Talk:Middle-earth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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[1] 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 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)

Orc and Uruk-hai origins

I think that the current section here discussing various Orcs has a number of problems.

• First, I think that it's simply too detailed for this very general context. When this became a featured article, we had it down within the 32Kb recommended limit. Since then, it has ballooned back up to 44Kb (that's close to a 40% increase). It's disappointing to see that the hard work that went into making this article concise has been almost entirely lost. Trimming down this lengthy section on Orcs would help.
• Second, as much as it frustrates me to say it, there is at least some debate about whether there were "Uruk-hai" who did not serve Saruman. I (and others) am convinced that there were, but Michael Martinez (at least) is firmly of the opinion that there were not. I'm still in the process of revising a detailed summary of that debate, but even though I strongly disagree with him on this one, I figured I should point out this potential NPOV issue.
• The notion that Saruman's Uruk-hai were among the products of his Orc-Man breeding program did not originate with the movies (though many strange related notions certainly did). In fact, it's my opinion (based on evidence in the books, of course) that they were some of his Orc-Man hybrids (see my Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ for some discussion of both sides of this issue). Others may disagree (I've had long discussions with the creator of the Encyclopedia of Arda about this), but the categorical statement in the current article is strongly POV.
• I'm not convinced that Tolkien settled on any specific origin for Orcs, whether Elves, Men, or anything else. As far as I recall, every firm statement on the matter in "Myths Transformed" (the section of Morgoth's Ring containing Tolkien's latest thoughts on the issue) was followed by some sort of hedging or change of mind. If I personally had to guess, I'd say that the very first Orcs were probably corrupted Elves, but a strong human strain was introduced as soon as Men appeared on the scene (perhaps heavily based on relatives of the Druedain). But that's almost beside the point: detailed discussions like this (and like the one in the current article) belong in an article about Orcs, not in an article about Middle-earth as a whole.

Any thoughts? (In fact, now that I look at it, rather a lot of history has crept into the Peoples section. I think the whole thing needs a rewrite.)--Steuard 20:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

And I've now done that rewrite. Make of it what you will. Meanwhile, for those who want to see a more detailed discussion of the idea that Saruman's Uruk-hai were among the results of his Orc-Man breeding program, this old Usenet post of mine may be of interest.--Steuard 20:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree (heartily) with condensing the information, but the current version does give the very strong impression that most likely the Uruk-hai were strictly creatures of Saruman. (Which I don't think is what you intended.)

It's probably fair to say that while the notion that the Uruk-hai were the crossbreeds referred to someone vaguely in LR did not originate with the films, it has certainly been popularized by the films, and most folks who are only fmiliar with the films assume it rather than making guesses (even educated guesses) based on the small amounts of information available. Prior to the films, the average fan was unlikely to have given any thought to the idea (since the hybrids are mentioned only vaguely in passing in LR). -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if my edit came out sounding POV; I guess that's what happens when one goes beyond "Be Bold" to "Be Hasty". I've toned it down now, but I'm sure that what I've written could still stand some editing.

As for peoples' perceptions before the films, I would have thought that Treebeard's guess about Saruman's Orcs would have lingered in many fans' heads (namely, that their resistance to sunlight could be a result of crossbreeding with Men). It certainly lingered in mine! And there are references to goblin-like men in all three books (though the nature of the "squint-eyed southerner" in Bree isn't recognized until later). But then, I guess I'm not an "average fan" (nor are most of us editing this article, I would think). In any case, in the post-films world, most viewers will come away with "Uruk-hai = Men-orcs" as a default assumption, so it's probably worth mentioning that the movies portrayal isn't supported. (I still wonder if the Orcs aren't still taking up too much space in this general article, though.)--Steuard 04:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it's just that I find Orcs boring. So while I could start listing the few known examples of Elves with red hair, I don't necessarily pay as much attention to the Orcs. I don't think they really filled a huge space in Tolkien's conception of the world, either (although obviously he thought about them more than I do). Good edits. The current paragraph seems fair to me. I think it's length is probably justified—the notion that evil cannot create but can only warp what already exists is a fairly significant one. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Middle-earth portal

Template:Middle-earth portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Middle-earth portal. Thank you. --Qirex 01:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)