Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 4

message: after reading the section on the reception of lotr, i feel that you are all digging just a bit. i mean sexism racism blah blah blah blah. this is a literary masterpiece. very few have had the command over the english language that tolkien possessed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.20.87 (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism

message: Could someone please post the date that the copyright will expire?
Under current US, UK and Berne Convention law, copyright extends until the end of the calendar year 70 years after the death of the author, so the Lord of the Rings will enter the public domain on 1/1/2044 (barring future changes in the law).Solicitr 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yo copyright 

message: "The hobbits also learned that Sauron's forces can only be resisted if Aragorn took up his inheritance and fulfilled an ancient prophecy by wielding the sword Andúril, which had been forged anew from the shards of Narsil, the sword that cut the Ring from Sauron's finger in the Second Age."
Before I edit this part of the synopsis, I would first like to understand others' perception. To me it seems more influenced by the movie triology's interpolation of Aragorn than by that of the book (i.e. 'Sauron's forces can ONLY be resisted' evokes more the Aragorn-centric angst of the movie, than the stoic persistence of the book). In the book, the reforging of Narsil is not so much Aragorn taking up his inheritance as the next step in the realisation of his destiny. Therefore, as the book is the subject of this article it might be more appropriate to speak of the dream that prompted Boromir to travel to Rivendell, which Aragorn viewed as a summons to Minas Tirith. 
Is this others' perception?  BDB79 08:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, slice and dice it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Synopsis 

message: 194.60.106.5 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he says exactly the opposite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Middle-earth is specifically this world- just a modernization of Old English Middangeard, Middle English Middel-erd, Middel-erthe (cognate with Norse Midgard): the world of men.Solicitr 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The real earth

message: The characters section needs a lead-in for the main article and so far it's got three citation needed tags, and I'm seeing a few sentences that look like they're uncited as well. Is the article really going down hill this fast from when it was promoted? The Filmaker 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed three. I have refs for the other three, but will have to do tomorrow. Sorry. Didn't realise this article was going to be on the Main Page today! Carcharoth 02:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was actually really surprised to see it too. I haven't had the time to be around to look at this either but I will do my best to do so. SorryGuy 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This article averages a couple dozen edits per day. Significant changes since it was featured four months ago are thus not surprising. This diff shows changes from when the featured article star was added to the current version as of this posting... obviously they have been extensive. For the most part it is still a clean article, but with people adding / moving / rewriting that much stuff all the time it just isn't realistic to expect there to be no flaws on any given day. --CBD 10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?

message: Why does a featured article have a paragraph (on absolute power) that looks like original research and is spewed with  tags.  Can't this be nuked at least for today? Thatcher131 04:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism. —Cuiviénen 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA with original research 

message: When I moved to revert a small piece of vandalism on this article, I saw a message concerning the length of the article.  To address this problem, I think the Back Story section is the prime candidate for massive cuts.  Whilst a bit of background to Sauron is necessary for a story synopsis of LOTR, what is not needed in this article is a full story synopsis of events outside the LOTR books themselves.  That is, story synopses of the First and Second Ages should be kept in separate articles about Tolkien's legendarium. Darcyj 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, this is all covered elsewhere. this article should focus on the books and their publication/reception, not regurgitate the entire legendarium :) dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. Though parts of the summary are quite nice. Maybe it should be moved to Tolkien's legendarium? That does need to be written at some point. Carcharoth 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a newcomer I also agree. I made a few stylstic tweaks but the whole section seems a bit overdone.Charles T. Betz 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back Story 

