Talk:The Hobbit/Archive 1

message: I've just overhauled the structure of the page a little, hopefully placed the 'inconsistencies' in the historical context of Tolkiens writing the LOTR, removed some non-NOP, flagged up the original research and downplayed the movie adaptation saga, as most of it is recounting rumour, if someone would like to create a Hobbit(movie) page...  --Davémon 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: Legendarium?  This word doesn't make the Oxford English Dictionary.  Any chance someone who knows what it supposedly means can replace it with a word that actually exists...
: I've seen it applied numerous times as a synonymous name for the array of Tolkien's mythology (just look it up in Google to make sure!), and there was no problem with that, both for me and the author. However if you don't like the word, feel free to replace it by whatever you want (e.g. mythology is close). --Uriyan
I love the word "legendarium," but it is not in common usage. Plus Mythology lets us link to that page. -- Cayzle
:Legendarium was used by Tolkien himself. And legendarium can be made into a redirect to mythology. Ausir 14:51, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendarium?

message: Does the "Preview of Sequel" section really belong? The format of the article led me to believe that allusions to the beginning of The Lord of the Rings were featured at the end of the book, but upon reaching it I found no such references. This is misleading; we needn't a whole paragraph "previewing" LotR if no such preview is in The Hobbit itself. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can go.  Elsewhere the article makes it clear that The Hobbit comes before The Lord of the Rings.  If the reader is interested in learning more about LOTR they can read its article(s). --Mrwojo 00:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Preview of Sequel

message: Wouldn't it be worth mentioning how much Tolkien was influenced by Beowulf when writing the Hobbit? Perhaps even the parallels could be drawn out. If you guys want me to, I can do it...
Matthias
The only parallel to Beowulf I can think of is the Dragon, Smaug. And that may just be a coincidence. Dragons are a recurring theme in fantasy tales. Do you have any other examples? Ereinion30px|
A party of 13 sets out for satisfaction or revenge. In both parties there is a thief, who steals a cup from a dragon by using a secret passage. So far about the story.
Singing is very important in the hobbit, poems presented by scoppes were important for Anglo Saxons and two are found in Beowulf. The dwarfish culture also has elements of Anglo Saxon culture, e.g. where Anglo Saxon names are often alliterated if they people are from the same family, the names of the dwarfes rhyme. Loyalty to their leader and kin is also very important to the dwarfes and they have bloodfeuds with the goblins(orcs) of moria.
Also both Bilbo and Beowulf are pretty typical tragic heroes, e.g. supernatural ability (ring/strentgh), supernatural help(Gandalf/God,fate), reluctant to accept task(obvious wth Bilbo/Beowulf consults wise men berfore leaving to kill Grendel) and both are separated(Bilbo in the mountain/Beowulf when he faces Grendels mother), as well as both have honor and follow the heroic code(Bilbo gives smaragds to elves king/obvious with Beowulf).
I know that some points are very common in fantasy, but since Tolkien studied Beowulf, I think it had a big influence on him and on The Hobbit and this is worth mentioning as an own point. Sorry for my bad english by the way.
Matthias
Interesting...perhaps there is a greater correlation between the two. You've made several interesting points and have given good examples -- many of which seem more than just genre-related coincidence. I think you have something, and until someone reasonably disputes it, I say go ahead and add it to the main article. Ereinion30px| 23:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm working at a paper for school for this and at the same time trying to recover my account, so I'll guess you'll see something this weekend.
Matthias
I'd be interested in reading anything else you could find. Ereinion30px|
Try google, here something I found:
http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/second/hobbeow.htm
http://www.unm.edu/~medinst/resources/weblinks/tolkienweb.htm
Some are rather profound though and I don't know if they have a place in the article except in further reading.
Matthias
See "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics". Tolkien published an essay on Beowulf in 1936 - a year before the Hobbit. The copy I'm reading is included in "Beowulf: A Verse Translation" . Validation, anyone?
I made a few edits, might come back and do more when I have more time. I cut out a few things from the "Similarities to Beowulf" heading, here's why:
"While Beowulf has the help of God, Bilbo often prevails because of his sheer luck which may or may not be due to some kind of divine providence."
Redundant. Also the Christian references in Beowulf are edits by the monk(s) that made the surviving copy, which Tolkien knew and probably wouldn't have incorporated.
"Both get separated from their group, Bilbo in the mountains, Beowulf when he is captured by Grendel's mother."
Beowulf's encounter with Grendel's dam predates his encounter with the dragon by 50 years. I can't think of any parallels from Beowulf from the first two monsters, if anyone can this might bear editing & reinserting.
Edited reference to Beowulf as an "epic poem" to just "poem". Its status as an epic is highly questionable, and Tolkien himself considered it not to be one. Any "is or is not it an epic" coverage can go in a different section, here I'll stick to Tolkien's writings.
71.32.91.112 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences through Beowulf

