Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 3

message: These two sections seem to be mixed up. Details of the original publication are poor, and mixed up with later details. Also, a couple of undistinguished editions get disproportionate coverage. I suspect the original author of that section was referring to the books in front of him. Can the publication history be cleaned up, without stealing unduly from the "Note on the Text" in the 1994 edition? A complete publishing history would need an entire book in itself - we need to hit the high points. Special bindings and presentations only need a brief mention. ::Didactylos 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, and I suspect that you are referring to my edit of quite a while ago now (Sone back when I was a newbie). However, I think that a lot of this information is extremely relevant. Perhaps we create another article based on publication history? Ck lostsword|queta! 09:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication / Publication history 

message: Tolkien did not consider LOTR to be his magnum opus; he bestowed that honour upon The Silmarillion (as the J. R. R. Tolkien article states, "he regarded it as the most important of his works"). However, most people would probably consider LOTR to be his greatest work, and it is almost certainly the most popular. How do we stand here? I would follow the author: LOTR is a (fairly) simple story, whereas The Silmarillion is an entire legendarium. Adding . Hairy Dude 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, poor choice of words. I meant something like "mere", rather than "simple" in the sense of "not complex". I mean LOTR is purely a literary work, whereas The Silmarillion is a linguistic and "historical" work too. Hairy Dude 07:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, with a few minor alterations. Thank you :) Hairy Dude 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the Silmarillion is merely a compilation of Tolkien's notes substantially revised by other authors, it's hard to see this as his "great work", nor could he have easily "bestowed that honour" after his death.   Since  your sole source for this assertion is an unsourced statement in another Wikipedia article, and since the only Middle Earth work Tolkien himself devoted the time to publish was the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, I marked this statement as dubious in the article. —Steven G. Johnson 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few facts for consideration. First, Tolkien originally tried to get The Silmarillion published in 1937 - when it was rejected with a request for 'more about hobbits' he started work on his 'sequel to The Hobbit', in part hoping to generate more interest in Middle-earth to help get Silm published. Then, when he had finally completed LotR he actually refused to allow Allen and Unwin to publish it unless they also agreed to publish The Silmarillion. When they declined he sought other publishers (Milton Waldman) and only went back to A&U, hat in hand, when those negotiations dragged out. He then agreed to publish LotR alone, but again was hoping that it would generate interest for The Silmarillion... as indeed proved the case. Unfortunately, by this time his cosmological ideas had begun to change and he never resolved several issues central to completion of a revised Silmarillion. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For a start, the only 'other author' was Christopher Tolkien, JRR Tolkien's son who took over his fathers editorial work following his death - he was Tolkien's literary executor (Tolkien: Author of the Century - Tom shippey - p.227). This means that anything added to Tolkiens body of text was Christopher's to change - it was he who was able to edit the Silmarillion, and so the Silmarillion - though posthumous - is still one of Tolkien's texts. The vast majority of Tolkien biographies regard the Silmarillion (or at least the body of work that it contains) as his magnum opus, throughout the chapter 'The Silmarillion - Work of his Heart' of the work referenced above, references are made to Tolkien's views regarding the Silmarillion - '[The Silmarillion] was a work of his heart, which occupied him for far longer than ... LotR. The better known works are only offshoots ... of the immense ... legendarium which is the Silmarillion.' (Tolkien: Author of the Century - p.226).
This (and other references) represents written proof of the fact that the Silmarillion was Tolkien's greatest work. Although I can see the basic grounding for your 'dubious' comment, there is plenty of evidence to support the comment previously included. Ck lostsword 20:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - CJRT received help on editing Silm from Guy Gavriel Kay. That said, most of the text was taken verbatim from JRRT's drafts. The editors only sorted out what text to take from each draft and how to close various holes and synch up disparate versions... still a major effort and producing only one of many possible presentations of the material, but definitely it was primarily the work of JRRT. That is clear from comparison of the drafts presented in the HoME series against the finished product. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember, a key policy of Wikipedia is verifiability.  Unless we can directly quote Tolkien himself as saying that he didn't regard the LoTR as his greatest work, we shouldn't state this as an unambiguous fact in the article.   If prominent biographers consider this to be true, then we should quote them or at least attribute this opinion to them.   If we just want to say how much time he spent on each work, that is fine, but it is sufficient to simply state this fact (properly sourced) without inferring from it (ourselves) Tolkien's opinion of the relative worth of the works.  (The inference is not at all obvious.  Think about it.)  —Steven G. Johnson 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read up - I have already given quotes from 'prominent biographers.' If further prrof is needed, I'll get my book again ;). Unfortunately, my copy of History of Middle Earth at the moment only consists of Peoples of Middle Earth and the Book of Lost Tales, but I can check through these if it is necessary. There are, however, already some quotes mentioned. Ck lostsword 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, if we cannot definitively prove this statement, then let's change it! It's evident that WE the readers are of the opinion that The Silmarillion was Tolkien's "greatest work", but can we prove the statement made in our little wiki article? Unless we can do so, from a concrete source such as a foreword from one of J.R.R.'s books, or transcripts of an interview that he may have given (this would be great to quote as source material!), it should not be included in the article. EditCentric 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: True, so that refers to personal opinion, which should not be present in an encyclopedia. Perhaps there should be no magnum opus comment? Ck lostsword|queta! 20:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't ever recall seeing Tolkien use this term anywhere. I don't see how he could "bestow this honor" without ever calling any of his works by it. If he had, this would have been a very short discussion, as the citation could have been provided first thing. While I think it's clear that The Silmarillion was, as Shippey (I think) called it, "the work of his heart", "magnum opus" is almost certainly going too far. (After all, he never finished it.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would guess he wanted LOTR to be "in proportion" his "best" work in that it is the most complete and consistent story with the same kind of time span. But in any case, if the issue is as contentious as this I think the best way is just to leave it out, which I see has been done while I was away. Hairy Dude 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnum opus? 

