Talk:Middle-earth

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Middle-earth is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Talk:Middle-earth/archive 1 Talk:Middle-earth/archive 2

Contents

1 The lists 2 Map disclaimers? 3 What Middle-earth are we using? 4 Featured Article candidacy (successful) 4.1 (Uncontested -- Jul 4) Middle-earth 5 "Great March" or "Great Journey" 6 Comment on front page text 7 Middle-earth *is not* Arda! 8 Today's featured article 9 Canon and NPOV 10 Amras 11 Capitalization of proper nouns 12 Did Sauron take the Ring to Numenor? 13 Reversion of recent edit 14 Image formatting 15 Deletion talk 16 Recent major revisions 17 Round world 18 The articles need to be fixed, not restored to erroneous mish-mash 19 Steuard's self-promotional links should be removed 20 Tolkien's facts are not "MY" point of view 21 Geography section has been rewritten

The lists

The lists should in my opinion be cut from the main article, and either moved to a seperate article, or merged with the lists that already exist. As it is now they mostly clutter the main article. Anárion 06:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moved to List of Middle-earth articles by category Ausir 12:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Map disclaimers?

The maps on the main page are good, but it might be a good idea to include disclaimers of some sort on two of the maps: the "Arda in the First Age" map and the map of Valinor. To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien never drew maps corresponding to those later than the period described in The Shaping of Middle-earth, well before LotR was written and before quite a few changes to the cosmology of Arda. Thus, I would suggest that some sort of disclaimer be added to indicate that the details of those maps are to some degree speculative. --Steuard 19:30, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

The Italian page has a great map (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Mappa_TdM.jpg), but it looks suspiciously like a copyvio, although they claim that it is PD. Salleman 03:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Middle-earth are we using?

I think we ought to have a disclaimer somewhere that we are using in this encyclopedia, the Middle-earth from

• The Hobbit (2nd edn)
• The Lord of the Rings (2nd edn)
• The Silmarillion (insofar as errors are not admitted)
• Unfinished Tales (insofar as not contradicted by stuff)
• History of Middle-earth (obvious corrections and updates from)

Our Gil-galad article for example unconditionally states that he was the son of Orodreth, with Fingon mentioned in a footnote. Amras mentions his death in the ships - and we have an article about Argon. The latter two of these only appear in Peoples of Middle-earth and nowhere else. Morwen - Talk 16:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added such to the A note on "truth" and canon section. Ausir 07:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy (successful)

(Uncontested -- Jul 4) Middle-earth

Self nomination (I worked on it a bit, and a lot on other Middle-earth articles). A good starting page for Wikipedian Tolkienists. Ausir 20:57, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a good article, but too much of it is lists, really. Oh, and there is too much text before the TOC. Morwen - Talk 21:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Way, way, way, way too much list - that's 80% of the article. →Raul654 21:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, much of it reads as though it's trying to perform the role of a Category. Oppose, for now, at least. — OwenBlacker 11:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

these objections are now irrelevant ;) Morwen - Talk 11:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the whole list to List of Middle-earth articles by category. Ausir 11:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, thats sort of an improvement I suppose. However now its rather shorter. It needs a detailed summary of the whole creation myth; the Ages; who the principal races are - that sort of thing. Summaries of the plots of the Hobbit and LOTR perhaps. Morwen - Talk 14:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The map image is copyrighted, per the website from which it was taken. Jeronimo 17:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  The website's conditions of use indicate that items can be used for non-commercial purposes, under certain conditions, which are, in this case, met. See [1] (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/faq/use.html) Snowspinner 18:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

• I'll support. Could use another image. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Specifically, it could use an image of Middle-earth as a whole- at the moment there are only parts. Markalexander100 07:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There's an image of the whole world of Arda in "The world" section. The action of the books never takes place in other areas of Middle-earth than the north-western part, so there is not much info about the east of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I've added a wodge of summary of history. Support. Morwen - Talk 22:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a lead section. — Matt 23:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • How is that? Morwen - Talk 18:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support (partial self-nomination). I have helped put in a bit of work coping with concerns raised above and believe they have now been addressed. Anárion 08:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support - excellent article, informative. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Hmm, can you throw some bones to the LotR movie fans who'll be reading? - David Gerard 23:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object - overwhelming TOC and article triggers a page size warning. I suggest summarizing the history and moving the detail to a separate article. Also does not follow MoS by having links in headings. --mav 06:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Bah. Do you realise how hard it was to get the history that short already? Morwen - Talk 10:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Better now? I don't think it can be made any shorter and still make sense. Ausir 11:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've also done some removal of headers so the TOC is not so bad now.. Morwen - Talk 18:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Great work - support. --mav 05:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Great March" or "Great Journey"

This may not be the best place for this comment, but it's centrally located and I first noticed the issue in this article. I see that Wikipedia seems to use the term Great March for the voyage of the Elves to Aman. I do recall that term, but it has been my impression that the term "Great Journey" is more common. A Google search seems to bear this out: searching for '"Great March" Tolkien OR Middle-earth' yields about 600 hits, while replacing 'March' with 'Journey' in that same query yields about 18,600. I suggest using the more common term throughout, but I don't have anywhere near the necessary time to make those changes myself at the moment. Any thoughts? --Steuard 19:25, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the page. However now only Sundering of the Elves links to it at the new page (a redirect takes care of the others). I wonder how this happened. Morwen - Talk 20:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! (We still need to change the language in the affected articles, of course.) As for your question, if by "this" you mean the one "correct" link, I made it earlier today before noticing that the current Wikipedia entry was "Great March" instead. But in general, well, I guess some people must just be more familiar with the "Great March" name for some reason, and I don't think it's intrinsically worse than "Great Journey". --Steuard 20:28, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

It certainly IS the best place for this comment. This talk page has generally been used before for discussion on other Middle-earth articles. Ausir 22:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know I am late to this discussion, but Tolkien himself used "Great March" in the late Annals and in the Quenta… Anárion 20:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment on front page text

The front page text says: "Tolkien empathically insisted that Middle-earth is our Earth". Surely "empathically" should be "emphatically". Molinari 00:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Middle-earth *is not* Arda!

