Talk:Rings of Power/Archive 1

Archive 1

Earlier rings of power

I came here to find out where the idea of rings of power comes from. I'd heard that Tolkien derived it from Wagner's (late 19th century Ring of the Nibelung, but where does Wagner get it from? --Hugh7 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Video Game

Rings of Power is also the title of a 1991 Video Game by Naughty Dog Released for the Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis. It was in the RPG genre but used some unique concepts such as all attack actions during combat were regarded as spells regardless of each characters class (e.g.: Knight). The overall storyline of the game involved collecting all 11 rings of power that once reunited make up the rod of creation.

See: [1]

It was also notable for its hidden nudity that didn't cause the media to go ape. [2] --Nintendorulez talk 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I move that this paragrpah is moved onto the main page, OR that Rings of Power is listed as a disambiguation.

The Naughty Dog page has a link to Rings of Power (video game), but it hasn't been notable enough for anyone to actually create an article on as yet. There is thus nothing to disambiguate. If someone does eventually create an article then a disambig line or page can be created. --CBDunkerson 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Sailormarcus and I'm currently creating a Rings of Power (Game) article so I added a disambiguation page.

Seven Rings - Freud

Seven_Rings redirects here. I don't see a page for Freud's Seven Rings, but don't know enough to write one. According to Peter Watson (A Terrible Beauty, London, Phoenix Press, 2000, 505), these were "early colleagues of Freud pledged to develop and defend psychoanalysis, and given a ring by him to symbolize that dedication." See here: http://www.sospsy.com/Museum/pages/page238.htm . Google has further references to Freud and seven rings, including a theory by Jung and connection to Indian Chakras.

What is this "power"?

I think what this article fails to state is what, if anything, the rings do and why the characters in the books would even bother to wear them. Power shmower... Tronno 02:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good question, and one that is not easily answered. It is addressed in part in the articles concerning the invidual Elven Rings. -Aranel (Sarah) 16:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Khamul (Aka the Easterling)

I remember Khamul being mentioned as one of the Nazgul in Unfinished Tales. The Nine Rings section should be edited to coincide with this. - shash 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Basis for this?

"The power of the three still present of the Seven, the Three Elven rings, and the Nine were all shattered upon the destruction of the One." Rich Farmbrough 16:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Likely derived from;

• "Now the Elves made many rings; but secretly Sauron made One Ring to rule all the others, and their power was bound up with it, to be subject wholly to it and to last only so long as it too should last." - Silm, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

• "...when the One goes, the last defenders of High-elven lore and beauty are shorn of power to hold back time, and depart." - Letters #144

and other similar references. --CBDunkerson 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Powers of the One

From the article: "it allowed Sauron to quickly corrupt the Numenoreans into evil"

Really? The Númenoreans had already progressed well down that road before Sauron got there; he had merely to encourage an existing tendency. And I don't recall that it was said anywhere by Tolkien that Sauron required the One for this -- but I suppose he may well have, so could somone please point out where if he did? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sauron's personal 'surrender' was voluntary and cunning: he got free transport to Numenor! He naturally had the One Ring, and so very soon dominated the minds and wills of most of the Numenoreans." - Letters #211

The Numenoreans went from 'greedy and somewhat oppressing weaker folk' to 'mass human sacrifice and worshipping Morgoth' in the space of a few decades. That's a pretty radical shift. --CBDunkerson 01:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of that quote, but had always interpreted it to mean simply that with the Ring in his possession Sauron had all his native power available to him, as opposed to his relatively attenuated condition during the Third Age. I could just as easily read it the other way, I suppose. But I think I would still call this a matter of intensifying a process that was already underway, ending in large-scale open rebellion against the Valar and the One where it had already existed on a smaller scale. The invasion of Valinor was the sign of the former; worship of Melkor and the human sacrifice that went with it was the sign of the latter. In real-world terms, I think the step from inhumane oppression to human sacrifice (for whatever cause, whether on a literal or figurative altar) is fairly small. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Silmarillion seems to imply that Sauron did not take The One with him when he was captured and brought to Numenor:

"But Sauron was not of mortal flesh, and though he was robbed now of the shape in which he had wrought so great an evil, so that he could never again appear fair to the eyes of Men, yet his spirit arose out of the deep and passed as a shadow and a black wind over the sea, and came back to Middle-earth and to Mordor that was his home. There he took up again his great Ring in Barad-dur..."