message: Just made a number of improvements, including:
* "Delays in producing appendices and maps" - indexes were probably the most important factor in delaying RotK. Added.
* Merged the two paragraphs on translation and added some more comments.
* Merged the first two paragraphs on religious influences and turned the list of references to a proper bullet list.
* Rearranged the paragraph on allegory to flow better and especially to remove the repetition of "however", and also added that Tolkien stated explicitly that LOTR is not an allegory.
* "Ash nazg durbatulûk" etc. is not "phonetic" in any meaningful sense, it's just a transcription in the Latin script. Reworded.
* Turned references using [external link notation] into refs with footnotes.
* Just after Ralph Bakshi film image: removed "which was a precursor..." as redundant.
* "Although some have criticized..." reworded to make it sound less like WP agrees.
* Removed "that Director Peter Jackson chose for the adaptation of Tolkien's epic trilogy" as redundant.
* Added  to The Lord of the Rings on stage. The preview performances may have started but it is still written in the future tense. Also added  since no sources are given for this information.
* Changed the converted cost in Canadian dollars (which was in sterling) to US dollars. I think this is generally the "moneta franca" to use (ISTR even the British edition of the Guinness Book of Records uses US dollars to convert currencies that aren't in Sterling).
* Removed content-free clause "the subsequent productions ... greatest fantasy trilogies ever written" which is also full of bias. The resulting text is not very satisfactory and seems to give an overall negative impression, which isn't really intended.
* "a professional company, which still produces work today" - redundant and may become invalid. I mean no offence to the company, but as far as I know theatre companies go bust prematurely just as often as other startups. In any case this information is hardly encyclopaedic.
* "atomic weapons had not been deployed at the time the book was written" - to the inattentive (or stupid :) reader the article seems to contradict itself here as it states FotR was published in 1954-1955. Reworded.
* Miscellaneous copyediting, including removing peacock terms in many places.
Some odd things I noted, without changing:
* "The development of a specially bred Orc army ... [has] modern resonances." Is someone breeding Orcs then? and if so, can we verify this? :)
* 1956 BBC version: "It is a very faithful adaptation" is ambiguous as to whether "it" refers to The Hobbit or LOTR. I couldn't fix this as I haven't heard them so I don't know which is "very faithful".
* "It has made movie history as the largest Wednesday opening ever." "Largest" meaning what? That the film went on to gross more than any other film that opened on a Weds? This sounds like a reasonably interesting and encyclopaedic fact, if only we can substantiate it.
* Please provide sources for information about the Toronto stage adaptation.
Hairy Dude 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General copyedit 