Nowhere Middle-earth is used to denote more than the continent. Arda and Middle-earth should not be confounded.

Tolkien many times referred to "Middle-earth", meaning the entire world, in older works also to the "Great Lands", but this was replaced with M-E in newer writings. Similarily the Ñoldor left Valinor for "the World", evidently contrasting Aman with the rest of Arda. After the Akallabêth Middle-earth for all intents and purposes *was* Arda, as the other parts of Arda were either removed from the World or were unknown/uninhabited. Anárion 14:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Like many terms, "Middle-earth" is effectively being used as both the blanket term for the concept, and for a specific part of the concept. Since the blanket term is sufficiently accurate, and preferred by all but a tiny group of Tolkien obsessives, that's what we should use. The article itself has plenty of detail on the distinction. Stan 15:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed the article per Anárion's comments. The Undying Lands were never considered part of Middle-earth, even when the Undying Lands were still present in Arda. No inaccurate information in any article should be called "sufficiently accurate". I am unaware of any who prefer to consider the Undying Lands as part of Middle-earth. Certainly Tolkien did not. Jallan 17:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, it is very common usage for people to refer to the entire setting of Tolkien's legendarium as "Middle-earth", including Middle-earth proper, the rest of Arda, the rest of Ea, and probably even the Timeless Halls of Iluvatar. While this is not the "technical" definition, it is certainly a common one and probably a useful one. I've edited the article to restore this broad meaning as an "informal" definition, but I would certainly welcome further discussion and polish. --Steuard 23:12, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Three cheers to whoever got this article listed as today's featured article! -- Itai 15:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Canon and NPOV

I'm confused/concerned by this note in the section on truth:

For the sake of consistency, in this encyclopedia the following writings are considered canon:

• The Hobbit (second edition)
• The Lord of the Rings (second edition)
• The Silmarillion (except some editing errors)
• Unfinished Tales (except some editing errors, unless contradicted by later writings)
• The History of Middle-earth (especially late writings - obvious corrections and updates)

Thus, the article on Gil-galad states that he is the son of Orodreth, Amras mentions his death in the ships, and Argon has an article of his own.

Accordingly, Gil-galad has this horrid footnote, stating what references disagree on Gil-galad's parentage, even why these references probably better reflect Tolkien's clearest intent, after baldly stating that he is the son of Orodreth.

Why would we ever want to do things this way? Our experience with NPOV is the perfect way to deal with such discrepancies! If Gil-galad were a "real" mythological figure and the sources disagreed, then we would say upfront that there are different versions of his parentage. Even if the Tolkien fan community today has a consensus that the published Silmarillion is canon, then we can properly note this; but if any prominent Tolkienian (such as Tolkien himself in his unpublished writings!) disagrees with the fans' consensus, then NPOV doesn't relegate this to a footnote. We state all opinions together, noting which (if any) is the consensus but never claiming that it is true.

Since Gil-galad is entirely fictional, this may not be important for maintaining the integerity of Wikipedia and staying true to our founding principles and refusing to let majority vote decide the truth yada yada yada -- but it still makes for clearer and more informative articles.

Anyway ...

Was there a big debate on this somewhere that I should go read, or shall I start editing articles for NPOV?

-- Toby Bartels 00:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look at the Talk archives. We generally use the later version if an earlier one was used in the Silmarillion by an editing error. Information about earlier versions we include in footnotes. There are too many versions of many tales to include them all in the articles' main body rather than footnotes (imagine how Melkor or Valar would have to look like). Ausir 02:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The authority on published Tolkien, Christopher Tolkien, has stated in the History of Middle-earth series that the published Silmarillion is in error in many cases: the "truth" is in the later writings. After a lively discussion here consensus was to follow CRT's notes as canon. Anárion 08:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, as Ausir mentions, the archive Talk:Middle-earth/archive 2 includes some discussion of this topic, including a vote. For its articles on Middle-earth, Wikipedia has mostly taken a "story internal" point of view: the subject is identified as fictional, but the articles mainly address their topics as reflecting the history of Tolkien's "sub-created" world on its own terms. Thus, the closest model for these articles is probably real history, with the caveat that Middle-earth had only one official historian, Tolkien. In cases where Tolkien's "historical research" doesn't give a clear, unambiguous answer to a question, then of course NPOV is required. But in cases where he simply "corrected his earlier research", those corrections should be respected.

And as Anárion points out, that holds doubly for cases where Christopher Tolkien's heroic efforts to edit his father's unpublished work were initially mistaken. The article on Gil-galad should no more present Finrod as a plausible identity of his father than the article on the Ten Commandments should present "Thou shalt commit adultery" as a NPOV alternative to #7, even though the Wicked Bible famously said so. A few of my further thoughts on the matter can be found in this essay (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TolkParish.html).

