Talk:Elves in Middle-earth/Archive 1

What does this means?
"The bride’s mother gives the groom a jewel to be worn, but the marriage is achieved with its consummation" The consumation of what?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


 * Sex. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Maeglin's non-grey eyes

 * Could anyone please provide a quote? I'm sure he had grey eyes. If not, my mistake. 202.78.127.202 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose that we move this page to Elf (Middle-earth). Wikipedia naming convention policy (1.2) suggests the singular over the plural. Hence Human instead of Humans. At the very least it should be consistent with Orc (Middle-earth) which is singular. I also propose that we move Dwarves (Middle-earth), Dragons (Middle-earth), and Men (Middle-earth) as well. I would have just done this myself, but because there are likely to be a lot of double redirects to fix, I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything first. Also, I'm not an administrator, so I can't move over a redirect anyway. I am undecided about Men (Middle-earth) but its something to think about. All the other articles in follow the appropriate naming conventions. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --CBDunkerson 12:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support all except Men (Middle-earth), which should remain where it is. It's always, the strength of men, the Men of the West, etc. 132.205.45.110 20:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alcohol
I've deleted this paragraph. It stated that in "Jackson's Middle-earth" elves are immune to alcohol. This is not demonstrated, as the paragraph claimed it was, in the drinking game scene. The beer does have a (very mild) effect on Legolas - he says he can feel it, and that it makes his fingers tingle. It is not claimed that he is completely immune to alcohol. A small point, but it's not a misconception on the part of Jackson. --UrbaneLegend 12:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Elves are certainly not immune to the effects of alcohol. In the Hobbit both the butler and the chief guard drink themselves into a stupor. -- Jordi· ✆ 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"convenient rendering"
Is it accurate to describe "Elf" as a convenient rendering of "Eldar" and "Quendi"? Wouldn't "Elf" in fact be a convenient rendering of whatever the Westron word for the Quendi/Eldar is? john k 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tolkien stated that he used 'elf' because it was 'close enough' to his 'Quendi' to provide a general idea... like 'wizards' was a reasonably similar term for describing his 'Istari'. Thus 'elf' is a "convenient rendering" of 'Eldar', 'Quendi', and any/all other terms for them in any language. However, since the article specifically references the 'Red Book of Westmarch', which was ostensibly written in Westron, it would in that instance have been being used in place of the Westron term. It's an 'approximate English translation' from any language though. --CBDunkerson 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. But when it is used in Tolkien's own works that are supposedly from the Red Book, it is used as the equivalent of the Westron, presumably, since references to the Eldar or the Quendi are not translated, but left in the original Sindarin (or Quenya?) The reference ought to be clarified. john k 14:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Westron word for Elf is known, by the way: Nimîr (directly from early Adûnaic). There are no indications in Westron there were different terms for Quendi vs Eldar, and thus Nimîr is clearly the word translated by Elf. We can thus presume that Tolkien's "convenient rendering" of 'Quendi/Eldar' as 'Elves' is also present in the Red Book: where Tolkien used 'Elf' Frodo (Bilbo) used 'Nimîr'. -- Jordi· ✆ 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice. If we can source that, it would be useful to include, I think. john k 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation: Elves, elves, elf, Elf etc
My instinct tells me that Elvish, the Elves, Elven should be capitalied, but "Legolas is an elf", "two elves are dead" should not ("Lupin is a Man" seems wrong to me). Why is every Elf* and Elv* word capitalized? (This is not a rhetorical question - I speak from ignorance and a desire to know the answer). Lupin 21:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Consistency: Tolkien used lowercase "man" to describe any male (even non-humans), but always used uppercase Men when referring to humans. Other race names (Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents etc.) were also always capitalized. Therefore when within a Middle-earth context, and referring to the Middle-earth races, uppercase should be used. Thus: Oberon was king of the elves or fairies, and Thingol was (a) king of the Elves. Jordi·✆ 23:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Interestingly, hobbits is often not capitalized in LOTR, though. Also, we have "elven-cloak", "elven-fingers", "elven-song", "elven-blood" and "elven-blades", but "Elven-tongue", "Elven-lore", "Elven-stars" and "Elven-lords". Lupin 01:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hobbits-as-a-race is questionable: they're clearly an offshoot of Men. Also, LotR is supposed to be Frodo's story: he would not have capitalized the word. Hobbits don't appear in the Silm or in other texts (asides from the occasional origin or footnote, where they *are* Hobbits, not hobbits). The examples you mention such as elven-cloak are not supposed to mean "Elven cloak" (cloak belonging to an Elf), but rather "elven-cloak" (cloak of an Elvish style, cloak coming from the Elves). Again these occurences are all from LotR (I can't recall or quickly find any from the Silm or HoME), and most of them in dialog. Jordi·✆ 01:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So do you think we should capitalize "hobbits" here? How about "orcs" (capitalized in LoTR) or "trolls" (not capitalized in LoTR)? Lupin 01:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd capitalize them all&mdash;in a M-e context of course. It's what both J.R.R. and Christopher Tolkien did/do (most of the time), and it's consistent. Trolls by the way is capitalized in the appendices (see the end of appendix F-I for example): "some held that they were not Trolls but giant Orcs". Note also the "troll-race" in the sentence before: the troll-race are the Trolls. Jordi·✆ 01:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Hobbits-as-a-race is questionable: they're clearly an offshoot of Men." Yes, so clearly that hobbits are half our size and have pointed ears. =P On an unrelated note, I'd never heard about elves dying after being raped. Source? --71.112.234.168 10:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of elves dying from being raped, or being raped at all. I've read all of the published books and history of middle earth series, I'm deleting the sentence.