message: * "The development of a specially bred Orc army ... [has] modern resonances." Is someone breeding Orcs then? and if so, can we verify this?" Hairy Dude
:I see what you mean, but this is meant in a figurative sense; my interpretation is that it represents the creation of a typefied culture following the ideas of one individual. It could refer to any of the mid-20th Century dictatorships (Nazi Germany; Communist Russia, etc.). However, if it is used in the figurative sense, it is not entirely encyclopedaic. Ck lostsword 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably more likely to be referring to cloning, and genetic engineering, and the pop-sci fear of there being armies of such bred warriors, --222.152.23.77 13:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The presence of these multiple ideas suggests that this reference is ambiguous and should be deleted. Ck lostsword 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is in direct contradiction to what Tolkien said of his own work. He was explicit more than once that it was not intended as a commentary on events current while he wrote it. The situation -- or orcs, at any rate -- was conceived prior to the rise of Naziism, and before Stalin came to power. (Seeing as how Stalin and Hitler were on opposite sides not long after their brief alliance, this would be inapposite anyway.) Tolkien's own part in WWI, and his experience in the Battle of the Somme, certainly informed part of his story, such as the Dead Marshes, but not in the way you suggest. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orc army

message: Does anyone know any details what happened in Middle-Earth (eg. What did King Elessar did in his reign?Anthony Orzel 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Appendix B in the back of The Return of the King for a chronology.  Also some hints can be gotten from the tale of Aragorn and Arwen in Appendix A.  Otherwise it was pretty much standard Golden age stuff. Tolkien began a sequel that took place in the reign of Elessar's son Eldarion, but it didn't really engage him and he dropped it after the first chapter. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of this first chapter can be found in the History of Middle-earth Volume XII (Peoples of Middle Earth). It is entitled 'The New Shadow'. Ck lostsword|queta! 13:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Lord of the Rings 

message: I feel this is appropriate to discuss, following contributor MartinMcCann's addition of an alternate link at the top of the page to a page for Sauron... Whom I guess most of us think of as the "lord" - but has anyone thought of the one ring itself as the lord of all rings?  And should we address this with another alternate link at the top?  I know it sounds like overdoing it, but I thought it at least merits some quick discussion.
Joshyoua 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, no, no one has to my knowledge. If there's notable LotR criticism that does make this identification then we should mention it, otherwise no. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Lots of things are logical. That doesn't make them part of the story. We cannot engage in original analysis here anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gandalf said that Sauron was the 'Lord of the Rings'... as did Tolkien himself. Could the title also be applied to the One... Frodo... Celebrimbor... Morgoth... Fatty Lumpkin... et cetera? Sure, there are possible ways of making other things fit, but since we know what Tolkien actually intended... why? --CBDunkerson 23:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we? It's all clear, then. Thanks for the info. -- Sandius 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I almost said this myself without actually looking it up, but then I thought I recalled that when Gandalf rebuked Pippin in Rivendell, it was because Pippin had called Frodo "the Lord of the Ring", singular. I suppose Tolkien called Sauron this explicitly in Letters somewhere? I can't remember exactly ATM. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're correct of course, and I wasn't really disagreeing with you. That one line had escaped my memory earlier. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar but distinguishable interpretation is that whomever controls the Ring of Power is the Lord of the Rings. It is unclear whether any other individual could master it, but the hope for mastery is implied by the temptation of Galadriel or Gandalf, both of whom clearly understand something of the nature of the Ring. Nevertheless, no one but Sauron could be so described within the story that is told. --Dystopos 23:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the Lord of the Rings? 