--Steuard 19:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Toby. We should treat Tolkien's writings in the same way that we do 'real' mythologies: give the variants and refer to their sources. There's a good practical reason for this: many of the works which are worth reading for their own sake (for example the long narrative poems) are based in older versions, which we're currently labelling 'uncanonical'. Matthew Woodcraft

We do give all versions, we just include other versions than the final one below the main part of the article. Otherwise, it would be too confusing for some, IMHO. Ausir 18:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with labeling the (excellent) poems in The Lays of Beleriand as "uncanonical"? After all, "uncanonical" in no way means "not worth reading"! In my opinion, the Wikipedia article on Beren should state unequivocally that he was human, regardless of what the Lost Tales say. If the entry attempted to remain "neutral", it would be useless to the vast majority of readers. --Steuard 18:43, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, all other versions should be listed under the main section of the article. Maybe we should have a message on top of every Middle-earth article stating that this is the version regarded as canon, for other versions, see the bottom of the article or sth? Ausir 18:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we did something like that, the new structure would have to be implemented consistently and as simultaneously as possible across all affected pages. (In particular, the "less canonical variants" section should look the same on every page.) I'd also suggest that the header message provide a link to a separate "Middle-earth canon" page that discussed the Wikipedia standard and the reasons for it. (And a similar link in the section about other versions would be helpful, too.) The effort required to make this work would be considerable, I think! But it would probably be good to have once it was done. (Would we have to go through and include "alternate version" information for every character and event in LotR, based on its drafts in HoMe?) --Steuard 19:32, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

How what I did at Eru Ilúvatar? Ausir 23:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice. I like the idea. Could we try to work into a brief explanation of what is meant by canon? (I.e. that it's generally compatible with LotR-era material but includes later changes made by Tolkien, assuming I'm understanding this properly?) It would be useful to have a write-up to link in that notice as well. I'd jump in and get to work, but maybe it should be done by someone with a bit more solid understanding of what is going on here. --Aranel 02:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it already contains the link to the A note on truth an canon" section of Middle-earth. Ausir 07:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I feel this article and its talk are the best spot for any M-e canon discussion, as the question involves the entire legendarium. [[User:Anárion|Missing image
Anarion.png
]

] 07:46, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks good. I've changed the wording a bit to remove the comments on "final" vs. "older" versions of the legendarium, as those don't necessarily correspond to our standard of canon (though they're obviously closely related). For example, Wikipedia clearly does not treat the "Round World" cosmology of Tolkien's late writings as canon (nor should it, in my opinion). I may revise the message a bit more to take Aranel's comments into account. And I'm thinking more and more that a separate page on the Middle-earth canon would be a good thing (as well as being a good example to link to from the canon (fiction) entry). --Steuard 19:46, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is coming together quite nicely. I guess the next step is to put together a guide for editors of Tolkien-related articles and link it prominently. (The trick is to be clear without scaring people away. Make sure it's clear where you are getting your info, and someone with more info can come along and update you if they've read more HoME than you have.) Any volunteers? (I don't want to look like I'm avoiding the work here, but again, I'm an old Tolkien fan but I'm new to Wikipedia.) --Aranel 20:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's raises a good point: how likely is it that this little disclaimer will distract readers from the information in the main article? I've gone back and re-edited the template to be more concise, hopefully without sacrificing much information. I don't know that an explicit guide for editors is necessary, either: any kinks should get ironed out eventually by the community, particularly once the template is visible on more of the relevant pages. --Steuard 01:26, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I just took the plunge and moved the whole discussion of "truth" and canon to its own article, Middle-earth canon. I replaced it with a brief paragraph in the introduction, including a link to the new article. Assuming everyone likes this new arrangement, I expect that discussion of this topic will eventually migrate to the new article's talk page. --Steuard 02:31, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, what a great answer to my question this has been! Regarding guides for editors, is there a Tolkien WikiProject? That may be just the sort of thing that's needed. -- Toby Bartels 12:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, there is none. Ausir 14:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting a "Tolkien and Middle-earth" project. What do you think? In addition to the canon information (or, rather, a link to it), what should be included? (Off the top of my head, something about always capitalizing Hobbit, Dwarf, Elf, and Man and something about formatting of dates. T.A. or TA for Third Age? And it's got to be linked to the relevant article. I'm tired of adding this where it was omitted...) --Aranel 01:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amras

If we take Amras' death in Losgar as canon, shouldn't we edit all articles that mention Amrod and Amras in later times to include only Amrod (with the canon disclaimer)? Ausir 20:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes. But there are more cases where the canon disclaimer is missing, such as most articles on the family of Finwë (esp. Finarfin's sons/grandsons). I am willing to do a lot of this myself, but it will take a few days (I mostly edit from work during slow hours). [[User:Anárion|Missing image
Anarion.png
]

] 21:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of proper nouns

I'm posting this here because it affects all Middle-earth articles.

I've done some poking around in LotR, the Silmarillion, and various assorted other books (i.e. mostly from HoME) and have come to the conclusion that Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and Ringwraiths (or Ring-wraiths) are the proper spellings and capitalizations. (This also applies to Ents, but for some reason that confuses people less.) I need to look into Orcs and Trolls.