message: I'd like to merge the articles on the 12 minor dwarf companions to create a collected Dwarves of The Hobbit (or similar) article.  Each is a minor character that will never have more than a few sentences or paragraphs written about them.  I think that by collecting them in one place it would make it easier to learn more about the minor dwarves.   Any objections? --Mrwojo 21:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I think it would be misleading to put the Dwarves together like that, since much of the (relatively important) information known about them comes from sources other than The Hobbit.  For example, that Glóin is the father of Gimli and is present at the Council of Elrond. --Mrwojo 16:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge minor dwarves? 

message: *If a clock is an anachronism then it appears in LotR as well, at least by implication.  The characters, Hobbits in particular, always describe the time of day by hours of the clock.  I think the Antikythera mechanism demonstrates that sophisticated clockworks are well within the reach of premodern technology and that clocks are therefore not necessarily anachronistic anyway.
*The Sackville-Bagginses appear in LotR as well.
*Giants do not explicitly appear in LotR or Sil, true, but in LotR the geographical name Ettinmoors north of Rivendell preserves a reference to them.  That they are not developed further and do not appear to fit well into the rest of the legendarium does not tell against their existence (quite apart from the intentions of the author, whose opinion on the matter I can't recall ATM) since at least the latter could also be said against Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. I believe Steuard Jenson has made a case for giants as a species of nature spirit in LotR.
*Although Goblins are not called Orcs, I think it was pretty clear that they were  a race of man-eating humanoid warriors.  I didn't read them as mere bogeymen at all.  They may be toned down a bit for a younger audience, but I could see no real difference.
*"Tobacco" perhaps ought to be here, but isn't.  Although some German pathologists have detected traces of tobacco (and cocaine!) in Egyptian mummies, thereby suggesting early Old World/New World ties, this postdated the writing of TH by decades and was not information available to Tolkien.  He was careful to avoid the word in LotR while also postulating in the Prologue that "pipeweed" was a species of nicotiana that later became extinct in the Old World. (Which in the case of the mummies may be the true explanation.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all very interesting and all, but I'm not certain what it has to do with anything. Are you attempting to contrast a chronology and establish a timeline, or are you just sharing some very good research? Ereinion 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm commenting on the bulleted list in the "Alternative versions" section of the article. Sorry if that was unclear. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no problem. I just didn't know the frame of context. Ereinion 17:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences in tone: TH and LotR 

message: I can't help but feel that many of these comparisons are misapplied.  There's more a general similarity with other legends of northwest Europe than Beowulf as such. A direct comparison between Bilbo and Beowulf himself is extremely strained, as Bilbo is very much not an heroic character.  Much of the humor in the book comes from the contrast between Bilbo's bourgeoise mannerisms and the heroic behavior of the other characters.  Besides, there is a direct parallel to Beowulf in TH: Beorn.  Their names even mean the same thing.  For the moment I confine myself to correcting some of the more glaring errors in this section, but I really question whether it's useful at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think disscecting the useful information and assimilating it back into the rest of the article may be the best thing to do and just get rid of the category altogether. Ereinion 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beowulf 

message: This is a messy section. I've removed 2 references to Led Zepplin songs that were influenced by the Lord of the Rings - not The Hobbit, they rightfully belong in the LOTR section. I can't find Enya actually doing a song influenced by The Hobbit itself, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if someone more into Enya could list actual Hobbit songs, or remove her. Leonard Nimoys "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" - isn't this more of an adaptation than an influence?
Also shoudln't Adaptations come after Editions? seems more logical to me to talk about the book first, and secondary versions after? The only reason I didn't do it was I'm not sure how!--Davémon 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences & Adaptations 