message: There's a lot of twaddle here (to put it bluntly) and I'm pretty sure that most of it constitutes original research since it presents itself as a straightforward analysis with no references. Even if it's sourced, it presents only a single POV where multiple lines of analysis ought to be mentioned from various sources if it is to be done at all. I'm inclined to cut it drastically. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The books" section 

message: If you've noticed, LOTR has symbolism that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't even know he put into his trilogy. It's like Narnia, cause things in Narnia represent stuff. Plus If you didn't know, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were actually friends and it was C.S. Lewis that converted J.R.R. Tolkien to a christian, so don't you think these things should be mentioned?
Actually, that is not the case.  It was Lewis who was converted by Tolkien.  Lewis began his life as a Puritan, and then became an Atheist.  It was only after long discussions with Tolkien (on the idea of Christianity as a "true myth") that Lewis began to seriously reconsider Christianity.  As far as symbolism goes, both Tolkien and Lewis strongly objected to the idea of their books being considered as direct allegories.  See especially the forward written by Tolkien in the LOTR.  For a further development of this topic, see the book “Tolkien, Man and Myth”  by Joseph Pearce.
--Kingjon 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: Is this really necessary? Isn't it largely redundant with Template:Lotr, at least as far as acutal characters and those likely to have articles written about them? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that! --Arided Sun Mar 26 2006
Removed. We'll see how long that lasts. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters (from the movies only)

message: This article has many Fair-use images, which all need clean-up and not a single one has a fair use rationale. You also have a section with a cleanup tag, yes. Fix these problems and renominate. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: The list looked as if it was getting unwieldy, so I had a go at organizing it. Along the way I cut out a couple of message boards and foreign-language sites. Sites I was not familiar with I categorized according to the descriptions given, so I may have miscategorized some. If so I apologize, and please don't hesitate to make corrections. "Informational" was something of a catch-all, and there may be a better way to put it. (Some of the links appeared to be used as sources for the article. It would be better to cite them inline instead.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This section was listed for cleanup and I have been attempting to do so. As is it is much better than it was before. However the last two paragraphs of the section are irksome. They do not really fit there yet there are somehwta informational and should probably stay in the article. So would anyone protest if I made a new section called derivatives? Or if not what do you all think of deleting it outright? SorryGuy 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Two Paragraphs of Publication History 

message: Our praise section of the article have also recently been reworked. It reads much nicer now. The quote gallery has always been unessasary and now that there is substantial content would anyone objection to a transwiki of the quotes from there? It would make the article look much nicer I think. SorryGuy 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise 

message: The current Synopsis is far too small. It has been a long time since I actually read the books and while I am using some references to try and make it longer an expert on the story would be nice. We need some more content in there. SorryGuy 03:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Synopsis 

message: There are a few too many indiscriminate general references for my liking.
The publication history is a bit bald, there should be a fuller description of the changes to the Second Edition and also the recent 2004 edition.
Thu 08:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review comments 