I think there is a reference to Elves dying from being raped somewhere in the last three volumes of HoMe -- in fact, almost certainly in Morgoth's Ring, probably in "Laws and Customs Among the Eldar". Unfortunately, I don't have the exact reference, but I think the passage is written in a very dignified, tasteful way, like all of Tolkien's references to sex, and therefore may not be clear to some readers. I also seem to recall that the reference is in one of the notes to the essay rather than the essay itself, so it's not particularly prominent. Gildir

The torture and torment of Celebrian (Elrond's wife, Galadriel's daughter, Arwen's mother) by the orcs is clearly implied as having been of a sexual nature. She is unable to recover from the horror of it after her rescue and leaves Middle-earth to seek healing in Valinor. --David


 * Above Jordi said, "Other race names (Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Ents etc.) were also always capitalized." This is incorrect.  When referring to the race (or sub-races, kindreds) directly as a whole, he capitalized them because they are proper nouns. When referring just a group of them, especially an unspecialized group, as a creature or creatures, he didn't capitalize them because they aren't proper nouns.


 * Tolkien explained it well when he commented on this capitalization style in Letter No. 21, a note to an employee at his publisher: "Men with a capital is, I think, used in text when 'human kind' are specifically intended; and man, men with a minuscule are occasionally and loosely used as 'adult male' and 'people'."


 * 'Hobbits' is capitalized on many occasions, but throughout the story you usually don't see it capitalized because it is being used in reference to the four in the Fellowship, or hobbits generically - not the entire 'hobbit kind.' It's capitalized in the very first sentence of the prologue, and several times afterwards: "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits, and from its pages a reader may discover much of their character and a little of their history."


 * While it is not capitalized in instances such as these: "Then they went round the hole, and evicted three young hobbits (two Boffins and a Bolger) who were knocking holes in the walls of one of the cellars."


 * Here are some other examples to illustrate the difference between This and this.