message: Peter Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings into films. So why didn't he do The Hobbit as well? Scorpionman 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still in the planning stages.  TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: Peter Jackson, Director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy has expressed interest in filming The Hobbit with some of his former cast returning to reprise their roles (i.e., Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis, but likely Ian Holm would not return to play Bilbo, due to the age difference.) Jackson has spoken publicly on the subject:
:"Three or four years would be accurate, I would say. I think there is probably a will and a desire to try and get it made. But I think it's gonna be a lot of lawyers sitting in a room trying to thrash out a deal before it will ever happen."
(Moved this here because it's a rumour, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry - yet! --Davémon 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Jackson version?

message: how about we move the dust jacket image to the infobox and junk the image of the actual book - it seems a bit silly to have that frankly?  Although it is quite interesting with the dragon motif and stuff, maybe swap them?  Morwen - Talk 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is standard practice to prefer the "First edition" cover in the infobox - it is the "most notable" in publishing. Being illustrated by what I take to be Tolkien himself it is probably of even more interest. If there is a dust jacket cover which was on the first edition that should be prefered - but I hav'n't found one. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the cover and dust-jacket images shown on the page were designed by Tolkien for the first edition. The dust jacket was originally more detailed and had more colors (red sun, two different shades of green, et cetera) but had to be simplified due to production costs. --CBD 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Not really a difference in tone: Bilbo loses his dark green hood and cloak (borrowed from Dwalin) after falling into Gollum's cave, yet puts them on before leaving Bag End. Readers of The Hobbit will recognize that these are his old clothes (contrary to what is asserted above), since the color is the same and they're "weather-stained". Uthanc 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity error(s) 

message: We need to be more explicit about the differences with LoTR.  For example, we currently list this as an inconsistency:
What is the inconsistency here?  We need to be clear about how this differs from LoTR.
Same goes for all the others.  --Doradus 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted some of them. I added a  tag in my discussion of Bilbo's clock. What I wrote seemed obvious to me and I'd be surprised if it was not said elsewhere, but I don't have any references to support it. I cut the mention of the elves' inhospitibleness, since that's not at all an inconsistency. Only Rivendell was hospitible; the elves of Lorien only allowed the Fellowship in as a special case. I also cut the Sackville-Baggins reference since that's not an inconsistency either; the S-Bs appear in LotR and have exactly the same character as in TH. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  What you've done is exactly what I was looking for.  --Doradus 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a continuity error.  It is, however, a good example of inconsistency of tone.  Morwen - Talk 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit differences and inconsistencies 

message: This is the first time I have encountered this claim. Tolkien's biography very clearly states that a family friend named Elaine Griffiths was shown a typescript of the story in the early 1930s. When she later went to work for George Allen & Unwin, she revealed the existence of the story to a staffmember named Susan Dagnall, who in turn asked Tolkien if she could look at the (still incomplete) manuscript. He complied and Ms. Dagnall, impressed by it, urged him to complete the book. Once this was done in late 1936, she then showed the book to Stanley Unwin, who then asked his son Rayner's opinion. It is possible that Tolkien showed the book to this Reverend Mother (although the incident is not mentioned in either Carpener nor, as I recall, White), but she was not responsible for the book's publication.--Werthead 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverend Mother?

message: The current rule of thumb with regards to novels infoboxes is to only list ISBN numbers for books published after the system came into use in 1967-68, so I changed the one here to NA (not applicable). I'm curious, though, that the infobox indicated an ISBN number  () for a "UK first hardback edition". Was The Hobbit never published in hardback in the UK prior to 1967? 23skidoo 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first UK edition was in hardback in September 1937, I've no idea what book that ISBN number refers to, my third edition (1975) is 0-04-823069-3. Thu 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBN

message: I have amended this this slightly.SmokeyTheCat 10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story of the inspiration 

message: This section has been flagged as Original Research. All these statements need to be attributable to a reliable secondary source (ie. not The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings). At the moment the only way for someone to check them is to read both primary sources. Unless these statements are given proper attribution they will eventually all be deleted. I'm sure there are sources out there, but unfortunately not in my Tolkien related collection, so if someone can add proper attribution to them... --Davémon 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences : Original Research & Attribution 

message: I have not even read its license ... but ... just so you know its there exit2dos2000 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not sure if anyone is aware of its existance ... 

