Talk:Thranduil/Archive 1

talk archive

Archive 1

Untitled

I think this is a really good entry for Thranduil. Who made this anyway? They should write one about Haldir and Drizzt! You guys are crazy if you don't hire that person to make all the entries about elves! They deserve alot of credit for such ingenious research and phrasing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.198.61 (talk • contribs) 2003-01-20t01:12:19z (the same user who wrotethat version of the entry)

Inclusion of side notes

Does all the stuff about the friendship of Gimli and Legolas really belong here, in the Thranduil entry? It hasn't much to do with him. --Darksasami 18:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

since Legolas is Thranduil's son and all of this is something the traces from Legolas to his father I think it fits well in Ariakas 7 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Furthermore... Legolas wasn't 'growing up' with tales of the Hobbit-Dwarves. He was already fully grown up at that time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.159.42 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-15t00:10:51z

Life span

Life span: ? First Age -  ? (circa 115 years)

Did Thranduil die? When? OldEnt ^§ 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Uhm, I don't get it. Born around 115 FA? OldEnt ^§ 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of Thranduil's death. He was Elvish and immortal. He either eventually sailed to the Undying Lands of stayed in Middle-Earth and slowly "faded"; if the latter, it happened millenia after the 4th Age began.

Reconciliation

Gandalf certainly hoped that Gimli and Legolas would become friends through the Fellowship; and that this could be the germ of Dwarvish-Elvish reconciliation that would pay both short and longterm benefits. I don't know that the article's more narrow statement about reconciliation between THRANDUIL'S people and the Dwarves of the Mountain is so accurate, however. What Gandalf had in mind was a larger reconciliation encompassing Elves and Dwarves across Middle-earth, not just between the Mountain and the Woods. Gloin's "flash of anger" at the Council of Elrond notwithstanding, the Elves of Thranduil's kingdom and the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain are portrayed as having reconciled after the Battle of Five Armies. There was commercial traffic between them, political messengers, etc. The Elves of Lorien and other scattered Silvan groups were much more alienated from Dwarves than Thranduil's folk. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Q&A

What was Thranduils surname ? I dont know if they mention it or not.. just would like to know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.197.118 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien's Elves do not have surnames. The only peoples to use surnames in Middle-earth are the Shire-hobbits and the people of Bree. You are probably confusing surnames with patronyms (e.g. Legolas Thranduilion = "Thranduil's son"), names taken or given sometime in their lives, often because of some archievement/skill/etc (e.g. Beleg Cúthalion = "Strongbow", he is a good archer), or a simple translation of the name that is sometimes added (e.g. Legolas Greenleaf). For information on this topic, you can also refer to the article "Elf (Middle-earth)#Names and naming conventions". ~ Winterwater (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned somewhere of the mingling of the people here, Sindar coming from the ruin of Doriath, and Oropher (Thranduil's father) being taken as their Lord. It should also be noted from "The Disaster of The Gladden fields" They left the ancient home at Amon Lanc across the river from their kin in Lorien. And also that Oropher led their army into battle with the Last alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.210 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the last comment i left was supposed to be for the article Mirkwood. Terribly sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.210 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thranduil's origins

It's never really specified where Thranduil came from, whether he was amongst the First-born or the son of an Elven lord. We also don't know if he's indeed a Nandorin Elf or a Telerin.--71.177.196.162 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien vs Jackson

I think those articles should be based solely on books, not on films loosely based on books. They deserve extra paragraphs or smth. This bit

The Dwarves were captured by Thranduil's guards and, suspicious of their intentions, he had them locked in his dungeons from which they later escaped inside wine barrels.