message: Can anyone provide a print reference for the Ace Books LotR publication controversy?  I'm editing the Ace Books article and would like a good print reference for this.  My usual SF bibliographic references have failed me on this one, though the Tuck Encyclopedia does mention the Ace edition and then calls the Ballantine edition the "first authorized pa. ed." (i.e. paperback edition).  I have found this url: Lord of the Rings: The Tale of a Text for an online reference but would like a printed reference if anyone knows of one.  And of course it could be added here too.  Thanks for any help.  Mike Christie 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best source for this is probably The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Tolkien wrote several letters on the subject and Carpenter also explains the matter in editorial comments. I believe it also gets mentioned in Carpenter's biography and Hammond & Anderson's Descriptive Bibliography. I can dig up precise references if you need them / don't have the texts. --CBDunkerson 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the letters, or Hammond & Anderson; I think I have the Carpenter somewhere, but I'm not sure.  If you could provide a reference from whichever is the best source (sounds like that would be the letters) I'd really appreciate it.  It would be terrific if you would either create a footnote reference to the discussion of the controversy on the LotR page, and then I could copy that; or if you want to simply create the footnote yourself directly on the Ace Books page that would be just as good.  Thanks!  Mike Christie 13:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference to the Ace Books page for the most relevant letters. --CBDunkerson 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I appreciate the help. Mike Christie 23:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ace Books publication controversy 

message: Are their no critics who like it ?
Seems like we have "Praise" - polls and sales; "Critcism" - quotes from reviewers.
-- Beardo 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics 

message: Should we maybe cut off some extra information from this page? I mean for example, do we need so much on the movies when there is another page for it? Maybe also trim off the game section and keep the book section more simple? Also maybe get a few more pictures in here and there. Right now, it seems more like a research essay. --Steven 00:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the stuff on games should be trimmed. An article about The Lord of the Rings should be mostly focused on the story, not commercial games based upon the story. LotR 01:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim the article to fit size standards 

message: They are asking in the FAC for standardization, when it which used? Can't check if it's right... 
Also, should we wikilink the Middle Earth dates in the year part? Judgesurreal777 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tolkien used 'hobbits' to speak of a group and 'Hobbits' to speak of the type. Thus, 'seven hobbits' but 'Hobbits had furry feet'. Ditto for 'elves', 'dwarves', 'men', et cetera. On the dates we should probably say something like, 'All dates are Third Age unless otherwise indicated' and then separately link any which arent. --CBDunkerson 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hobbit or hobbit?

message: I thought there was one live-action film inbetween the animated ones and the Jackson ones. Maybe it was just a TV Movie? (I'm not finding at all on IMDB so I may have gone mad! Maybe it was the hobbit :) ). RN 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You have lost your mind. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I may have lost my mind, but 

message: I've rewritten the introduction to give a better balance. If it is too long and others want to remove stuff, please reinsert it in the appropriate place later in the article. Thanks. Carcharoth 20:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the last paragraph of the intro can be cut with no loss. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it and reinserted the material lower down. I've also tweaked the intro to mention the Peter Jackson films and more recent events, hopefully rounding the intro off enough. If anything needs to be moved further down, I think it would be the third paragraph, which could alternatively be shortened and merged with the second one. Carcharoth 10:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction rewritten 

message: I removed the following from the "See also" section, as many are irrelevant and should be linked from the relevant articles, not from here:
* The Lord of the Rings Online
* The Cursed Ring - Links The Lord of the Rings to Plato's 'The Ring of Gyges' and Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen.
* DVD TV Games, reference to The Lord of the Rings DVD TV game developed by Hasbro and released in 2005.
* Elendor, an internet roleplaying community simulating the story of Lord of the Rings.
* Hex Combat, a Lord of the Rings themed collectible miniatures game
* Bestiary of Middle-earth
Carcharoth 11:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Can people hold off for about 15 minutes while I try and sort out an edit conflict? I'll revert to my last version and then try an incorporate all the edits from the IP address. Carcharoth 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I've repaired everything. Could people please check? Carcharoth 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive edit conflict messed up article 

message: Changing the capitalisation of Hobbit/hobbit needs care - see earlier discussion. In particular, this bit: "the man the Hobbits know as "Strider"" makes no sense. Here, "hobbits" refers to four hobbits, rather than the race of Hobbits. Similarly for the bits where Frodo and Bilbo are described as being hobbits. Small 'h', not capital 'H' - though those case are more borderline. Also, quotes from books should preserve the capitalisation used in the latest printing. Carcharoth 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware Hobbit/hobbit capitalisation 