message: In the version of The Hobbit that I read, Fili, Kili, Oin, and Gloin did not have accents on the 'i' (Fili and Kili) and the 'o' (Oin and Gloin). Can someone explain this to me? ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71  (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I looked in my Lord of the Rings book, and I believe the accents are on them.... ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71  (User Page — My Talk — Contribs) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents 

message: Perhaps it schould be mentionend, that a German translation and publication of the "Hobbit" was already destined for 1938. But for Nazi-Germany he had to give a certificate, that he is pure aryan (Arier-Nachweis). But Tolkien refused and so the German translation took time until 1957. 91.12.103.79 13:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier planned German translation 1938 

message: I don't remember where I read it, but I distinctly remember reading about the "history" of Tolkien's dragons, which stated that their wings were made of metal (as opposed to bat-hide, like most Western dragons). I was sure I'd read it either in the Silmarillion or in The Lost Road and Other Tales (I think that's what it's called--it's kind of a making-of type thing), but I've gone over both numerous times and it just doesn't seem to be there. Does anyone know where I might have heard it, and/or if it's true? 71.217.102.196 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be not what you're referring to, but Tolkien wrote about mechanical beasts attacking Gondolin in early versions of its fall (The Book of Lost Tales Vol. 2). Uthanc 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaug's metal wings? 

message: The statement
:and his concept of Middle-earth was to change and evolve throughout his life and writings.
cites the 12-volume History of Middle-earth as its source. I think this could be improved by converting it to a footnote describing HoMe or by citing a more specific source. --Mrwojo 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Middle-earth reference 

message: The designation of The Hobbit as a children's book keeps getting edited-out of the intro paragraph and changed to "Fantasy Novel" or something-or-other. Whilst the Hobbit may be enjoyed by many adults it is most certainly a children's story, and is listed as such on Children's Literature Canon, the US publishers website Houghton Mifflin, and the "Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Children’s Literature honors books for younger readers (from “Young Adults” to picture books for beginning readers), in the tradition of The Hobbit...", W. H Auden calls it a children's story in his review of FoTR in the New York Times | link  - even the original decision to publish the book was largely influenced on the favorable review of a child. --Davémon 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hobbit is a children's book 

message: :Image:The hobbit ced.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The hobbit ced.jpg

message: :Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a fair use rationale at :Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg so hopefully this won't need to be deleted.  I think this definitely qualifies as fair use. --JayHenry 06:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg

message: Nomination
this article should be nominated for an award.
--Cman7792 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  section 

message: Archive 1
:Note - someone should create a proper archive box. Carcharoth 22:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Mrwojo 03:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 1