originates from film Hobbit; in the book is, I remember definitely, not wine barrels, as being too large and uncomfy and difficult to re-seal. All other goods game in barrels as well, one dwarf was packed in ex-apple-barrel, some in those from butter etc. So, this kind of information should explicitly be marked as, or in section of...smth like 'things based on original lore'. Just now I'll just remove word 'barrel' from the article, as most confusing.BirgittaMTh (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We try to have a separate section for the adaptation information, although minor differences don't belong in the article really - only major and widely discussed changes. It was well spotted though, and you're right the article should foucs on the books ! GimliDotNet (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BirgittaMTh, it's very important not to confuse Tolkien's work with Jackson's.... interpretation of it, in this documentation. And I must add - you guys are doing some great work here, producing well written and well researched articles. I have found them to be very helpful and a pleasure to read, so keep it up! Khayyam 77 (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Elven-king" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elven-king. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Well, at the moment, the sources are either primary (Tolkien; these are very incomplete), or poor-quality and secondary, consisting almost wholly of bare URLs to popular rather than scholarly sources. I assume that we can find better. I'll fill in the Tolkien refs now; it will take considerably more work to improve the secondary sourcing to a level that I'd feel confident of defending at AfD, if indeed that goal is attainable. I'll see what I can find. Everyone is welcome to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit better. I've removed the flakiest sources, added Tolkien refs and a few journal citations, tidied up the text and added a couple of images. It's now up to C quality (whatever may have been claimed before). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I was going to leave improvements the day after when I get more free time, but you've done great work on expanding and improving on the article. Just a question though, why would you think Tor Books wouldn't be a reliable and verifiable source? Besides being publishers themselves, their Tor.com website feature columnists who have done extensive commentary on literary works. Haleth (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would rate this article, following your improvements, to be higher though. Haleth (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A B? That's very kind of you, and perhaps we're getting close, but the article ought both to be fully cited (not quite there) and to provide some critical commentary on Tolkien's version, and so far I haven't found any. Nearly all the secondary coverage is about the film aspect, and whether one is a Film-firster or a Book-firster, people can probably agree that in the interests of neutrality both bases ought to be covered. The trouble, I guess, is that until Jackson, the character would pretty much have been agreed to be non-notable, and literary critics still seem to think like that. Of course, if someone does a thesis on Tolkien's leading Elves then we may get a bit more to work on. But since people generally give ratings other than FA and GA rather little attention, if it makes you happy... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the link from Tor.com, where the commentator drew attention to the fact that Legolas isn't really treated like an important VIP in spite of his status and connection to Thranduil in the books, had an simple explanation for that: the lore behind the character from LOTR onwards was underdeveloped by Tolkien, either deliberately or otherwise. Even though that article was mainly an analysis of Legolas in the source material, I think that is a pretty relevant observation to consider because obviously Tolkien wrote the plot of LOTR in a certain way, considering that the Elvenking was the most important elf character in The Hobbit. Obviously Jackson and co. took the creative liberty to bridge that gap in knowledge, amongst many other elements, as Legolas is established as estranged from his father in the films. Haleth (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately the Tor.com author isn't notable, and nor is the source reliable - it's like a Wiki in that anybody can contribute. Let's hope a recognized scholar looks into the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. Could you show me community consensus vetting Tor.com to be an unreliable source for commentary on literature due to a lack of editorial oversight or policy, and that their blog posts fall within the definition of WP:USERG as self-published material? When vetting whether a source is reliable, we do not pay regard as to whether the material's author is individually notable, unless it is a self-published source, or whether it is blog-like in format or style - we usually look into whether there is an apparatus in place for standards...from what I can gather, I cannot simply register and post anything I like on the Tor.com website like a Wiki. Also, I question why you would place so much WP:UNDUE weight in directly quoting unfiltered comments from individuals who were surveyed for the empirical research article. Haleth (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The empirical comments were chosen by the researchers as characteristic of the thousands of responses that they measured. On Tor, like all other user-contributed sites, it's not of itself notable (compare a peer-reviewed journal to see the difference), and the specific contributor is not as far as I could ascertain in any way notable personally: both are matters of general policy, and there are no grounds for making an exception here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concerns. I am simply asking why you presented the quotes as is, instead of paraphrasing them. A read of the source indicated that the author simply presented the quotes as examples, and are not emphasized as "characteristic" of the sample size as you have described. I also asked you to point me to consensus resulting from discussions which establish that material from Tor.com functions like a wiki and is not reliable or suitable for citing facts about the subject material, or for opinionated content. I have yet to find evidence that the content on the website, at least the one I cited which you removed, supports your opinion that the website consists of community user-blog content without any editorial oversight from Tor.com staff: see [1] and [2]. So please point me to any evidence on Tor.com, editor discussions that is not confined to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or even guidelines or policies on Wikipedia to support your position. Your comments seem to imply to me that only peer reviewed academic research is appropriate for consideration in any situation, which does not reflect community-consensus on the issue. Haleth (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I replied rather directly. However, I'm happy to paraphrase. I'm afraid I really don't think any "local consensus" can override the fact that the author on Tor, and the site, simply do not come close to meeting the fundamental policy WP:RS on which Wikipedia is founded. We can't give ourselves permission to use unreliable materials. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing the paragraph (sorry for edit conflict) I think the use of cut-down representative quotations in people's real words is well worth it; I shortened them considerably but found that paraphrase, whether mine or yours, didn't feel appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll restate our positions. You think the website is not reliable based on your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and opinion of what constitutes reliable sourcing. I believe Tor.com is at least situationally reliable if not strongly reliable, and I interpret this based on discussions by other editors about other sources where opinions or articles submitted by contributing writers, regardless of whether they are freelance or staff writers, is demonstrated to have come under direct editorial oversight according to the publishing website's editorial policies. I invite you to read this explanatory supplement page by Wikiproject VG here as an example, which has a comprehensive listing of most if not all sources that have been vetted. Currently I am unable to find the equivalent of such a comprehensive listing of vetted sources for literary subjects. At least one of the editors who have regularly participated in such discussions have disclosed themselves as a published academic and have explained in length about the editorial processes which support the reliability for some of the sources we use. I would say your opinion is in fact WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and you have yet to provide specific evidence about the website to support your claims other calling it a "Wiki" (which is false), unless you can demonstrate otherwise that other editors have supported your position on the website elsewhere. Haleth (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Your reasoning here contains multiple flaws (e.g. I never said it was a Wiki (see above); it's always on the person making a claim to show it's reliable; WP:RS is global not local), and I would not like anyone to imagine I accept your logic.