message: I'm a bit loath to cut them out without soliciting opinion first, but since the LotR/D&D relationship is established earlier in this section, surely we don't need to include all the video games based on D&D in the list? Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights are D&D role-playing games, so they're "influenced by LotR" by third-generation associations at this point. --MattShepherd 14:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the entire video game section would be better off removed, even more so because the listed games have really no or barely anything to do with Tolkien's work. Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter nights are Forgotten Realm games, so thier relationship to LoTR is as you said rather faint. Betrayal at Krondor is based on Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar series, The Elderscrolls, the Ultima games and EverQuest really doesn't have any likeliness to LoTR aside from all being fantasy stories..and as far as I know, the only relationship LoTR and Warcraft has is names of races and a few units that parody LoTR characters. To be blunt, I think whoever wrote the game references were talking out of thier hat. Atzel 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tolkien pretty much invented Orcs and Halflings, which were much imitated... Uthanc 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. While halflings and hobbits does have a lot in common, "orcs" have become a sort of general brutish fantasy monster. The Elderscroll's orcs, the orcs in Warcraft and the orcs in DnD has very little in common with each other, aside from being big and green... and even less in common with the LoTR orcs, since they were neither big or green. The stereotypical orc or ork as we see it today (being big and green) is likely due to thier representation in Warhammer Fantasy by GWS. Only the name is really carried over from LoTR because it sounds brutish.. and even that was not an "invention" by Tolkien, it's just an old celtic word that roughly means 'monster'. Atzel 11:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tokien's orcs varied in color and size, but yes, none of them were said to be green (never mind the films). He got "Orc" from Old English. But basically all fantasy orcs are just humanoid warriors, regardless of religion, color, size, etc., so his orcs are the prototypes of the race in fantasy. "Inspired many" is the better phrase. Uthanc 03:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor q. re. "Influences on the Fantasy Genre" 

message: We need more vandal fighters watching this article. I've been trying to keep up with it but my connection is slow, and often more vandalism happens when I'm fixing other vandalism. --Fang Aili talk 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't this page protected from anonymous edits? Grimhelm 15:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Usually the featured article of the day is not protected in order to encourage (positive) anon editors. --Fang Aili talk 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire Synopsis has been removed. I can't sort this out right now. Please someone fix this. --Fang Aili talk 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more vandal fighters 

message: I noticed the first category at the bottom of this article is "Articles with unsourced statements". Considering this is a featured article, it may be wise to give references for any unsourced statements that have been overlooked. Grimhelm 15:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the "citation needed" tags have been added today. Those will be dealt with once the article is off the front page and not featured (currently reverting vandalism takes up the time of most people watching the page). I'd favour a method of moving the citation tags to the talk page while the article is featured, and then dealing with them later. Carcharoth 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that explains it. Grimhelm 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Statements? 

message: This is a list of unsourced statements tagged with "citation needed" tags. These have been temporarily removed while the article is featured on the main page (though the judgment of this editor is that the statements are essentially correct and not misleading, so do not need removing completely. References will be added in a day or two. Carcharoth 15:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't Tolkien reject Arthurian legends as a possible British "mythology", since they were too Christianized? Uthanc 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements list 

message: On 5th October 2006, this article was featured at Main Page as the featured article for that day. During the course of the day, the article received a high level of exposure, with 453 edits. Mostly vandalism that was soon reverted, but the difference between the beginning and the end of the day (between non-vandalised versions) can be seen here. It's a bit confusing, as the diff algorithm doesn't get it quite right, but it gives you and idea of what changed. Carcharoth 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 453 edits on the day it's featured - I do believe that's a new record. Raul654 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Confirmed - the previous record holder - cheese - got 410 edits the day it was featured. Raul654 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thanks. I wonder if anyone has ever analysed the ratio of vandalism to useful edits? (Vandalism plus reverts would in general double the amount of edits). I know some articles improve a lot after being on the front page. I don't think this article improved that much, but then the changes over one day tend to be minor tweaks. Maybe this says something about either the demographics of Wikipedia's readership, the popularity of LotR, or the effect of those movies? Carcharoth 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High exposure as Today's featured article 