message: First two paragraphs are remarkably similar to that found here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/booksbytolkien/hobbit/description.htm (copyvio)
See http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/disclaimer.htm
Though I don't know if permission has been sought etc..87.102.81.184 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you verify that the article on TolkienLibrary.com is not the text in violation? The article on TolkienLibrary.com has a date of September 21st, 2006. Here is Wikipedia's version from August 31st 2006 which includes the text. This leads me to believe Wikipedia is not violating any copyright, but TolkienLibrary.com is. Edit: I know the webmaster personally and will contact him about using Wikipedia's content without citing it, but I don't see any need for the copyright template on this article. --Hyarion 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if i'm editing this correctly, first time on wiki. Hyarion contacted me on this matter, thanks Hy. Well I recall very well writing this article since I was discussing the content (concerning Elaine Griffiths and the Reverend Mother St. Teresa Gale) with Johan Vanhecke and Wayne Hammond during that time. Most of the texts had been written by me earlier on and must date back to 2002 or 2003 when I originally wrote them on an older version of my website. As far as I am concerned I believe both mine and both wikipedia articles are based upon these earlier versions. I tend to write sources as I use them... as you can see at the bottom of that same article mentioned. My texts have been used and reused all over the internet and even published in books (fe. the complete introduction of the art of Ruth Lacon)... wikipedia is allowed to reproduce all my texts, my main purpose is to spread info and enjoy myself writing stuff. In the end it all ends up everywhere anyways, i can't bother about that any longer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienLibrary (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. The best thing to do is probably to rewrite the text so it doesn't look like a copyvio (otherwise people will worry about this in the future), and to source the information to your website. Some bits, like the 1955 letter, can be sourced direct to books like The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Would you mind if I asked how much of what is on your website is sourced to stuff that we can cite (such as The Annotated Hobbit), and how much is your own, independent, original research? It is the original stuff that you publish (eg. "The original printing numbered a mere 1,500 copies" is an example of something a reader would want to be able to verify in the sources), if any, that we would need to use your site as a reference for. Carcharoth 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is how I work most of the times. I take a subject and then start looking up info in books like Letters, Companion & Guide, Bibliography, Descriptive Bilbiography, Tolkien collector etc. and I take notes on paper, next to that I add content that I just know from what I have been reading for over 15 years. I also have a large archive of unfinished articles like this on my computer which I tend to get back to in later stages; plus I tend to recycle older bits and pieces I wrote in older pblished articles... then I work it out on paper till I get where I want to go to and then type it all out. Most of the times these articles are sent first to some other sholars (like Johan Vanhecke in this case) and get his opinion and make some alterations. Since I'm most of the time writing for hobby and write a lot back and forth with the Tolkien publishers my sources can be either books, persons within the publishing houses, authors themselves or specific texts from Tolkien fanzines. I have started lately to quote the names of the persons within the publishing houses, or authors themselves... but as I said this article is quit old and since then I have learned a lot and changed my working method a lot. I think we should indeed re-write this article... either here or on my site (doesn't matter to me), since most info used is slightly outdated. We should integrate the new info on this topic that has been published in both the Companion and Guide and the History of the Hobbit. I read both two volume books and I can see clearly that I would now write some elements completely different.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by TolkienLibrary (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't even finished reading the first Rateliff book yet! But yes, as more stuff is published, stuff like this needs updating all the time. Like anyone else, you would be very welcome to edit here on Wikipedia, if you found time after keeping your site updated! One idea I had the other day was to try and compile a list of reliable sources for Tolkien-related articles. The standard books would be first on the list. The real aim of such an exercise, though, would be to try and find out which websites are the most reliable ones out there. Which websites have an editorial process, are professionally written, and check their facts? Do you know which websites out there are reliable? I've seen an awful lot that get stuff wrong, including, sadly, this one (Wikipedia). But then that is why Wikipedia insists (in theory) on sourcing facts and claims to a reliable external source. In practice, that can take a while to happen. Hopefully things will improve soon. Carcharoth 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know who (if anyone!) is at fault as I mentioned above. Either way that content will need its source citing when this issue is resolved.87.102.81.184 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the copyvio template as this issue is being actively discussed. The copyvio template is for use when an entire article is a copyvio. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page." Also, a better page to look at is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where it says: "If you are not sure who originally authored the material, list it here instead for investigation.". The correct procedure for small amounts of suspected copyvio text is to remove it and discuss on the talk page. Only if the whole page is a copyvio, and there are no non-infringing versions to reveret to, should you use , and when you do use that, you should blank the entire page and replace it with the template, not just stick it on the top of the page. Hope that helps. I'll go and remove the text that may be a problem, so we can discuss here. Carcharoth 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok - I've already added the article to the list of possible copyright things here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems,  erm I hope that was the right list. The template did seem a bit severe - so I ignored the stuff about blanking - I couldn't find a template for 'this section may contain a copyright issue' which would have been more suitable, I don't think one exists. I'll leave it to you to do the removing.87.102.81.184 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hobbit#editions copyvio

message: Almost every animail in The Hobbit can talk. Though this does not seem to be th ecase in The Lord Of The Rings. Though I have not read The Lord Of The Rings, only  seen the films.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbergin (talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is touched on in The_Hobbit#Differences_and_inconsistencies note the talking purse, the hobbit is much more aimed at children as is mentioned in the text. It might be worth adding your observation to that list - if you wish.87.102.89.127 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can find a source which states that talking animals are in contrast to the Lord of The Rings (which does have a fox which thinks aloud in English in the book), or discusses the literary effect that it has within the Hobbit, then please add it to the article. Without sources, the observation, whilst largely accurate, would be considered "Original Research" --Davémon 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals/Creatures Talking? 