Logically one could also infer that if he had brought the Ring, it would have been lost in the Akallabeth when his body was destroyed. 68.200.39.177 (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Tolkien addresses this in "Letters." I also thought he must have hidden away the One while in Numenor, but Tolkien specifically states that Sauron must have had the One with him, and that his spirit was capable of carrying it back to Middle-earth despite the destruction of his physical body. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Nazgul rings

"Once enslaved, Sauron no longer needed the Nazgûl to wear the rings." Is this claim canonical? JoshuaZ 04:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You could make a strong case that it is. The text isn't entirely consistent on the question. On the one hand, at the Council of Elrond Gandalf says, "The Nine the Nazgûl keep." On the other hand, in "Shadow of the Past" Gandalf tells Frodo, "So it is now: the Nine [Sauron] has gathered to himself...." Supporting that is the fact that we never see a Nazgûl with a ring even when we might expect to. On balance, the idea that Sauron retained the Nine in his possession seems the most likely. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

More than that actually: I thought I remembered something else and I found it after I posted the above reply. In Letters #246 Tolkien says outright that Sauron held the Nine Rings and that this is what gave him primary control over their wills. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And also in "The Hunt for the Ring" in Unfinished Tales there's yet another statement to this effect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

we can all agree then that the nazgul did not have their rings with them. Jammi567 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I always interperted it to mean that since Sauron had no physical body, that the rings were in his possession through the possession of the rings by the Nazgul. Doesn't Sauron want the One Ring in part to get his physical body to materialize and without his power which is in the ring he only has enough power to materialize an eye? Certainly the poem is consistent with what happened with the Nine: The One Ring to rule them, find them, bring them and in the darkness bind (enslave) them, in Mordor. The Three Rings were not found because their owners took them off, the Seven may have been found, but never were brought to Mordor where their possesors could be enslaved. Right? REL 31 May 2007

Whatever makes you think that Sauron didn't have a physical body? Of course he did. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

After the Fall of Numenor, Sauron lost his "beautiful" form and fled to Middle-Earth. At the end of the Second Age, he fought the Last Alliance in a terrible, evil form. After he lost the One Ring, his much-weakened spirit (without a body) fled to the East of Middle-Earth. It can be safely assumed that the Nine had their rings at this point. After the One was destroyed, the Nine kind of "flamed out" because the power that had been keeping them in existence was gone. A Nazgul would have surely died the moment they took their ring off, much the way Sauron almost perished when the One was cut from his hand. Their Master had barely enough power to remain an evil entity after losing the One, so his minions would have need their own "power sources" if you will. I suppose the argument could be made that they weren't yet Wraiths at this point, but when did Sauron re-form sufficiently to allow him to control and preserve them without the need for rings? Oydman 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. After the Nine Rings had done their work by turning living men into wraiths, their importance (the Rings) was much less. Perhaps if the Nine Rings had been physically destroyed, the corresponding Nazgul would have been too. But their relationship to their Rings was not the same as that of Sauron to the One, who had created it and put much of his own life-force into it. Consider what Gandalf said would have happened to Bilbo or Frodo if they had "faded," either due to the Ring or, in Frodo's case, due to his wound. Gandalf said they would have become wraiths, and Sauron would have tormented them for trying to keep his Ring. They would not have "disintegrated" the moment Sauron took the One from them. The Nine Rings turned their wearers into Wraiths, but after that, they were slaves to the One, and their existence depended upon the One. When it went, regardless of whether they had their Rings on or not, they ceased to exist-- or at least were reduced, like Saruman, to whining, shapeless haunts in the desolate wilderness.169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Terminology