message: I note that several times correct English spellings have been changed to American, at least once with the blunt summary "rv poor spelling".  Since this is about a book originally published in the UK, by an English author, is it Wikipedia custom to use English or American spellings of words such as dramatisation/dramatization?  Cactus Wren 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: English spelling throughout. Please change any examples you find. Carcharoth 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  Thank you. Cactus Wren 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my edit.  My apologies, I did not know you wanted Wikipedia to be so Eurocentric. L0b0t 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we are right in using English spellings for this - it is an English book etc. It is hardly fair to call it 'eurocentrism' in this case: might it not be 'Americocentric' (no idea what the correct term is) to change to American English spellings? Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 14:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, nope. The Silmarillion was a combination of various stories published posthumously. The Hobbit was written before LotR. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the OP above is confusing The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings and The Lord of the Rings with The Silmarillion. It is more correct to say "LotR was actually written after The Silmarillion, and only published first". The sequence goes: (1) Between 1919 and 1937, Tolkien writes lots of stuff that was partially published in 1977 as The Silmarillion (though lots of it remained unpublished until the History of Middle-earth series). (2) In 1937, The Hobbit is published, though the story had been developed over several years previously. (3) Between 1937 and 1949, Tolkien wrote LotR. LotR was published from 1954-55. (4) At times between 1949 and 1972, Tolkien worked some more on the 'Silmarillion' material, but didn't complete this work before he died. (5) Christopher Tolkien (as his father's literary executor) then published lots of this finished and unfinished material, in: The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth. Carcharoth 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The first paragraph in The Lord of the Rings#Publication has a list of three dates for each of the books. At least to me wikimedia is parsing the dates strangely. The wikicode is:
:on 21 July 1954, 11 November 1954 and 20 October 1955 respectively
and is printing as
:on July 21, November 11, 1954, 1954 and October 20, 1955 respectively 
Anyone else seeing that? I fiddled with it a little bit and couldn't fix it. Any ideas how to fix?
—Wrathchild (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comma is messing things up. Does the 'and' I put in there fix things? I'd raise this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) as well, so see if they can fix it there. Carcharoth 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd date parsing 

message: I came across this sentence in the "critical response" section:
:Even within Tolkien's social group, The Inklings, reviews were mixed. Hugo Dyson was famously recorded as saying, during one of Tolkien's readings to the group, "Oh no! Not another fucking elf!"[31]
I think the point of the sentence is important to the article, so its meaning should be kept; but, although I'm cetainly no fan myself of censorship (in any form), what is Wikipedia's policy on expletives? --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored.  Regardless, this is a quote and should not be altered in any way from the original.  Cheers.  L0b0t 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pertinent guideline, part of the Manual of Style, is here: Wikipedia:Profanity. I would expect that consensus is that Dyson's complaint is central to making a point about the reception of this work among Tolkein's peers. --Dystopos 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expletives 

message: Quite embarrassing for an encyclopedia to sport "spoiler" warnings. It should be quite obvious that an article like this will "give away" plot details. Morningmusic 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a site primarily for US-citizens, but come on. "Spoiler" warnings belong at one extreme end of pop-/fan-culture... totally ridiculous. And the policy isn't even consistently applied, take this article for example of a pretty famous book with narrative content. No spoiler warnings there. Morningmusic 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But can you tell me that every single English speaking person knows the plots and details? I would say Star Wars is on the extreme end of pop-culture too, but even though I've seen a lot and heard a lot, I've never actually seen Star Wars episodes 2, 3, 5, and 6, just to list an example why spoiler tags should be there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the "spoiler" warning 

message: I've removed this statement.
:Tolkien's largest influences in the creation of his world were his Catholic faith and the Bible. 
To say that Tolkien's largest influences, as opposed to just influences (as described in the opening line of The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Influences), were Catholic is an extremely strong statement which isn't supported by a Tolkien quote. The ref given is for the Decent Films Guide, "a site of film appreciation, information, and criticism informed by Christian faith." So it's neither objective generally, nor authoritative in respect of Tolkien. 
Obviously if someone finds Tolkien saying that his faith was his number one influence, the assertion can go back in - but in that case it will use a Tolkien quote not this website anyway. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall Tolkien being very religious in his letters, but I have only skimmed a few. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read them all. There are religious quotes there, including some correspondence with practicing Catholics and other Christians on matters of his books and his faith. Carcharoth 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Gah! I forgot. Again! This weekend, I promise... Carcharoth 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are quite some ‘authorized’ biographies on Tolkien and books about LotR, but none of them claim ‘the largest influences in the creation of his world were his Catholic faith and the Bible’. Such a claim is simply preposterous. People as Shippey clearly point out that almost everything about the world of Middle-Earth is in some way or another derived from Norse, Germanic, Finnish and other mythologies (even the name of Tolkiens world Middle-Earth is derived from Midgard, Middangeard, etc.), from mere words and English (place) names, from great tales of old, etc. In this all Tolkiens interest in philology plays a leading role. Tolkiens Christian beliefs however strongly influenced him regarding the underlying motives or themes in the story. But that is of course something else than the creation of the world itself. Averroes 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-authoritative quote

message: Would we refer to LOTR as a novel or as a trilogy? Would it be considered one book or three (or six)? Valley2city 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current lead deals with it perfectly. Thanks/wangi 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel or Trilogy 