message: Everyone, the plot in the hobbit article is way too long. that is probably why the article is rated on the b class instead of an a. lets shorten up the plot and make it not take up more than half the page. thank you.
--Cman7792 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cman7792, your edits are poorly informed, poorly executed, and do not contribute. Bilbo was not a "young little hobbit"; he was 51 years old and we have no reason to think he was small as hobbits go. Your entire set of edits displays a similar lack of knowledge and sophistication. They're also riddled with syntactical errors. Please don't edit things you're not expert in. Everyone agrees the article is too big, too invested with everyone's pet little ideas, and unbalanced in scope. The solution is not for some random wiki fiddler to walk in, hack away whatever doesn't interest "him" or her, and rewrite the rest; the solution would be professional editing followed with locking down the article. Since that's not going to happen, at least have the decency to respect the substantial and informative contributions that have come before. Strebe 03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cman7792 has every right to make bold edits. The removal of the "differences and inconsistencies" was perfectly justifiable , as it's been flagged [WP:OR] for months now and no "expert" in the subject has found any sources.I suggest this edit stands, and will implement it myself and the material can be reintroduced as sources are found. The plot-summary Cman provided, whilst incorrect on some matters of detail and tone, would be more easily fixed with many small edits (as is the way of things normally) than the over-long summary that has been reverted to. --Davémon 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing plot summary isn't extremely over-long in my opinion. If others feel the same way, I think we'd be in agreement that this could be more easily fixed with many small edits (as is the way of things normally). Apart from this, Cman7792 made numerous rash changes that have also been reverted:      --Mrwojo 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot_summary suggests that 4 paragraphs for a very complex novel is a good target. The Hobbit has 8 paragraphs and takes the form of a straight-forward episodic quest. By this yard-stick, the plot synopsys is overly long, and contains too much incidental detail in attempting to re-tell the story. --12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My judgment is based on featured articles in literature: The Old Man and the Sea (6ish), Uncle Tom's Cabin (9), Starship Troopers (9), The Well of Loneliness (5).  The plot summary in the FA for Make Way for Ducklings, a children's picture book, is three paragraphs. --Mrwojo 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call. I've put a comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Plot_summary_length to the effect that their advice is out of line with FA practice. If you'd like to include your voice there, then the styleguide should get changed to reflect best practice. --Davémon 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I pasted my tallies there. For what it's worth, the current plot summary here is about 552 words. Comparative estimated word counts are: The Old Man and the Sea (582), Uncle Tom's Cabin (~950), Starship Troopers (1081), The Well of Loneliness (614), Make Way for Ducklings (382). Starship Troopers seems particularly long, even without knowing the word count (Uncle Tom's Cabin reads more easily thanks to sub-headings). --Mrwojo 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's a difference between bold edits and hasty edits. "if you have a page so long and unorganized it could confuse them" - burden of proof's on you, and "unorganized" is your POV... I understand the need for conciseness, but let's not sacrifice meaning for it; never mind sword names, the plot summary doesn't even mention Elrond and Beorn's real roles. Probably should be rewritten from scratch. Uthanc 15:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: I've added a tag to one section - as it is a direct copy , see Talk:The Hobbit#The Hobbit#editions copyvio - I'm not sure if it really needs rewriting - as the person whose work was copied seemed ok with it..
I'll leave the tag for someone else to take the correct action.87.102.17.252 16:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: copyedit

message: The literary themes and stylistic tone of the novel should be held separately from the story of it's conception and publication.. They simply aren't the same thing, and readers unfamiliar or newly familiar with the book will be looking for this kind of information with relative ease, rather than expecting it to be buried around other in other sections. Unless somebody has a compelling reason why this shouldn't be the case, and has to deviate from WP:NOVEL? --Davémon 08:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and Themes 