message: Other changes I've made include:
*redoing the hatnote at the top and writing The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation)
*reinserting the "published 1937" information for The Hobbit and Tolkien's ages when writing the story (these had been removed from the introduction but not replaced further down the article).
*moving more stuff from the introduction to later in the article, and tightening up the introduction.
Please discuss here if any problems. Carcharoth 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to deposit the sentence here for future use (if I find time to work it in another way): 2004 and 2005 saw the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Lord of the Rings, and several celebratory and commemorative events were held around the world. - personally, I think this is relevant to an article about LotR (it was the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book) - though something more should be said about the whole response to LotR in the USA in the 1960s. That would be a similar sort of thing. I'll try and expand a bit on the relevance of LotR to Tolkien fandom. It was, after all, this book that started it all off. The Hobbit alone wouldn't have been enough. Carcharoth 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, it seems that the phrase "Frodo Lives!" is not in Wikipedia! That was a cultural phenomenon in itself! Carcharoth 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other changes 

message: This recently added section seems like it should be cut. Not all of them are really themes and they are all difficult to reference. In addition it is a list instead of prose. Also it adds length to an article which we are attempting to shorten. Is it agreed that it can be cut? SorryGuy 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In addition, some of these themes are controversial or complex, and should not be presented in the simplified form seen here. Instead, a series of articles on Tolkien literary criticism, scholarship and responses should summarise the views and give links to external sources. We shouldn't try and do more than that, though some of the Tolkien and Middle-earth articles do... Carcharoth 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. I will contact the IP which added the section and ask if he would mind creating a separate article for themes. I would not mind him putting a note in the See Also for it though. SorryGuy 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes

message: The writing and publication sections mention the appendices and maps only in passing. This should be expanded slightly to give more details (especially for the appendices), as is done for the bit about the index. The prologue is mentioned in the backstory part, but again, an extra sentence or two could be added. The Foreword is only mentioned in the "themes" section - there should be something in the publication history about how Tolkien rewrote the Foreword for the 1966 Second Edition - mentioning that this was where he made his famous comments about allegory and applicability. Finally, it should be mentioned that Tolkien did some illustrations for LotR (Doors of Durin, Book of Mazarbul) - some of which were published in the First Edition, some in later editions. Carcharoth 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreword, prologue, appendices, maps, index and illustrations 

message: There is a dubious statement about Saul Zaentz in the article, in the "musical" section: "London-based theatre producer Kevin Wallace and his partner, Saul Zaentz, representing the Tolkien Estate..." - I suspect the original editor meant to say Tolkien Enterprises, instead of the Tolkien Estate. Please can someone confirm or correct this. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, beware dodgy journalism when researching stuff like this. I found this article from The Observer only a few weeks ago, which has: "...he [Zaentz] bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings trilogy from the Tolkien estate...". This is, of course, completely wrong. The correct sequence of events is described at Tolkien Enterprises: "Tolkien sold these rights to United Artists in 1968, who in turn sold them to Zaentz in 1976.". So, a black mark for The Observer there! Carcharoth 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Saul Zaentz statement 

message: Some of the references are not to the primary sources. Many of them are to web articles that will have used sources like The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien or the biography by Humphrey Carpenter. I think we should, where possible, replace these website references with ones to Letters or Biography. Carcharoth 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that some of the sources I have chosen in the past are less than optimal. However finding good resources has been difficult with some of the statements in the article so I take what I can get. If you are able to find what the primary source is please feel free to change it. SorryGuy 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References could be improved 

message: I've deposited here a link to the removal of the "Themes" section, so that it can be more easily obtained and re-used elsewhere if needed. Please can people stop deleting potentially useful content without considering where else it could be put, or at least giving a link like this on the talk page: .
It needs a lot of tidying up, but could turn into something useful. Carcharoth 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have page histories Carcharoth and during FAC deletion of information is a way of life. As said above I contacted the creator of the section and we agreed that he should start a new article on it. Seeing as he has done so I have moved the section to a see also. Is there any problems with this? SorryGuy 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems at all. That looks great. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes section 

