55.4.7 (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your view. However, the lead section is normally uncited, as it just summarizes the reliably-cited text in the body of the article; we do not normally repeat citations in the lead, except for direct quotations. There is no editorial opinion in the article. I agree that "bourgeois" isn't needed here; a mention of Tolkien's well-documented Catholicism is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank You for Your clarification and fix. By itself, the sentence can be taken to state that J.R.R. Tolkien was not significantly influenced by William Morris in his political and religious beliefs. As such, it is neutral and factual enough. But in context, in particular as it used and still uses most of the same terms, it appears to endorse Timothy Murphy's hypothesis presented later in the article. Now I don't mind this hypothesis being presented in the article as one hypothesis among others, even if it seems weak to me. But I don't see what other relevance the mention of Morris' and Tolkien's different political and religious beliefs in the first paragraph has than referring to it.
As for the hypothesis itself, that ""bourgeois Catholic Tolkien emplifies [sic] the idealist or transcendentalist strand" of fantasy, now dominant in the marketplace; while Morris started the "conceptually more fertile strand of materialist fantasy" as seen in the writings of Edith Nesbit, Ursula Le Guin, Michael Moorcock, and China Miéville" seems dualist and debatable to me, as at least Ursula K. Le Guin was by her own account also deeply influenced by Tolkien. But as I mentioned, I haven't been able to read the article yet so I can't say anything further about it.
My other gripe is the statement that Tolkien, Alan Lee and Peter Jackson "have spread a medievalist aesthetic to a wide modern fantasy audience." Not only the media they work(ed) in but also the artistic strategies they use(d) are so different that using the term "medievalist aesthetic" as if they were all the same is imprecise and overgeneralising. But here at least the article referred to is publicly available so I'll suspend judgment until I had the chance to read it. 91.55.15.59 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
The main issue here is that you seem to believe we should argue from first principles, which means editors are doing the reasoning. This is called Original Research on Wikipedia, and is strictly forbidden, not least because it makes Verification of what is written impossible. The article is based exclusively on coverage of the available reliable sources, which is mandatory. Your not liking sources X or Y is immaterial; so is whether a source is online. So, whether you think a scholar's arguments weak or strong, dualist or whatever is entirely immaterial to Wikipedia. The article does not "endorse" any scholar or critic's views; it just presents them impartially. If you think you can do better than the scholars, you are completely free to write a scholarly article and get it peer-reviewed; we will gladly summarize and cite your published work. Until then, or until other usable sources are created, the article will stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
It may have been a misconception on my part to assume that the discussion page is also to discuss interesting questions raised by the article, not only editorial questions, or I may not have made these two aspects sufficiently clear. But it is not my interest to have the article changed to my liking, or being right. I still do think that the article is imbalanced as it is, but this does not bother me enough to argue about it.
I acknowledged myself that it is irrelevant whether I like the source in question, and that it is not publicly available is only relevant in that I cannot say anything substantial about it because I have not read it. I am also familiar with the conventions of scientific work. I never assumed this article is or should be original research.
But this raises yet again the question of objectivity, also in an abstract sense that goes beyond this article. Please bear with me or ignore the following, I have no interest in forcing a discussion on you that you may have no interest in continuing.
I agree that aiming at objectivity is a fundamental necessity in science, but presenting reliable sources does not in and of itself ensure impartiality. What sources are chosen, what parts of them are quoted, what space they are given, where they are placed, is all part of editorial work, yet all implies judgment. I am not assuming that any of this is new to you, I mention it first to prepare my argument, and second because I find this dilemma interesting in itself. Now in this article, the source in question is referred to in the first paragraph of the introduction, it has its own section in the body of the article, and while I don't assume any deliberate intention behind this, this makes it appear as the authoritative source on the topic.
Another dilemma is that, while the article may aim to be impartial, the quotations from, and paraphrase of, the source are not. "Socialist" and "bourgeois", "atheist" and "Catholic", "innovative" and "marketplace" are terms charged with meaning, as is their juxtaposition, and they charge the article as well, intentionally or not. This was at least my impression as a reader, and I am neither a Christian nor a conservative. 91.55.15.59 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Talk pages are only for discussing the article itself, per WP:NOTFORUM, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is that we write according to what the sources say, and the article is constructed by paraphrasing and citing those sources. That's how we work. It is completely correct to use terms of art in a domain: indeed, it is necessary to do so. By summarizing each source, we show the range of points of view in the domain. We can't talk about physics without using terms like relativity and quantum mechanics, whether readers and famous physicists agree with those theories or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)