Men is a particularly important word, since it means "human being" if capitalized and "adult male" otherwise. So the category "Middle-earth men" technically refers to all adult males. Yes, we could list Celeborn and Thingol there. And if you think this is splitting hairs, ask the Witch-king.

I propose that we move the categories back to the (in some cases) original capitalizations. Wikipedia policy recommends lowercase in titles, except for the first word and proper nouns. These are all proper nouns. If we start by moving the categories to the correct capitalizations, that will be a good hint that this is the preffered form.

Yes, I know it won't be an easy job. As far as I can tell, one has to move all of the articles individually to the new category. But it's worth it, in my opinion, to correct misinformation. (Also, what the heck, we could do with some belated spring cleaning. Yes, I am volunteering.) --Aranel 20:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did Sauron take the Ring to Numenor?

At present, the article implies that he did. However, it doesn't say how Sauron recovered the Ring after the downfall of Numenor. The Silmarillion is strangely silent. It doesn't say anything about Sauron taking the Ring to Numenor. It only says that after the spirit of Sauron regained a corporeal form in Mordor, after the downfall, that he 'once again picked up the Ring.' This suggests (to me) that Sauron left the Ring in Mordor when he went to Numenor as Ar Pharazon's hostage, in which case the article is wrong. Does History of Middle-earth shed any light on this topic? Will someone with greater familiarity with the canon than me kindly offer an opinion? Thanks. Lance Williams 22:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your question is a good one, but happily, Tolkien himself answered it. In Letter #211, Tolkien says that when Sauron was taken to Numenor as a prisoner, "he naturally had the One Ring". He goes on to say that at the time of the Akallabeth, "Though reduced to 'a spirit of hatred borne on a dark wind', I do not think one need boggle at this spirit carrying off the One Ring, upon which his power of dominating minds now largely depended." As for the quote from The Silmarillion that you mention, the actual wording is "He took up again the great Ring"; note that one common meaning of "to take up" is "to begin to use". For more information, see the links provided below. (My comments here are based on my FAQ, the first of these links.) --Steuard 16:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

• http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/History.html#RingNumenor
• http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Numenor
• http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-ReturnFromNumenor

Reversion of recent edit

Since I generally don't like reverting seemingly well-intentioned contributions, I feel I should explain my recent near-revert of edits by LegolasGreenleaf in the section "The Name". Several of his changes were apparently to use "—" to mark translations or definitions in place of commas or parentheses. That may be one accepted style for such things, but I haven't seen it often, and I felt it could lead to confusion (I thought at first that he was trying to group "Aman, and hell" as the definition of "Over-heaven", for example). I didn't see the point of making "oikoumenē" a link when there's no article for it, particularly when the link was applied to the second occurrence of the word. His new entry in the list of interpretations of "Middle-earth" seemed redundant to me (it almost seemed like a summary of the previous few entries). I'm not sure what it would mean for Angband to be a geographic "relation". And I figured that "Mediterranean" is generally used as a proper noun, so it deserved to remain capitalized (but I kept LegolasGreenleaf's italics and link there).--Steuard 21:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

o.O aiight, i just felt that there was a need to edit that section. I've been 'bashed' a few times for editing on this page...maybe that's the last time i did it... lol it's kewl, i like the entire fantasy..but probably too newbie for this encyclopedia entry... =] — LegolasGreenleaf 02:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments above came across as "bashing". I really didn't mean them that way; if I hadn't basically respected your contribution, I wouldn't have taken the time to explain myself here. And if you think I got something wrong, I'll welcome your rebuttal: I'm not 100% confident of all of my choices. : ) --Steuard 03:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

• lol you took my meaning for 'bashed' the wrong way....see i included the quotation marks on purpose...i didn't actually get bashed for my edits lol...only MERCILESSLY edited, in every sense of the word. So i was a little bit discouraged in the beginning...now it's totally fine. TY anyways =]. — LegolasGreenleaf 07:17, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Image formatting

I opened this page, and I saw a big glaring bracket at the top of the page. I went to fix it, and found out that the problem is that the caption option in thumbnails of images doesn't properly read URL formatting ([http://nnn.URL.rrr/ Link description]). I had to reformat the images so they are in a seperate section (with the tag <div style="float:right">Image and caption</div>). Please don't go back to using thumbnails until the caption bug is fixed. Thanks, →Iñgólemo← (talk) 05:01, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Deletion talk

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items. 83.27.120.203 04:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent major revisions

Recently, the anonymous user 68.116.219.183 made major revisions to this article. Based on the content of those edits and on similar summary lines for changes to other Middle-earth articles, I believe that this was the same user who is now registered as Michael Martinez. Before I say anything more, I should make it clear that Mr. Martinez and I have been on opposite sides of some rather intense debates in the past, so while I'm doing my best to be neutral in these comments it is entirely possible that I'm not being fair. (And along the same lines, I don't entirely trust myself to achieve NPOV when changing his edits; I would rather leave that to others.)

I think that much of Mr. Martinez's revision of this article is quite valuable, and I am certain that it is all well-intentioned. However, I have a few concerns about them that I think the broader community should consider. The first is perhaps the least important, but it has some personal importance to me: in this article and a number of others, Mr. Martinez seems to have removed links to webpages that I maintain. These edits have all had summary lines along the lines of "Numerous errors of fact have been corrected." While I am always open to arguments that those links are in fact off topic or not worthwhile, most of them have been accepted as worth keeping by the community here for quite some time. I would at least like to see the community discuss their removal before I am willing to accept it.