I think the FAQs are wrong here. The "lesser rings" should not be called Rings of Power, while the "Great Rings" should. As Gandalf says,

"In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles - yet to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous." (The Fellowship of the Ring, "The Shadow of the Past")

Of course, I could be wrong. Uthanc 12:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But you're not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe Tolkien had changed the terminology later, as shown in a letter or in The History of Middle-earth. Uthanc 09:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be just my hideously poor memory, but I don't recall any extended discussion on the lesser rings anywhere, let alone a redefinition of "Rings of Power". So I edited the text to reflect the correct nomenclature from the book, as you pointed up. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is how Gandalf deduces that Bilbo's ring is the One. Lesser rings would not confer invisibility to the wearer. Oydman 06:41, 18 December, 2007 (UTC)

Movement

i added something to the picture caption, and it moved the top line of the poem. Does anybody know how to correct this whilst keeping in the addition? Jammi567 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever corrected it, thanks Jammi567 12:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

the 5 rings

it makes no sense to me that the rings are 1, 3, 7 and 9..there has to be 5 rings. Meaning the hobbits who are the half-elvens were tricked by sauron to give them up. The half elvens were merry, pippin, frodo, samwise and bilbo who were all tricked to go to the land of mordor to give up the rings. Frodo carried two rings.

The second line should perhaps say:

Five rings for the half-elven in the land beyond Brie

The One ring, thus was never destroyed and Sauron won not only the 9 ring but the 7 and the 5. It's unclear whether the 3 rings were even used at all as the story tells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.230.149 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious, but there's one small flaw in your theory. Merry never got anywhere near Mordor. 91.107.169.154 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The count goes from Three to Seven because Sauron needed one for each of the heads of the Seven Dwarf houses. He went with Nine for Men because he knew they were ultimately corruptible and would be useful as Captains in his evil army. He might have gone for a higher number for Men if the Elven Smiths would have allowed it. (talk) 18:47, 18 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oydman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

the 3 rings

The article says that these are the only rings that do not give invisibly, yet it is stated that the rings of power give invisibility only to those who are not powerfully enough to wield them, i.e. mortals (the dwarves and men). So Elves and Gandalf wearing the one of the 3 each would not become invisible but a man or dwarf would.

---

What's up with this: "The Rings apparently granted the ability to see things that are normally unseen, such as Frodo's ability to see Galadriel's Ring while he was wearing the One but his servant Sam could not." I really don't remember him wearing the ring when they're in Lorien. I don't have my copy of Fellowship handy right now, though. Anyone want to find out? Mogwit (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The line should be changed. Frodo did not wear the Ring in Lorien. What the sentence implies (poorly) is that Frodo's previous use of the Ring and his status as Ringbearer had permanently enhanced his perception so that he could see Galadriel's ring even when he wasn't actually wearing the One. There are several other references throughout LOTR to Frodo's enhanced senses even when he is not wearing the One (such as in Moria, when he can see better in the dark).169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Non Fair Use of Images

Either a critique of the representation of the rings in the Peter Jackson movies is added or I will delete/request for deletion the non-fair use image. I posted on the image's page with no response other than the rationale had removed the laughable argument "it was on another website and they said it was fair use". Frodo Halfpint (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sauron.jpg

The image Image:Sauron.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've taken a crack at rewriting the article, as suggested at the Middle-earth project page -- though this is still pretty in-universe. I removed an awful lot of OR and crufty external references; supplied some refs, but not enough, some CNs, but not enough. I don't have my books with me, so I invite you to supply more details in the refs. Note: I don't consider the fan sites used in previous refs to be authoritative references; it would be better to come up with sources from the books themselves. -- Elphion (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Added: I ditched a lot of material not relating primarily to the rings. It's all covered more appropriately at the linked articles. -- Elphion (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you did 10 years ago, but after reading a bit of the article, it still has problems with diction and organization.

