Talk:Death and immortality in Middle-earth

POV (non-neutrality) tag

 * I'm not at all clear why this article should have received this tag, as I have no axe to grind (say, in favour of or against Christianity, or Norse myth, or anything else), and no explanation has been offered as to how the article might be straying from strict neutrality.

The theme of "Death and Immortality" is explicitly introduced in the article with a quotation from Tolkien himself, so we can be certain that it was part of his thinking: there is no issue of non-neutrality there.

Further, the article currently cites a wide variety of scholarly sources, including a few Christian commentators (Rutledge, Pearce, Kreeft), so that viewpoint is documented, alongside numerous well-known Tolkien scholars (Shippey, Rateliff, Lee, Flieger, Chance) and medievalists including Burns and Solopova who may represent more of the pagan background here. This range spans pretty much every type of viewpoint on the subject, and all are presented neutrally, with quotations in their own voice when needed, so there is no obvious point where the article departs from non-neutrality.

The instructions at Template:POV state that such a tag may be removed when "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." This actually seems to apply exactly in this case, but as I don't want an edit-war, specially around an unexplained tag, I'd be pleased to hear what the concern is exactly, so that it can be addressed. I await clarification and will be happy to discuss any aspect of the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (copied from my talk page) The liberal use of judgmental adjectives sprinkled throughout the article give a very non-neutral impression. The "monster" Gollem? Or the sad, weak proto-Hobbit Gollem manipulated by the immense power of the Ring and afterwards at length and terribly tortured (which he withstood for a long time) and torn between his "humanity", his guilt, his greed, and countless other emotions. A Nazgul is a monster, not Gollem. Denethor isn't really an evil character either, he became mad due to the influence of Sauron through the Palantir.
 * Thank you very much for responding so promptly. Removed description of Gollum as a monster, though this is widely attested by scholars: I've added a citation to Flieger 2004, which states in terms that Gollum is a monster, indeed arguably the central monster-figure in Middle-earth. I've taken Denethor out of the list, though again, multiple scholars attest that he went to the bad. Removed a few adjectives as not needed.


 * Other elements also take the interpretation of one or two scholars and turn them into truth, e.g. "while in The Hobbit, the death of the dragon Smaug is the central event of the novel. " is not really a generally accepted these AFAIK.
 * Toned down, all we need to say here is that he died.

"The deaths of the afterwalkers" is perhaps not a NPOV title, but for some reason uses a comparisonone scholar made and turn it into a section title as if the characters are usually described as or commonly interpreted as "afterwalkers", even though it will probably confuse and bewilder most Tolkine readers.
 * Reworded title.

It again discusses the "monster" Gollum, quoting "Further, once he has rejected the land of the living and goes to dwell beneath a mountain, he knows "We are lost, lost... No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty. Only hungry; yes, we are hungry"." even though his refuge under the mountains came centuries before he lost the "Precious", mixing two completely separate events into one novel narrative to fit the thesis of this one scholar, not necessarily the actual writing or the ideas of many other scholars. Fram (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Toned down, and removed the scholarly gloss on the quotation: it can stand by itself as a description.


 * : Overall, these seem very minor issues, now all fixed. I have read it through again and tweaked anything that seemed to stand out. Is there anything else you feel is needed before we remove the tag? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a minor note, but I'm not sure brought multiple leading evil characters to a fiery end is accurate. It's been a minute since I read any Tolkien, but of the characters you list after this statement, didn't only Gollum meet a fiery end? I'm not sure what word you'd like here to contrapose honourable for the next set of characters. Folly Mox (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nazgul and Sauron all came to a fiery end, rather spectacularly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll defer to your memory of events. Folly Mox (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, but there is no need to trust to my little grey cells. Sauron was destroyed in the ruin and collapse of all his works, including the Dark Tower; his anger blazed up like fire, and he was dispersed by the wind. The Nazgul blazed like shooting bolts (as if caught in a blast of flame), and went out, at the same time. But all this is in the cited source, as well as in The Lord of the Rings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Afterlife
I am surprised this article doesn't mention this word, although it is used in title of one of the main cited works. Can this be corrected? I assume there is something the reader can learn about Afterlife in Tolkien legendarium in this article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Surely yes. Added and linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)