message: I initially created the "Sales, awards and polls" section header to separate out these things from the critical response section of opinions of critics and authors, as these are different things. The sales, awards and polls are facts that can be cited. The opinions of critics and other authors are nothing more than opinions, and they shouldn't be confused with listings of sales statistics, and awards and results of polls. Does anyone support or oppose the separation of these things into separate sections? Carcharoth 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales, awards and polls 

message: I changed the disambiguation hatnote as the previous version was becoming bloated and unbalanced. A comment at the Featured Article Candidates page pointed out that the hatnote refers to the book, while the article covers much more than just the book. I agree, though I think this is a problem more with the article than the hatnote. It is obvious that the article at the title The Lord of the Rings should be about the book, so there is nothing wrong with the hatnote. The problem then becomes one of balance in the article, and whether this article should say as much about the adaptations as it does. At the moment, it is more of a summary-style article covering both book and adaptations. There could easily be another summary-style article covering all the LotR adaptations on one page - say Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. That would summarise the material at the main articles. In fact Wikipedia:Summary style is probably required reading before making decisions about how to handle this. What do people think? Carcharoth 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation hatnote 

message: A brief explanation of a recent edit where I removed a "facts" tag: the general style on Wikipedia seems to be to not have references in the lead (or summary) section that would simply be repeated later. The lead section merely summarises the article in an engaging way. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Carcharoth 10:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Seeing as we were al speaking about it  on our talk pages anyway I agree with Carcharoth that we may as well bring discussion here. Highway has suggested numerous citations in the back story and summary sections of the article. This seemed a little strange to me so I went ahead and looked at other featured books, like The Giver and The Old Man and the Sea where I found that instead of citing each statement when speaking about the books they instead cite the books at the end of the whole article and allow it to apply for the whole article. I believe this style will work well for this article and began to do so. I would guess that we need added the Hobbit as well. Thoughts? SorryGuy 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have since added these. May I now remove the citations needed from the article? SorryGuy 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I would suggest citing The Silmarillion as well, as much of the back story is from there (well, from 'Akallabeth' and 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' actually, so you might want to reference those works instead). Then no specific citations will be needed. I would double-check though for people metioning stuff only mentioned in the Appendices to LotR or in the other parts of The Silmarillion. If that happens, maybe a separate citation is needed. Carcharoth 22:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *I did so. SorryGuy 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great (and I see you had already added Silmarillion, so my comment was superfluous - should have checked the article first!). So I guess the "citation needed" tags can be removed? I'll do that now. Carcharoth 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: A few comments on some recent changes:
*I like the new ME map that is now being used.
*Someone added "one of the most widely read books in human history" to the intro. This does seem a bit over the top, but if someone can find a source for this, it can stay, otherwise it should go.
*I created a navbox to allow easy navigation between this article and the three articles about the three volumes. I added the navbox to the top right of the article The navbox got moved to a different location (the "Writing" section). See this navbox in operation at The Fellowship of the Ring.  My feeling about navboxes is that they should go at top right so that they appear in the same place on all the articles they are linking between. The current LotR template at the bottom of the article is rather bloated. I am working towards a slimmer version that can go down the right-hand side, similar to what has been done at History of Arda, and at The History of Middle-earth and at The Silmarillion. The problem here is that these navboxes tend to push pictures downwards or to the left. Putting the navbox anywhere else destroys its functionality (it kind of acts like a navigation frame, so it needs to appear in the same place in all locations). So my feeling is either no navbox, move the picture, or incorporate the picture into the navbox. That last one might be the best solution.
What do people think? Carcharoth 09:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'one of the most widely read' bit is probably accurate, but certainly not verifiable. I generally like big navboxes at the bottom as sort of a formatted 'See also' section, but the smaller three-link one for the books works in the upper right... except for the pictures. Incorporating pictures into the navbox could be odd if the picture doesn't seem particularly related to the info in the box. I might suggest just putting the picture and the navbox in a simple table, centered on different rows. Keeps them neatly organized in the upper right section. --CBD 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agreed with CBD. His solution seems fine. The intro comment should be removed as far as I am concerned. SorryGuy 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: What's the point? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other languages 