As for the substantive changes to the article, my concerns generally fall into two categories. The first is simply one of length: when this article was revised as a featured article candidate (and while it was featured), we put a great deal of effort into boiling it down to its essentials. More detailed information was moved to specific articles on the topic of each section. I do not believe that Mr. Martinez was active here at the time, so he probably was not aware of the premium placed on brevity in this article in particular. I hope that we can find ways of incorporating his ideas into the article without seeing it grow too much longer than it was before he made them.

Perhaps most important, though, is my second general concern: I believe that some of Mr. Martinez's changes to the article reflect his personal POV, although in some cases he may not have been aware that his POV was not neutral. A first example of this is in the opening paragraph, where Mr. Martinez has removed the statement that "The term may be applied informally to the entire world..."; the community debated this at length back when this was a featured article candidate, and settled in favor of mentioning this informal usage. (On the other hand, Mr. Martinez's accompanying changes to correct the precise application of "Middle-earth" to a specific continent are most appreciated.)

More broadly, Mr. Martinez seems to have systematically altered the wording of this article to reflect his beliefs about the textual history of Tolkien's stories. In particular, as I understand it, Mr. Martinez believes that Tolkien's writings in different periods are entirely distinct "mythologies", rather than a gradual evolution from one form to another. For instance, he changed the summary of The Book of Lost Tales from

"The original versions of the legendarium, introducing many ideas which were later heavily revised and rewritten"

to

"The original mythologies, introducing many ideas which were used in later mythologies".

Similar changes were made throughout the book list and elsewhere in the article. As I understand it, Mr. Martinez views this not just as a matter of phrasing but as a very fundamental distinction.

This is not the place to debate whether that perspective is accurate or not. But whether right or wrong, the opposite view is certainly held by a number of Tolkien scholars. As an obvious example, I would point to Wayne Hammond's essay "A Continuing and Evolving Creation" (published in Tolkien's Legendarium) about the gradual development of the Simlarillion tales, which takes a position diametrically opposed to that advocated by Mr. Martinez. I do not believe that this article should adhere so strictly to Mr. Martinez's POV under these circumstances; an NPOV version is to be preferred. (In point of fact, I personally would want to see evidence that a broader community that Mr. Martinez alone supported this position before including his POV at all, but as noted above I may be biased in this matter.)

I will eagerly look forward to the community's comments on this matter.--Steuard 19:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Round world

I see that currently the article is a mix of Round World terms (Ambar) and flat world concepts (it being flat). I think we should restore the flat world version in the main body of the article. Ausir 18:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The articles need to be fixed, not restored to erroneous mish-mash

Ausir wrote:

I see that currently the article is a mix of Round World terms (Ambar) and flat world concepts (it being flat). I think we should restore the flat world version in the main body of the article. Ausir 18:17, 22 May 2005

I understand that Wikipedia represents a communal effort focusing on consensus. However, consensus has proven to be more unreliable than the Encyclopedia of Arda or a David Day book.

The fundamental nature of Tolkien's work has been largely misconstrued as a single, life-time experiment in mythological expression -- which is, as Christopher Tolkien would say, patent nonsense.

Tolkien created many different mythologies throughout his life-time. Around 1937, he started to create a new one without even realizing it when he began working on a sequel to THE HOBBIT.

The entire article, as it currently exists, is badly written, poorly informed, and highly contradictory. There are still sections which erroneously use "Arda" as name for Middle-earth.

This is a good point from which to go forward. Get rid of the errors of fact. Don't reinforce them by reinstating older material which is not even close to accurate.

Steuard's self-promotional links should be removed

I hesitated before adding the links to my own articles, but at least I have made it clear in my publications that I many of my points are speculative.

Steuard's Meta-FAQ not only contains many errors of fact and/or omission, the document is intentionally heavily biased and misrepresentative on a number of points. I have pointed out serious errors with it to Steuard on more than one occasion, and he consistently refuses to stand down on any point where the obvious misrepresentations and bias would be removed by introducing full and fair accounts.

There's not a lot for me to say here. I do believe that my site is worthwhile as one of the many links here, and I do not believe that either of us is impartial in the matter. I do not believe that my site is heavily biased, and my intent has been to minimize bias as much as possible. I won't swear that I have succeeded, but I have certainly tried, and I continue to welcome constructive feedback.

As for serious errors, you have mentioned their existence on several occasions. In a Usenet discussion in late April last year, I responded to you both on Usenet[2] (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/msg/f8cc8bed1d4b69dc) and in private email asking you what your specific concerns were. If you did respond, I somehow did not receive your reply. (I sent email again in early June when I realized that I had not seen a response, but still received nothing. Perhaps if there is a problem with our email reaching each other, you can let me know here.) I remain eager to hear your objections (via private email is probably best, or on Usenet if you'd rather that your comments and my response be "on record"), and I promise to do my best to make the FAQ neutral once I know what they are.--Steuard 21:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien's facts are not "MY" point of view

Steaurd wrote the following --

Perhaps most important, though, is my second general concern: I believe that some of Mr. Martinez's changes to the article reflect his personal POV, although in some cases he may not have been aware that his POV was not neutral.