 * Elves/elves: "He could dimly see the grey forms of two elves sitting motionless with their arms about their knees, speaking in whispers." "Not Elves; for the woodland folk were altogether noiseless in their movements. "


 * Dwarves/dwarves: "As is told in The Hobbit, there came one day to Bilbo's door the great Wizard, Gandalf the Grey, and thirteen dwarves with him: none other, indeed, than Thorin Oakenshield, descendant of kings, and his twelve companions in exile." "‘Beyond the eyes of the Dwarves are such foretellings,’ said Gimli." - Slow Graffiti 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Expert help needed
This article is one step up from list form in places, with much essay-style conjecture and a preoccupation, in places, in criticising Peter Jackson's interpretation. The tone of the article needs formalizing. I don't have the specific expertise necessary myself! ▫ Urbane Legend talk 09:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am working on it. It is however an enormous rewrite, so am doing it in my sandbox, but I do not plan to be finished in the next few days. Bryan 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I propose to merge the Fate of the Elves of Middle-earth into Elf (Middle-earth). The former is still mainly filled with speculation, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. It is a well-written essay worthy of the authoring of a respected Tolkien scholar with plausible guesses derived from hints to "what presumably happened" to the Elves of Middle-earth; however, much of the information there could be condensed in length as well as speculation (along with adding inline citations) to fit into the history section. Comments? — Mir  l   e   n   11:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In full agreement with this. -- Jordi· ✆ 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't seem to be any more objections, can we considered this as merge? — Mir  l   e   n   14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Tong Minh (talk • contribs)
 * I just did a quick merge of the text from there to here. Obviously it should be cleaned up and verified. The stuff about 'Arwen being the last Elf' was actually on this page previously (see discussion about it above) almost verbatim, so it looks like this content has moved back and forth a bit. --CBD 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitions; Jargon
This is a fascinating Wiki entry, but it includes a lot of words from Tolkien that are either not defined in this entry, are defined several paragraphs later, or you have to follow a link to find the definition. This makes the article seem jargony and hard to follow for the reader. Can you put in a short definition when you need a new term, and then the reader can understand, or, if they want more detail, they can follow the link? Just my 2 cents. Regards, Ssilvers 04:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd love to give a hand, but I'm such a Tolkien fan I don't always see stuff like that. Could you point some out for me?  --Eruhildo 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundering - the image
I propose that we make a new more correct and better image, the current one is wrong. It shows Falathrim as being separate from Sindar while Falathrim were a subgroup of Sindar as were the Eglath (later Iahtrim) and Mithrim (who merged with Gondolin Elves). The Laiquendi/Laegrim also weren't separte group that came of Nandor but were in fact a subgroup of Nandor like the Silvan Elves/Twarwaith (later merged with Avari who came to west). Also the Teleri->Falmari connection isn't quite clear on this picture, more correctly it doesn't show that Teleri split into three groups. Also it would be good if we could somehow show how the three main groups came to be (Eldar) along with the 'Unwilling' (Avari). --Factanista 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

spelling choices
I noticed that the spelling Ñoldor has been used after a recent change. I don't think this is appropriate. The canonical spelling, used in all the books that people actually read (apart from the hardcore fans) is Noldor.

The spelling Ñoldor is also unnecessarily confusing, since most people know the letter ñ from Spanish, and will not know how it is pronounced here.

In general, I think that articles about Tolkien in Wikipedia should use the conventions of LotR and Silm unless they are specifically discussing earlier stages of the mythology. JulianBradfield 14:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The conventions in The Lord of the Rings were, in rare cases, later changed by Tolkien. The conventions in The Silmarillion are sometimes just plain wrong. There are places where Christopher Tolkien admits that he made mistakes (no one is blaming him, considering the difficult of the task). There is some discussion of the form Ñoldor at Talk:Ñoldor. If you want to discuss the current convention for dealing with such issues (which was the clear consensus at the time, but there is always room for improvement), under which the Ñ spelling is preferred, the discussion at the moment seems to be at Template talk:Mecanon ( later archived to Talk:Middle-earth canon/archive2 Carcharoth 01:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC) ) (but see also Talk:Middle-earth and Middle-earth canon for some of the previous discussions). [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elves first appear in The Hobbit ???
Tolkiens concept of Elves were first published in the Hobbit, but surely they appeared in The Cottage of Lost Play and other writings long before then? Why is this not mentioned, nor the rest of HOME? --Davémon 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, The Hobbit was published before 'The Cottage of Lost Play', which was published posthumously. 'The Cottage of Lost Play' was written before The Hobbit, but not published before. Carcharoth 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to Peer Review
Davemon, thanks for submitting this article to peer review. I've left a note at the WikiProject here. I mostly agree with your recent removal of that large section of what is mostly original research. Stuff like that needs to be sourced, removed, or at least extensively rewritten in an encyclopedic style. The A-grade was an internal WikiProject one. Hopefully we can get this to something that is genuinely GA or A standard, or at least a high-class B standard. Carcharoth 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits - mainly to the middle section - removing some repeated info, and a little "own research" - I didn't want to hack at it too much.