Example: Under the heading "Fictional History": "In the year 1200 of the Second Age, he [Sauron] arrived under the guise of a fair-looking emissary of the Valar named Annatar" ... the usual English is "in the guise." There are other instances. Much of the article seem to be taken from somewhere else, uncredited sources, perhaps the Tolkienwiki or whatever it's called. The language of the article is forced and high-falutin'. :-) By that I mean it uses many of Tolkien's own phrases, not quoted, and not encyclopedic. Another rewrite using more ordinary language would be good. The story of Celebrimbor's torture and giving up all the rings except the Three does not need to be repeated. The first mention of the rings making people invisible is within the section about the Seven rings, where it says that the Dwarves did not become invisible. (It seems that Elves and Istari do not become invisible, either.) The fact of invisibility should be in the lead. I have had my own issues with writing an in-universe article, a concept that I barely understand (despite a brief foray into MPRG), except that using the past tense is incorrect for fiction, although correct for history. The historical present, I think it's called, should be used and it includes a disclaimer saying, for instance, "In the story, Sauron, in the guise of an emissary of the Valar, arrives... He calls himself Annatar, meaning 'Lord of Gifts.'" This article doesn't conform with that either. If I am wrong about that, please correct me. And if I am right, someone who knows how to add various tags above the article should do so. Wastrel Way (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Eric

The current state of the article bears little resemblance to my rewrite 10 years ago, so I will not answer your objections now. With one exception: you are correct that WP ordinarily treats synopsis in the historical present. The Tolkien project, however, long ago drew a distinction between action during the course of the book, and action in the deep past of the book, using historical present for the one and past tense for the other. Since then, many editors have failed to appreciate the distinction, and often use past tense for everything. But in the context of this article, the actions are mostly in the deep past, so according to the project guidelines, past tense is appropriate. -- Elphion (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with writing summaries of primary material in the historical present, in fact that is how I write when dealing with fictional articles in other project areas. Elphion is correct though, as not long ago Chiswick Chap drew my attention to an old consensus by the Tolkien Wikiproject members of using historical present for the one and past tense for the other, though I suppose it can be overridden or disregarded with a fresh consensus. Haleth (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's policy. It certainly feels natural using past tenses for events in the First and Second Ages; it's actually a struggle using the 'historical present' even for the events of the War of the Ring, rather as if Tolkien was for some inexplicable reason channelling Hemingway (but I digress).

On the tone and shape of this long-neglected article, as rightly remarked in 2011, Haleth and I have blitzed it into shape, attending to both structure and diction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reality vs. Magic?

I have been thinking, and realized that if the ring were actually real gold, it could have been easily shaped, as gold is soft. Is there some magic that prevents the gold from un-shaping? Or did Sauron use a different metal that looks like gold? Salporin(talk) 20:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence it's anything other than gold, but it was 'magic' (magic being a term for the natural powers of beings like Sauron rather than some sort of craft one could learn) GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 21:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion of a possible source

There are a total of 20 circles that compose the FLOWER OF LIFE which is a geometric "fruit" of illusion. The 20th circle would surround the other 19 & represents THE ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL. In "The Dark" of ink & iron (resolve) it binds the other rings.

Just food for thought as to where TOLKIEN got his idea for The Rings of Power.

Other examples of the vilification of THE FLOWER OF LIFE is found in The Bible & The Book of Mormon as The Forbidden Fruit as well as The Abominable Church of The Whore.

67.2.215.146 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

On the face of it, this speculation is not very likely. Do you have a Reliable Source that suggests this? -- Elphion (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was do not merge

---

I see that the Nine Rings and the Seven Rings are sections of this article, but the Three Rings still have their own article. Given the poor shape of that article, as well as the lack of discussion of the Three Rings independent from the Rings of Power, I propose a merger to this article. Obviously, the One Ring should still have its own article, it's received some scholarly attention. Hog Farm (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article has looked wobbly since 2013. More seriously, the Three, like the Seven and (apart from the Nazgul, who are certainly notable) the Nine, are all more or less just backstory for the One. That said, the question must hinge on sources, and there are several:

--- Three Rings for—Whom Exactly? And Why?: Justifying the Disposition of the Three Elven Rings Jason Fisher, Tolkien Studies vol 5, 2008 pp. 99–108 (how the names, descriptions and powers of the Three Rings slowly developed in Tolkien's drafts: it was difficult to work them into the existing story of the One Ring and the enormous but ring-free Legendarium)

--- Nature and Technology: Angelic and Sacrificial Strategies in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Gwyneth Hood, Mythlore vol 19, 4, 1993, article 2 (how the elves have to sacrifice their power, embodied in the Three Rings, in the War of the Ring)

--- The Earthly Paradise in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Gwyneth Hood, Mythlore 80, 1995, pp. 139-144 (how the elves use the power of their rings benevolently)

--- Power in The Lord of the Rings Alexis Levitin, Tolkien Journal vol 4, 3, 1970, article 4 (the power for good in the Three Rings is limited in scope, not being usable for war or dominating others)

--- The Sense of Time in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Kevin Aldrich, Mythlore, vol 15, 1, 1988, article 1 (the elves made the Three Rings to try to halt the passage of time ("to preserve all things unstained", acc. to Elrond), as seen in Lothlorien, free of both evil and the passage of time)

---Good and Evil in "The Lord of the Rings" W. H. Auden [the poet], Tolkien Journal vol 3, 1, 1967, pp. 5-8 (good triumphs over evil in the War of the Ring, but the Three Rings lose their power, as Galadriel prophesied)

I expect there are other sources, but these are certainly relevant here. I've added them to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm - perhaps this could now be closed? It's been much longer than a week. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trimming and categorising

I see that the prose has mixed both text from the Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings, along with material from Unfinished Tales or the History of Middle-earth. Because some of the posthumously published primary material may contradict each other, maybe it is a good idea to segregate prose cited from Unfinished Tales or the History of Middle-earth series into the conception and creation section? Haleth (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks better now. Haleth (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest a section under "Powers" about invisibility. Apparently immortal Elves, Gandalf and (perhaps) Sauron himself do not become invisible when wearing a Ring of Power. Dwarves, who are mortal, are resistant to the Rings but I don't recall any clear statement that they don't become invisible, so I think that statement needs a source at least. It is only mortals who become invisible. That could be made clearer. Edit: I also suggest that when the Ring is worn by an immortal, such as Gandalf or Galadriel, the Ring becomes invisible. See the conversation between Frodo, Sam and Galadriel in the chapter "The Mirror of Galadriel, LOTR Book 2. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Much better. The diagrams add another level. Wastrel Way (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Eric

More improvement in the past few hours than in the preceding 14 years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Your text following the word "Edit:" was added (undated) to the existing text today, not a good move. It's also proposing WP:OR, suggesting an editorial inference from a primary source (a passage by Tolkien). I've read a lot of scholarly articles but haven't seen any of them make that point, so we certainly can't cite it. It may well be wrong, actually, as Galadriel and Gandalf may well have had the power to hide a ring; there's no need to invoke a special power of the rings themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Redirect from a mis-spelling

Is it normal to have a redirect from an out-and-out mis-spelling? There is a Celebrimbour page, albeit only a redirect. Surely this should be deleted? Thanks. 66.159.217.77 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Redirect, there can be redirects for any likely misspelling. Whether this one satisfies the criterion as a result of the insertion of 'u' is the question, for which Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Typos may provide some guidance. This can always be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to let the community decide. Mindmatrix 17:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Invisibility

The Three do not make their wearers invisible as they were made without Sauron's direct involvement

I don't think this is correct and is unsupported by the reference. We do not know what would happen if a mortal wore one of the three, they may well have been taken to the spirit world. The dwarves nature meant they were not made invisible by their rings, but again - we have no example of Men or Hobbits wearing one of the 7.