Well, Steuard, neither you nor anyone else has ever shown that to be the case. What is an established fact of record is that J.R.R. Tolkien started working on seperate mythologies at different times in his life. The record is the HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH, and I have certainly provided numerous citations through the years showing the careful distinctions that Christopher Tolkien drew between the various mythologies.

There are people, including you, who have done their absolute best to misrepresent the facts and details of Tolkien's works as ambiguities, interpretations, and "points of view".

In particular, as I understand it, Mr. Martinez believes that Tolkien's writings in different periods are entirely distinct "mythologies", rather than a gradual evolution from one form to another.

There is only one reason why Mr. Martinez would believe such a thing, Steuard.

This is not the place to debate whether that perspective is accurate or not.

Really? So, you propose that the Wikipedia article be amended to reflect your own personal point of view -- one which is not supported by the published texts -- because you snuck in here a couple of years ago and hoodwinked people with your standard partial citations, omissions of fact, and that should be that?

But whether right or wrong, the opposite view is certainly held by a number of Tolkien scholars. As an obvious example, I would point to Wayne Hammond's essay "A Continuing and Evolving Creation" (published in Tolkien's Legendarium) about the gradual development of the Simlarillion tales, which takes a position diametrically opposed to that advocated by Mr. Martinez.

I wonder what Mr. Hammond would think of your rewriting his points of view for him. I certainly know how I feel about your rewriting my points of view for me (I think no more highly of that than of your ascribing points of view to me).

You don't speak for Wayne Hammond, me, or J.R.R. Tolkien, Steuard. Furthermore, even if you could cite 100 scholars, it would remain an error of fact to say that there was one mythology and not several. Christopher Tolkien devoted more than fifteen years of his life to documenting and distinguishing between the various mythologies. I have provided you and others with numerous citations from THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH demonstrating as much.

Neither you nor anyone else have ever produced even one citation showing that either Christopher or J.R.R. Tolkien himself ever considered or represented those various works as a single evolving mythology.

My offer to you through the years still stands: provide a credible citation, and I'll accept it without argument.

If you would stop putting words into other people's mouths, and just accurately address what is actually said or written by others, you would find that my respect for you would swell immensely, Steuard.

As it is, you remain an untrustworthy and unreliable source of information, particularly with respect to your own biases and beliefs.

After all, you're deliberately trying to use Wikipedia to advance your own point of view with absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever of the numerous refutations of that point of view which you have replied to through the years.

And, please, spare us the "I don't remember those refutations" trick. Your selective memory has done enough harm here. I ask you to stand down, play fair, and stop withholding and/or twisting the facts. Wikipedia is not an online discussion community or your personal Web site.

The articles presented here should be unbiased, factual, and consistent with the published texts.

That you were able to influence consensus a few years ago to conform to your own desires (through withholding of information you very well knew would have been presented by me and others had we been participating in those earlier discussions) doesn't change the fact that you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

I fear that you have given me entirely too much credit for the current content of Wikipedia's Middle-earth information. :-) My contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Steuard) for the year or so that I have been active here are a matter of public record, and I'm afraid that I have not had the time to add a great deal of material or particularly shape community opinion (certainly not on the points where you and I seem to disagree most strongly). The vast, vast majority of the Middle-earth content here was not written by me, and that includes the passages here that you have recently edited to agree with your understanding of textual history. (Even the content of the [Middle-earth canon] article, which I created, was mostly transplanted from the existing discussion of canon in this article.) So if Wikipedia's statements are similar to my own, I assure you that in most cases that is either a coincidence or the result of parallel reasoning (whether correct or mistaken).--Steuard 21:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Geography section has been rewritten

This section is much too long for inclusion in the general article, and it deserves a separate article by itself.

The attempt to relate the geography of Middle-earth to the pre-LoTR flat-world maps introduced many errors of fact and intermingled blatant speculation with a few details.

It is impossible NOT to speculate about the geography of Middle-earth if one attempts to describe anything beyond the landscape of the two primary maps (from 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Silmarillion'). As the early "flat world" maps did not encompass the stories from the later mythologies (including the Numenor mythology and the full Middle-earth mythology), it is a serious error to use them as authoritative representations of the early cosmology of the Middle-earth mythology (which did not begin to exist prior to December 1937).

Either the geography section should be revised to briefly summarize only the geography of the two canonically published maps, or else the entire matter should be moved to a separate article.

I suggest the following sections for the separate article: an introduction explaining the accretions Tolkien made to the original 'Silmarillion' mythology (Numenor was added first, then 'The Hobbit' was incorporated, then the lands of 'The Hobbit' were expanded and associated with the expanded Silmarillion world to provide a setting for 'The Lord of the Rings'). The landscape of the two canonically published maps can then be described. Finally, a speculative section can draw inferences from the older maps (and using Karen Fonstad's maps as a guide) to suggest how Tolkien might have represented an expanded flat Earth world to accomodate the Middle-earth mythology which emerged with 'The Lord of the Rings'.

I disagree. As seen in Morgoth's Ring, the "round world" version was never fully developed, and LotR was still originally set in the flat world version. The flat world version is the only finished one, so I think it's better to use it as "canon" and then reference other variants. As for there being different mythologies rather than stages, the published Silmarillion is actually based on texts from many different stages - the Fall of Gondolin text goes back to Book of Lost Tales. And anyway, use of Ambar when speaking of the flat world version, as you do in geography section, seems odd to me. And instead of an overview of the geography of the world (continents, mountains, rivers) in a manner useful to the reader, it is now your description of the development of the legendarium, which belongs more to another article. Ausir 08:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My response to Ausir follows --

A separate article would, in my opinion, be preferable to editing and re-editing a comprehensive geography section.