message: The article The Ring Goes South redirects here, but the article does not explain why and does not use that phrase.  I thought that this was Tolkien's own title for book two (of six) and was hoping for confirmation.  If the title redirects here, the article should explain it.  -- Dominus 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would better redirect to The Fellowship of the Ring, so I've changed it to there. (It confirms that your thought was correct.) I believe the redirect target dated from a time before the article was split and the 3 volumes treated separately. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've fixed the others correspondingly.  The Treason of Isengard was something of a special case, as it is ambiguous.  The War of the Ring was similarly ambiguous, but someone had already made a disambiguation page for it.  -- Dominus 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ring Goes South 

message: "Other critics, such as Brenda Partridge, have claimed that the books incorporate excessive phallic symbolism, which they believe creates a misogynistic tone. These critics point to the emphasis on swords, towers, staffs, and similarly-shaped objects."
Oh please. I know this isn't a forum, but this just seems silly. It's fantasy, and much of the genre contains swords, towers, and other such objects. If you're going to criticize The Lord of the Rings for it, why not other fantasy works like the Harry Potter series? Does the use of wands by its female characters  represent penis envy? How about Arthurian legends? If one wants to look for sexual symbolism there, Arthur pulls a sword out of something (pretty obvious), and breaks it (erectile dysfunction), but his power is restored when he gets a new one (Viagra?). And aren't the naming and reverence for swords borrowed from Germanic culture?
The stuff is cited, but should it stay? Of course, one shouldn't leave out what some people think if it's true that they think that way and if it's notable, but is it? I'm making the text invisible for now, until we get this settled. Uthanc 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are lunatics out there obsessed with phallic symbols does not mean that their extreme minority POV need inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Although the claim is certainly sensational, it is also preposterous and slanderous, and thus does not belong in this article. And I agree that were it to be included, then similar statements should be included for King Arthur, Harry Potter, Star Wars, the Washington Monument, the Taipei Tower, the Titanic, and anything else that's longer than it is wide. Kudos for spotting and excising it. LotR 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phallic symbolism 

message: Another possible source may be Shakespeare's Macbeth. Within the tragedy set in medieval Scotland lie many symbols also found in Tolkien's (an English professor) epic. Among them 'the cracks of doom', the moving forests, the rebellious dead rising, a 10,000 strong army signalling doom, a speech by Lady MacDuff that is echoed in the words of Eowyn (that though a woman may not commit harm by the sword, she may yet have harm done upon her) and MacBeth's cursing of the sun similarly to Gollum's. The continuing theme of the temptation for power (represented in both the golden ring and the golden crown) even in the hearts of the true and noble men, is especially found in a speech given by Prince Malcolm. The inheritance of the throne is the driving force behind both plots, as is the consulting of dark forces to foretell the future of the land - the three witches for MacBeth and Galadriel's Mirror for Middle Earth.
:Well, at least the "crack of doom" and the moving forest are right. No mention of the Witch-king's man/Man and Macbeth's Caesarean section prophecies. (Added these three in the article.) Interesting, though. Uthanc 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least the moving trees connection is worth noting. Tolkien explicitly mentioned in one of his letters that he always thought Shakespeare cheated there, which inspired him to do it in a way he felt was more fitting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macbeth original research 

message: In my view, the lead and plot sections are far too long. The lead definitely needs more focus on the book rather than Tolkien's whole mythology, and the Plot seemingly dwadles. Anyone got any agreements before I start some clean-up? Wiki-newbie 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the synopsis with an older version (the current one was too detailed with FotR). Sorry if that was too drastic. Either way, notice that all the main Rohirrim, Faramir and Denethor aren't in it - the backstory is more detailed than the treatment of TTT or RotK(!) I'm working on a more detailed yet still (relatively) concise synopsis in my personal sandbox, though this might not be the best route- after all, there are the volume articles. 
Are there sections which deserve their own articles, like the "adaptations" and "pop culture" sections? Maybe the "influences" one, but we'd have to cite everything new. Uthanc 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is getting long 

message: Alex Lamb 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pictures 

message: Is there a LotR Wikipedia? If so post it on my talk page and here because I will not have this page on my watchlist. Eiyuu Kou 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LotR Wiki? 