message: Can some one look at the section I've renamed 'introduction' the previous version had an awful link to a page that had factual errors and other problems.. We already have a plot summary - so what is needed is an introduction to the book.87.102.10.190 16:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Some statements have been marked with :
Tolkien made other small changes in order to conform the narrative to events in The Lord of the Rings and in the ideas he was continually developing for the Quenta Silmarillion.
Tolkien introduced or mentioned characters and places that figured prominently in his legendarium, specifically Elrond and Gondolin, along with elements from Germanic legend.
 is better... also, this is probably common knowledge to many fans, but what book (or letter) states these? Carpenter's biography? A volume in the History of Middle-earth series? Uthanc 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These have been removed, but they are correct. Sources???? Uthanc 12:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They aren't correct at all. No single change was made to the text to make it adhere to the Quenta Silmarillion. No other "characters and places" appear in the legendarium, Gondolin and Elrond are singular. Or at least nothing in Letters nor Biography, nor The Annotated Hobbit, nor HoME says so. --Davémon 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Changes were made to the journey between Hobbiton and Rivendell to reflect the geographic changes in LotR. They are certainly mentioned in the Annotated Hobbit, I'm sure they're mentioned in HoMe, I can't recall if they're in History of The Hobbit. Thu 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Tolkien made changes to the Hobbit due to writing the LOTR is well covered in the article. Citations for any changes to the Hobbit re: Bag-End to the Last Homely House would be welcome. Nontheless what really requires sources are the statements that the Hobbit was altered to fit the Quenta Silmarillion and that figures from his "legendarium" other than Elrond and Gondolin were introduced in it.--Davémon 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Tolkien made changes to The Hobbit to bring it more in line with Silm (and LotR) and yes there were other elements from the legendarium included. Mirkwood was originally Taur-nu-fuin. The 'dungeons of the Necromancer' wherein Gandalf found Thrain where originally the same 'dungeons of the Necromancer' wherein Beren was held. References to the 'flat world' version of the mythology were edited in later editions to allow for the later 'round world' conception. Et cetera. I'll try to make some updates later today. --CBD 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept and creation section 

message: I've revised this section in light of Rateliff's work, eliminating the misstatement that Elaine Griffiths worked at A&U (she never did), and removing the Carpenter-derived misprision that the manuscript was unfinished.Solicitr (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind to add citations to Rateliff for the "CS Lewis" statement and the "finished manuscript" statement - I'm sure Carpenter is more widely read, and the discrepancies between them may cause it to be challenged down the road. --Davémon (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How it was published

message: On previous readings of revised text of The Hobbit, I had been curious about the original version of the chapter Riddles in the Dark — the preface states that the text was changed, claiming that the revision is the corrected version based on Gandalf later insisting that Bilbo's story/diary were not completely truthful.  Gandalf manages to get the facts out of Bilbo.  The preface goes on to suggest that Bilbo's desire to lie was itself an indication of the ring's evil nature.
Anyway, I do not know how or if this synopsis should be incorporated into the article. The "original" is based on the 1938 Houghton Mifflin Co. (Boston & New York) edition, pp. 80-96.  I just read the chapter from a reference copy at my library.  The "revised" is a Ballantine printing from the early 1970s.
I'll let others decide what to do with this synopsis.  Perhaps it qualifies as original research.  
Original                                                                                                                                             	Revised
Bilbo (B) finds ring while searching for a way out.                                                                                                  	Bilbo (B) finds ring while searching for a way out.
B agrees to be eaten by Gollum (G) if G wins the riddle game.                                                                                        	B agrees to be eaten by Gollum (G) if G wins the riddle game.
G agrees to give B a present if B wins the game.                                                                                                     	G agrees to show B the way out of the mountain cave if B wins.
When B wins, G goes to find the ring to give to B; because G treats the riddle game as sacrosanct.                                                   	When B wins, G goes to find the ring claiming he needs it to lead B out.  G really intends to attack B while invisible.
G cannot find ring, mutters to himself about its powers, apologizes to B for failing to live up to the game.                                         	G cannot find the ring, realizes that B may have it, becomes furious.
B does not admit to finding the ring.  Suggests that G can redeem himself by showing B way out.                                                      	G runs up the tunnel to find B.
While going behind G, B slips the ring on to test it. G realizes B is gone.  B takes it off when G is not looking.  G assumes he overlooked B.       	While G is running up the tunnel, B slips the ring onto his finger.  G runs past him unawares.  B realizes the ring's power.
G shows B a narrow opening to a side tunnel.  G refuses to continue for fear of goblins. They depart politely.  G never realizes that B has the ring.	G stops at the opening to a side tunnel and weeps.  He smells B, and realizes he has the ring.  B jumps over G and runs down tunnel.  G tries to follow, but his fear of goblins prevents him.
B happens upon the exit and goblins, they see him.  By luck puts the ring on.  Goblins look for him.                                                 	Still wearing the ring, B happens upon the goblin.  The ring barely falls off momentarily.  The goblins see B, but he soon disappears again.  They look for him.
B gets stuck in the door, but manages to escape.                                                                                                     	B gets stuck in the door, but manages to escape.
— Eoghanacht talk 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be able to reference some discussion of this from the Anderson and Rateliff books, but the table at the moment is almost certainly too detailed for the article itself. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the chart would be way too much for the article.  What I found interesting is that based on my reading of the revised preface (and the text in this article) I had assumed that Gollum actually gave Bilbo the ring after losing the riddle game.  Tolkien really did not have to change much of the text to imply a different level of the ring's power.— Eoghanacht talk 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Riddles in the Dark'' differences 