I disagree. As seen in Morgoth's Ring, the "round world" version was never fully developed, and LotR was still originally set in the flat world version. The flat world version is the only finished one, so I think it's better to use it as "canon" and then reference other variants. Ausir 08:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Ausir, you don't seem to understand that Tolkien ALWAYS envisioned Middle-earth as being round at the time of the events in 'The Lord of the Rings'. He repeatedly, in several letters, stated this. Also, "Akallabeth" makes it very clear that the world was made round after the Downfall of Numenor --

For the Dunedain held that even mortal Men, if so blessed, might look upon other times than those of their bodies' life; and they longed ever to escape from the shadows of their exile and to see in some fashion the light that dies not; for the sorrow of the thought of death had pursued them over the deeps of the sea. Thus it was that great mariners among them would still search the empty seas, hoping to come upon the Isle of Meneltarma, and there to see a vision of things that were. But they found it not. And those that sailed far came only to the new lands, and found them like to the old lands, and subject to death. And those that sailed furthest set but a girdle about the Earth and returned weary at last to the place of their beginning; and they said, 'All roads are now bent.' (From "Akallabeth" in THE SILMARILLION)

What I wrote in the geography section correctly and accurately reflects the geographical history of Middle-earth as depicted in 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Silmarillion'. The cosmological changes discussed in 'Morgoth's Ring' don't come into this.

As for there being different mythologies rather than stages, the published Silmarillion is actually based on texts from many different stages - the Fall of Gondolin text goes back to Book of Lost Tales. Ausir 08:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The different mythologies are a matter of established fact, not something derived from a single point of view or interpretation. Christipher Tolkien very carefully and deliberately laid out the distinctions between the mythologies (a process much too extensive and time-consuming to detail through citations here).

Christopher needed to include a Gondolin tale, and there was none, so he cannibalized the only story he had available -- the one from the first mythology. 'The Book of Lost Tales' was in no way a "stage" of any Silmarillion mythology. J.R.R. Tolkien had no notion or intention of creating a Silmarillion mythology when he was writing the stories for 'The Book of Lost Tales', which was intended to be a mythology for England.

And anyway, use of Ambar when speaking of the flat world version, as you do in geography section, seems odd to me. Ausir 08:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Tolkien used the name "Ambar" to refer to the Earth as far back as the mid-1930s (and even occurs in Aragorn's speech in Gondor, where he uses the expression "Ambar-metta", ending of the world), so you should not have any reason to feel concerned. The name "Imbar" (which I used previously) does come from 'Morgoth's Ring', which is not to say that it is any more a part of the last mythological experiment than "Ambar". The cosmological transformation described in the "Myths Transformed" section is a very complex matter, and it is one which has been gravely misunderstood by many people in many different areas (for example, this is where Christopher introduced the word "legendarium", which occurs in JRRT's letters, and which refers to the theoretical body of myth rather than any specific collection of writings -- but which now is generally used to refer to specific collections of writings of different determination, depending on the authors).

And instead of an overview of the geography of the world (continents, mountains, rivers) in a manner useful to the reader, it is now your description of the development of the legendarium, which belongs more to another article. Ausir 08:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the geography belongs in another article, what I have written accurately describes the changing structure of the fictional world within the scope of the canonical texts. Michael Martinez 18:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm worried that readers familiar only with LotR and the published Silmarillion might be confused with many unfamiliar names found in the article... And many people only consider these as "canon", and not any HoMe version (although I prefer later writings myself). The published Silmarillion uses only the name Arda. Another thing - the assumption that the Sea of Rhun is a remnant of the Sea of Helcar is solely an assumption of Fonstad, later contradicted in Peoples of Middle-earth, where it is said that the Edain stayed by the sea of Rhun for some time before going westwards. And please move your geography section to a separate article, and include only a summary in the main article. Don't forget to wikify it, too. Ausir 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

My response follows.

And instead of an overview of the geography of the world (continents, mountains, rivers) in a manner useful to the reader, it is now your description of the development of the legendarium, which belongs more to another article. Ausir 08:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern and, believe me, I share it. However, I am not the person to write an encyclopedic-style description of Middle-earth's geography. No one gets hung up on the details in greater depth than me. While my own comments could probably use some abridgement (I may be able to find time to give it a try in a few days), just trying to run down a list of geographical features off the top of my head would leave me writing for about 2 hours. I do not exaggerate, because I have done that sort of thing many times.

At first, I thought I would just move your comments down beneath the explanation, but then I realized you were depending heavily on maps which really had nothing to do with the Middle-earth mythology. Furthermore, those maps are published in a book which wasn't even listed in the canonical works page. Hence, I felt the clearer path would be to remove your description and raise this issue for discussion.

Well, I'm worried that readers familiar only with LotR and the published Silmarillion might be confused with many unfamiliar names found in the article... And many people only consider these as "canon", and not any HoMe version (although I prefer later writings myself). The published Silmarillion uses only the name Arda... Ausir 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand, you make a very cogent point. 'The Silmarillion' does indeed use 'Arda' as a proper name for the Earth. On the other hand, it was my understanding that the purpose of the article was to provide both an introduction to Middle-earth and provide a basis for further research.