I did a WP:BEFORE before removing Fontenot, and was unable to find evidence that she was notable as a Tolkien expert.

However, I've taken a look around Tor.com, and it's a lot more solid than it looks at first glance. I think we agree that Fontenot's analysis is reasonable rather than fan-crufty, so I'm restoring it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the Tor.com author isn't notable, and nor is the source reliable - it's like a Wiki in that anybody can contribute. I've quoted you word for word. Neither WP:RS nor WP:RSP contain any mentions of Tor.com by any other editor, which means there is no definite consensus by anyone on whether Tor.com is or isn't reliable, so I am not sure why you would repeatedly refer to the reliable sources guidelines to justify your objections. Your focus for WP:BEFORE should have been the publisher Tor.com, not the author.

I am not proposing a BLP article on Megan Fontenot, and I don't believe the individual notability of the author is required in order to cite their opinionated analysis of Tolkien's works since the source is not a self-publishing or user generated avenue, which you insisted it is without presenting any compelling evidence. Anyone who submits such an analysis to the online publishing arm of Tor Books will have its quality presumably reviewed and vetted, perhaps with some edits, before the content is published to begin with as clearly indicated on their submissions guidelines. In this instance, Tor.com publishes an opinion piece written by someone else, so it isn't self-published by the author which would have fallen under the definition of WP:USERG. It is the process of editing oversight which is what most other experienced editors on Wikipedia are looking for when vetting whether a source is appropriate or reliable. If you still don't find merit in what I have said or that my views is consistent with global consensus on reliable sourcing, then let's agree to disagree. Haleth (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What? I already said (11:46, 20 January 2021, look above) I'd taken a look around Tor.com and found it usable (to my surprise, I admit); further, I restored the source, and said I'd done so able, so I've no idea why you're going on and on about it: not a collegiate thing to do, unless you simply didn't notice, in which case you're forgiven at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You essentially said you did not want to let anyone have the impression that you would accept my flawed reasoning under any circumstances, but the whole time I was arguing the point that Tor.com is nothing like a Wiki as you have claimed, and is at least a situationally reliable source to use. From my interpretation of your comments, you refuse to concede to my points and they are still without merit yet somehow you came to the conclusion that the source is fine to use(?). So I wonder why you would question my attitude as not being collegial. But honestly, that discussion went nowhere and best moved on from. I am not looking to start a fight, or edit war, or be combative in my communication with you, unless you do have a problem with me contributing to articles about Middle-earth topics in the first place. Haleth (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)