Frodo, being half in the spirit world himself, sees Glorfindel "as he is on the other side", this seems to indicate the Elves exist both in the mortal realm, and the spirit realm at the same time. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it seems garbled; the two halves of the sentence do not belong together. Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A modern perspective

An editor has now twice seen fit to remove a reliably-cited paragraph from the article without obtaining consensus, and the second time of course knowing that at least one editor did not agree. That is by definition edit-warring.

Here is the text:

"In a 2019 article published by Kaspersky Lab, Nikolay Pankov analysed Sauron's efforts to dominate or ensnare the bearers of the Rings of Power from a modern perspective, with reference to the context of Tolkien's enthusiasm in the field of cryptanalysis as well as his participation in a language course run by the Government Code and Cypher School during the late 1930s. Pankov used analogies to real-world information security terms such as supply chain attacks, phishing techniques, and botnet software to describe the struggles between Sauron and the various Ring-bearers who are representatives of the Free Peoples of Middle-earth."

Editors are invited to discuss a) whether this is relevant to this article, and b) if so, where it should be placed in the article; or c) whether other claims from the Kaspersky source are worth mentioning here; or d) whether the cybersecurity aspect on Tolkien should be in another article, such as Influences on J. R. R. Tolkien. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

While the sources show that Tolkien was interested in cyptography, the primary source for linking this interest with the rings of power specifcally in the discussed passage is a blog opinion post, not an scholarly article. The text in question has no connection to the section "power and morality" and is not even in the "read further" article. The text also does not talk about the Rings of Power at all, hence WP:IRI.

Would also appreciate a more civil tone going forward with good faith, instead of assuming malice/edit warring. Posting on my talk page that I'm disruptive and can be banned after making a single revert is also against the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Beestax (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Two reverts, actually: see WP:BRD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Initial edit was incorrectly tagged as revert. One edit, and one revert as my initial edit on relevance was not addressed.

Initial deletion is a revert, policy is clear on the matter, and BRD means BOLDLY (ONCE ONLY), REVERT (ONCE ONLY), DISCUSS, it has no other meaning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, what is your suggestion for the passage? Beestax (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested alternatives above. I think we should await input from project members. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that Karpersky Lab blog meets the bar for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Some blog posts are allowed, of course: If the blog were purely about a topic that Kapersky is expert on, then WP:BLOG would permit it. However, without having high credibility on matters Tolkien or literary critique, it’s hard for me to accept as notable or reliable enough. Strebe (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It's all a bit over-egged. Tolkien attended a course at Bletchley. His passing 'with flying colours' is assumed (per Telegraph - was it even assessed?) and his 'enthusiasm' is scarcely shown by his declining to take the job. There is no carry-over from Tolkien's GCHQ connection to Sauron's strategies, especially not in terms of modern cyber warfare. After that, any parallels that may arise need a more notable reliable source than the rather tongue-in-cheek blog that is offered (krimpatul = crimping tool?!). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of “hobbit”

Chiswick Chap has apprised me that JRR Tolkien did, in fact, capitalize “hobbit” on at least one occasion. I see in “Concerning Hobbits” from The Fellowship of the Ring that he repeatedly capitalizes it there. That’s awkward. All my flipping through The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings text body showed only lower-case. This means, I think, that the preponderance of Tolkien’s usage was uncapitalized. He also lead out his introduction to the race with In a hole in a ground there lived a hobbit. So, I think it makes more sense to use the uncapitalized form, but I’m not going to start a fight over it. Tolkien was not consistent with capitalization on other occasions, either. Strebe (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed in Hammond & Scull's Readers Guide, quoting Christopher Tolkien's advice to the publisher. Overall, capitals are appropriate for reference to a race or kind, or in a generalised sense ('the Hobbits migrated', 'the Orcs served Sauron') and lower case for reference to specific individuals or groups ('the hobbits climbed the stairs', 'the orcs attacked the Company'). He acknowledged that there are ambiguous cases, and some inconsistency in Tolkien's text. 'Concerning Hobbits' deals almost exclusively with the Hobbits as a kindred, whereas the narrative deals primarily with specific hobbits. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References