Where do you feel the line should be drawn? I will respect your wishes as best I can understand them.

... Another thing - the assumption that the Sea of Rhun is a remnant of the Sea of Helcar is solely an assumption of Fonstad, later contradicted in Peoples of Middle-earth, where it is said that the Edain stayed by the sea of Rhun for some time before going westwards. Ausir 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Fonstad is not the source for the Rhun-Helcar connection. Whether Tolkien intended for the sea to appear at the end of the First Age or earlier is a matter of canon and reference. The essay "Of Dwarves and Men" introduces a number of contradictions to matters set forth in other texts (so does "The Shibboleth of Feanor", the Glorfindel essays, and other texts published in that volume). Similar problems occur with texts published in earlier books, too. For example, in "Quendi and Eldar", Eol is said to be an Avarin Elf of Tatyarin descent.

And please move your geography section to a separate article, and include only a summary in the main article. Don't forget to wikify it, too. Ausir 19:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't actually learned how to do that yet. If you want me to take a stab at it, it will have to wait a few days until I have time to go through the tutorials again.

Michael Martinez 03:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any canon text that says that Rhun is a remnant of Helcar (I don't recall any myself, anyway)? If not, this is pure fan speculation, albeit a popular one, even if Fonstad is not the only source, and one contradicted by later writings. Eol is a different matter, as this concept changed during the development of the legendarium, but I don't recall Tolkien stating anywhere that the Sea of Rhun was part of Helcar (I might be wrong, of course - please give me a quote if I am). Ausir 04:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to search ALL of the books which are available to me (and they are not my books, which are packed away in storage for the foreseeable future). I did look at the text you have been referring to with respect to the Edain. That is a note appended to the experimental text "The Problem of Ros", which JRRT himself discarded because "most of this fails". It also contradicts what is published in 'The Silmarillion' with respect to when the Beorians and Marachians (Hadorians) arrived in Beleriand. That particular text, along with "On Dwarves and Men" and other essays (many of which were published in 'Unfinished Tales') comes from the period of 1969 when Tolkien was writing extensively about a great many secondary matters.

Now, concerning the Sea of Rhun/Helcar connection, that actually comes from Christopher Tolkien himself in the form of a question he poses in 'The War of the Jewels'. Here is the passage (from "The Later Silmarillion", section 9, "Of Men", page 174 in the HMCo hardback edition) -- it discusses the location of Hildorien --

In the texts of the post-LORD OF THE RINGS period there is the statement in the GRAY ANNALS (GA) $57 that it was 'in the midmost regions of the world', as in the emended reading of AV 2; and there is the new phrase in the revision of QS, 'in THE MIDMOST PARTS OF MIDDLE-EARTH beyond the Great River and the Inner Sea' (with loss of the mention in the original text of 'the eastern sea'). This last shows unambiguously that a change had taken place, but it is very hard to say what it was. It cannot be made to agree with the old AMBARKANTA maps: one might indeed doubt that those maps carried much validity for the eastern regions by this time, and wonder whether by 'the Inner Sea' my father was referring to 'the Inland Sea of Rhun' (see THE TREASON OF ISENGARD pp. 307, 333) -- but on ths other hand, in the ANNALS OF AMAN (X.72, 82) from this same period the Great Journey of the Elves from Kuivienen ('a bay in the Inland Sea of Helkar') is described in terms that suggest the old conception was still fully present. Can the Sea of Rhun be identified with the Sea of Helkar, vastly shrunken? -- Nor is it easy to understand how Hildorien 'in the midmost parts of Middle-earth' could be 'in regions which neither the Eldar nor the Avari have known'.

There is, to my knowledge, very little written about either the Sea of Helcar or the Sea of Rhun. Helcar was implied to be huge in the various "Quenta" texts, as the Bay of Cuivienen was only a small portion of it. One easily forms the impression that Cuivienen could not be contained in the Sea of Rhun. Furthermore, as Christopher mention, in 'The Silmarillion', the Elves march around the northern shore of Helcar and eventually reach an immense forest (identified in the text with the later Greenwood the Great). They pass many rivers and lands, but only one sea is referred to. There is no mention of a second sea. However, the passage which reads "in the changes of the world the shapes of lands and of seas have been broken and remade; rivers have not kept their course, neither have mountains remained steadfast; and to Cuivienen there is no returning" implies that Cuivienen no longer exists.

It is a simple inference, although not in itself a conclusive one, that a remnant of Helcar became the Inland Sea of Rhun, and that some substantial change occurred at an undisclosed period of time. In fact, I have often speculated that it would require a world-changing catastrophe such as occurred at the end of the First Age (other people have suggested the changing of the world at the time of the Downfall of Numenor). But the Inland Sea could have dried up at any time over a period of centuries. This is a case where we simply don't know whether Tolkien had worked out the details or, if he did, what those details were.

So one must paste the coherent facts together and draw some conclusions. The conclusions may all be wrong. I used to argue that the Northmen may have been descended from Edain of Eriador, based on evidence in several texts published in 'Unfinished Tales' -- but the essay "Of Dwarves and Men" blew that theory out of the water with the simple stipulation that the Northmen of the Third Age were descended from Edain who remained behind in the western migration toward Beleriand.

Michael Martinez 05:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)