message: since the hobbit movie is officially confirmed, a separate page for the hobbit must be made.
--Cman7792 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Just because they confirm they are going to make it does not mean that it will be made. They cannot even write the film at the moment because of the strike, and actors and directors strike in June/July.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with (Contact me). Right now, all we know is that the movies are planned and that Peter Jackson is going to produce them. Creating an article would go against WP:NOT. It's stated in this article already and in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. That's good enough for now. dposse (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Who says it will be written by an American scriptwriter? Drew (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Pulled the prequel information from the trilogy page. The Hobbit film(s) are a 'go', with Shaye and Jackson agreeing on the production. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per WP:FUTFILMS. There's not even a director. Alientraveller (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film

message: Has their ever been any significant criticism over the fact that the main character is hired as a thief (even if he is stealing back what the dwarfs own)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.127.241 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: didnt they mention it in a song or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about led zepplin? 

message: *What kind of adaptation was the March 1953 production? I assume it was a play, but this should be stated as it is in the descriptions of the other adaptations. Simmaren (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done a while back. Still think this section could be much better copy-edited. It's a bit "listy". --Davémon (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I've done a lot on adding references to what was already there. I'm going to citation template the missing ones, in the hope that someone out there can/will find reliable sources for the few that are missing. --Davémon (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adaptations

message: The lead contains the following sentence at the end: "The novel influenced the development of the modern genre of Fantasy literature, has been republished and adapted many times since its first edition." While undoubtedly true, the first part of this statement is not supported by the body of the article, which does not have an "Influence" or "Significance" section. Such a section (appropriately sourced) is needed. In default of such a section, this part of the statement should be supported by a citation. Simmaren (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence

message: "The familiar form of the riddle-game allows Gollum and Bilbo to discourse, rather than the content of the riddles themselves. This idea of a superficial contrast in characters' linguistic styles leading to an understanding of the deeper unity is a constant recurring theme throughout The Hobbit."
*These two sentences (evidently paraphrases taken from Tom Shippey's biography) don't make much sense to me. The first seems to be incomplete and the second is vague and appears to refer to a prior discussion that isn't included in the article. Can someone who has access to Shippey's book (I don't or I'd take care of it) run this down and clarify these sentences? Simmaren (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I've tried to clarify this. Can you look over it and see if it makes any sense? --Davémon (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Themes

message: On the page, there's a huge gap between the intro and the table of contents. I would fix this, but I'm not sure how. Could someone please fix it? Flamingtorch372 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge Gap 

message: There are only about four characters listed in the actual article. In the book there are several more.  I think the list of characters should either be drastically extended or made into a new article to really do The Hobbit justice. -Kanogul (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  characters