The section on "beards" I feel is of debateable importance..87.102.89.127 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the list of languages as it repeats the substantial part of the aricle "elvish languages"87.102.89.127 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel much of the language information may be reintroduced, but be better integrated into the article so removing the section seems like a step in the right direction. The significance of beards is somewhat debatable. On the one hand it helps Tolkien 'visually' differentiate between the humanoid races in The Hobbit, and on the other, I know of no reliable sources which discuss this issue at any length, so the purpose of beards in a wikipedia article is even more doubtful. I do have a concern that there seems to be only one source for much of the text, that Morgoths Ring is a primary source, and much of the "history of the elves" section whilst paraphrasing The Silmarillion (another primary source) has no references at all! --Davémon 18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Magic
Do the elves of Middle-Earth possess any magic? If so, perhaps it should be included in the article. Aidoflight 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Tuatha Dé Danann
I have changed: "Some of the stories Tolkien wrote as their 'legends' are directly influenced by Celtic mythology. For example, the "Flight of The Noldoli (later Noldor)" is based on the Tuatha Dé Danann and Lebor Gabála Érenn, and their migratory nature comes from early Irish/Celtic history. The Elvish language Sindarin has "a linguistic character very like (though not identical with) British-Welsh ... because it seems to fit the rather 'Celtic' type of legends and stories told of its speakers". Tolkien's comments regarding his distaste for Celtic legends are a product of his Anglophilia rather than a commentary on the texts themselves or their influence on his writing. "

to:

"Dimitra Fimi has suggested that some of the stories Tolkien wrote as their 'legends' are directly influenced by Celtic mythology. For example, the "Flight of The Noldoli (later Noldor)" is based on the Tuatha Dé Danann and Lebor Gabála Érenn, and their migratory nature comes from early Irish/Celtic history. The Elvish language Sindarin has "a linguistic character very like (though not identical with) British-Welsh ... because it seems to fit the rather 'Celtic' type of legends and stories told of its speakers". In this view Tolkien's comments regarding his distaste for Celtic legends are a product of his Anglophilia rather than a commentary on the texts themselves or their influence on his writing. "

For the simple reason that Tolkien did not make such a claim that the 'Flight of The Noldor' was based on the tale of the 'Tuatha Dé Danann', nor that his disparaging remarks about Celtic Mythology were due to his 'Anglophilia' (maybe he just didn't like Celtic Mythology at that point of time). To state a theory as irrefutable fact is against Wikipedia's rules. It is a fact that some think that "the stories Tolkien wrote as their 'legends' are directly influenced by 'Celtic mythology'" not a fact that they ARE based directly on 'Celtic mythology'. In fact it begs the question of whether, if they are indeed influenced by 'Celtic mythology', they are influenced directly or indirectly in the first place. So no Davemon you cannot just push your point of view all over the place as if it is irrefutable fact! Please stop doing it! Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk)