message: Removed "A good deal of the book Eragon, by Christopher Paolini, was also heavily inspired by The Lord of the Rings." not because I think it's false, but because it would look better if we mentioned more authors who acknowledge LOTR as an influence (properly cited). Or perhaps this sort of thing would better on Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien? (I looked and Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien already mentions this book/author.) Uthanc 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eragon/Paolini, et al. 

message: Large sections of this article are written in an in-universe perspective, contradicting the Wikipedia manual of style (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29). Am I wrong? If not, is there a reason for this? Hobson 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Archive 03#In universe style. LOTR is a fictional history, and Tolkien deliberately wrote it that way; "Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well" (Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles). It's also the WikiProject policy. Uthanc 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for pointing me to the previous debate. A few points: There is more to being written in an "in universe" style than the use of the past tense, although that is probably the main factor. I don't agree with the arguments used in the previous debate that (if I understood them correctly) a "Wikipedia Middle Earth" article need not follow Wikipedia style. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and perhaps it is standard practice for projects to adopt their own style, but I wasn't aware of it. I understand that it is also argued this article *does* follow Wikipedia style as it uses the past tense for "fictional history", but the guideline stating fictional history should be in the past tense makes no sense to me. I will of course ask for clarification on the correct talk page. I won't pursue this - clearly there is a consensus among editors of this page already! But I wanted to express my own thoughts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobson (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe perspective 

message: If anyone wants to add more on the publishing history, a few snippets could be used and cited from this article. Just some of the facts and figures would be good. Carcharoth 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing history paper 

message: What's this about a fourth book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.134.143 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind the fourth, where did you hear about the second and third? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fourth book 

message: I just removed an addition of a succession box for the Big Read poll. This poll really deserves only a brief mention in the article. A succession box gives it too much prominence, and readers should be directed to the article Big Read if they want information like this. Carcharoth 10:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box for "The Big Read" 

message: The story summary of this article is good, but the biggest flaw is that it doesn't distinguish well between elves and men.
By the way this is also one of my biggest problems with the movie trilogy, it gives the idea that elves are basically superior humans.
Zantaggerung 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not enough destinction

message: "The action in The Lord of the Rings is set in what the author conceived to be the lands of the real Earth, inhabited by humanity but placed in a fictional past, before our science but after the fall of his version of Atlantis, which he calls Númenor." -- I think that this can be phrased better, and I have boldly made the change. "Our science" is generally considered to have begun circa 1580-1700 with such figures as Galileo, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. -- Writtenonsand 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change, Writtenonsand. I agree, science really has nothing to do with it. It's a mythological prehistory, so what you've written I think neatly sums that up. Genedecanter 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTR: Before "our science"? 

message: The first two paragraphs of the synopsis feel like they should be elsewhere in the article, most likely in the Publication and Publication History sections. Perhaps parts of the first paragraph could remain, for clarification of the division of the story into its sections, but the second paragraph has no bearing on the synopsis being told. Anyone got thoughts about this? Genedecanter 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to Synopsis section is in the wrong place 

message: Why is the synopsis written in past tense, as opposed to present tense as indicated in WP:WAF#Presentation of fictional material? — Swpb talk contribs 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I see there's more than enough discussion of the topic above. — Swpb talk contribs 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: I don't understand the difference between these two sections, and if no one objects I would like to conflate them into one, probably called Publication history. Genedecanter 07:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication and Publication history should be conflated 

message: I've reworded the sentence from the opening paragraph of the intro, the one concerning Tolkien being annoyed at the book being published in three volumes. There was a reference to this URL: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0866058/bio, which contained this text: Was extremely annoyed when 'The Lord of the Rings' was published in the mid-50s as three different stories, because he had never intended the tale to become a trilogy. First of all, I don't think we should be referencing user-written 'biographies' from imdb.com, hardly an authoritative source. Secondly, I believe that the information here is fundamentally misleading, and Tolkien well understood the situation of the postwar paper shortage and other related difficulties, which made publishing a volume the size of LOTR a troublesome proposition, and he accepted the three volume idea as an imperfect but workable compromise. Genedecanter 14:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some of the work done to bring this to FA was done by scouring websites for quotes and opinions. Many of these can be traced back to more reliable sources, such as The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien and J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography. If this needs doing urgently, drop me a note. Carcharoth 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References of questionable worth