message: I'm unsure as to why we have this piece. It feels rather pointless. Shall we remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) .
:I don't understand... remove what? Bryan 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles removal 

message: Maybe the "In other languages" section should be restored, with proper formatting. Look at the The Hobbit article. Uthanc 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you say anything earlier? I reiterate my contention from above that this is not a useful addition to the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: As Carcharoth wrote above in Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Disambiguation_hatnote, this article covers a lot more than just the book, so moving more info into other articles might be a good idea. I made some trial The Lord of the Rings and Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings pages. However, the book article sort of looks wrong, with such a huge chunk gone... but other topics have similar pages. Uthanc 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. Uthanc 23:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: In the main article, under "critical response", it is suggested that some of the criticisms levelled againt LOTR are in response to Tolkien's perceived ideology rather than the artistic merit of he work. I quote, "It should be noted that most such objections are levelled against the ideology behind the Lord of the Rings, not against the work's artistic merit."  I am unsure as to the extent that these can be separated. Art is ideological, intentional or otherwise and it always expresses to the reader/viewer some worldview or se of values. I would suggest that this remark about such negative reviews of LOTR should just be omitted, allowing the idelogy-based criticism to stand by itself, without qualification.
I agree that they are fairly inseparable, but it is generally not a critic's job to rate something poorly just because they do not personally agree with the ideology behind it.  --Tarranon 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and ideology 

message: No mention of beowulf? Beowulf was a huge influence to the Lord of the Rings. I think it should be added to the article. Neokyotodragon 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, there is no mention of influences in this article. This particular statement could be construed as Original Research unless you provide appropriate sources for it. In the mean time, I think we'll leave it out. Ck lostsword|queta! 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beowulf? 

message: In the movie [Clerks 2], Randal equates the Lord of The Rings movies as being 3 movies about walking.
The first movie is demonstrated by Randal taking an exaggerated step while blank-faced. The second by tripping and looking back and down mid-walk. The third consisting of the same walk culminating in a gesture to remove the ring from the finger and toss it downward. I found this analogy to be quite apt , witty, reflective of my attitudes on Lord of The Rings (or at least the movie). I leave this here for others to decide on it's merit for inclusion in this article (mainly as I am unsure where in the article this would best be placed). AnarchyElmo 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the book. Why don't you try The Lord of the Rings film trilogy? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three movies about walking (Clerks 2) 

message: I know that they did not all need to be deleted, but, until we can establish what links need to be here, i deleted them.  There were what, 20 of them?  Scholarship links are not appropriate for the main article. - KaoBear(talk) 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links Deleted

message: As there was no 'Characters' item in the Contents, I moved Books below the line referencing the character page and added a sectional header so that the Character link can be more easily found.
Pejorative.majeure 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor change

message: The three volumes definitely aren't novels in their own right; but should we use "novel" for the whole book or just "book" and/or "story"? (Definitely not "trilogy".) As said above and in the article, it's called a novel very often though Tolkien objected to the term, preferring "heroic romance" (the distinction between heroic and "romantic romance" has already been explained in the article). TIME and Wikipedia itself uses novel, while the Middle-earth WikiProject instructs that we use "the words "story" (for the story as a whole), "book", "books" (both for LotR, its volumes and the 6 books — but make clear which you are referring to), "volume", "volumes" (for the three volumes of LotR)." (Me:S#Terminology) Uthanc 03:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book terminology