Talk:Literary hostility to J. R. R. Tolkien

This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Middle-earth Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

"Attacked" is rather absurd.[edit]

I changed a couple instances of verb "attacked" because I thought they were hyperbolic, biased, and a little ridiculous, when the correct word should have been more like "criticized". My changes were reverted, but for the record I still think the use of "attacked" is hyperbolic, biased, and more than a little ridiculous. NimRenouf (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your views. Please be aware that British English word usage differs from that in other varieties of English, as indeed does its spelling. I might add that Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, defines its sense #2 as "to assail with unfriendly or bitter words", giving as example "a politician verbally attacked by critics". Tolkien was certainly "attacked" in this sense. You might also like to note that the Wikipedia policy "No Personal Attacks" likewise uses the word in exactly this sense, so it should not seem too unfamiliar, nor indeed "hyperbolic, biased, and more than a little ridiculous", a rhetorical triple which itself might be constituted by some as meeting Merriam-Webster's definition. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable article scope[edit]

IMO this article should be merged into a general one that covers both criticism, praise, and ambivalent responses to Tolkein's work. We discourage sections and articles dedicated entirely for criticism because it is better for NPOV to cover all responses in the same place. (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Let's do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]