 * Fair enough. There are no facts, only verifiable sources, and the sources are cited. Personally I think the in-sentence attribution you are arguing for (rather than attributing by reference) is going to make the article read like he/said she/said, but lets run with it and see where it ends up.--Davémon (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, something like wikipedia should agree with Tolkien over people who wish to argue with him on this issue; Tolkien denied a Celtic influence and infact called these beings 'Elves' because it is Germanic. 86.154.189.220 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, Wikipedia shouldn't treat authors opinions of their own work as more important than professional scholars or A. Authors lack independence, and will always be biased. Nevertheless, what wikipedia must do is show all significant views in an as unbiased, neutral way as possible. Tolkien called them 'Elves' because it is Germanic? If you can find a reference for that, please add it to the article. --Davémon (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is better than believing those who wish to argue against Tolkien. Tolkien denied a Celtic influence and picked the word 'Elf' (a Germanic word) for his creatures. He has 'Elves' in his work for the same reason he has Dwarves (Durin, Thorin, Kili, Fili etc...all the Dwarves are Germanic), Gandalf, Earendil, Trolls, Orc (from Orcneas), the Rohirrim snd virtually all of his world (infact Middle-earth is from Germanic and the Norse cognate is Midgard.

If you don't think 'Elves' are Germanic, compare the word with the other Germanic languages (Old Norse: áLfar and álfr singular. Danish: elver. Swedish: alver. Dutch: elf(singular), elfen and elven. Gothic *albs (singular) and *albeis.

Tolkien himself stated that he isn't inspired much by Celtic mythology and I would take his word over others who wish to argue with him; I find it a bit disrespectful doing so. It is most odd that everything beautiful has to be Celtic; a clear misunderstanding of Germanic mythology.

Similarities between the Tuatha Dé Danann or Sídh and Tolkien's Elves is coincidental based on the original traits he gave his otherwise Germanic creatures. The beauty and noblity of the elves, something that all the Celticists believe are merely Celtic, a present in Germanic folklore hence the saying "As pretty as an elf" and numerous names with 'elf' in them meaning noble-, wise- and fair/pretty-. 86.154.189.220 (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tolkien himself says that Sindarin was Welsh-British. ie. Celtic in nature, and that this fitted the "rather 'Celtic' nature of the tales" (being the Silmarillion). Tolkiens opinion isn't a simple, single, fixed thing, and hopefully the article accurately reflects this. Nobody is saying Tolkiens elves weren't influenced by Germanic myth, it's just that so far only one source has been added to the article which covers this view. If you feel the article suffers a celtic-bias, then I hope you'll take the time to add well-referenced, cited material which supports the influence of Norse / Germanic mythology / folklore on Tolkiens Elves to the article in order to redress the balance. --Davémon (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Celtic languages are different from Celtic mythology. A link with Brythonic linguistically doesn't support a link with Irish (as the Tuatha Dé Dannan are indeed Irish and not Welsh) mythologically...plus Tolkien got offended when someone mistakingly thought that the Elves (and the world of Arda) were influenced by Celtic mytholoy.

This article does have a Celtic bias, it is quite plain. If it didn't the section about whether Tolkien is influenced by Celtic mythology would have ended with his own words on the matter (e.g. his "distaste" of Celticism).

Add references to the elves being Germanic? Firstly, I hardly need to as the look of them and the very word elf speaks for me and secondly it would be hard to find anything that doesn't strangely delve into Celticism in regards to elves as most seems to have read the article by Fimi and the misinformed book called Perilous Realms: Celtic and Norse in Tolkien's Middle-Earth (this book incorrectly uses Norse instead of Germanic and actually states that Germanic mythology is militant whereas Celtic is peaceful; utter nonsense)and people ignorantly thought elves to be Celtic (unsurprising considering that this is the age of Celtic misconception) and cannot admit that they were wrong; they thus try to hide their mistake my trying to make Tolkien's elves seem like the Tuatha Dé Dannan (Tolkien shows no real sign of being even remotely influenced by anything Irish) disguised as the Germanic elves; this is complete nonsense.

I am not surprised that this article is biased towards Celticism as most of wikipedia is. Contrary to what Marjorie Burns claims, it is Germanicism that needs to be defended as most people see it as ugly and barbaric whereas Celticism is seen as beautiful, tree-hugging (despite the fact that Germanic mythology has the whole world connected by a world tree) and peaceful. Germanicism is allowed no real champions like Tolkien anymore but instead has ro automatically be championed by racists (absurd, racism plays no part in Germanic mythology). 86.154.189.220 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's some great stuff added to the article. I've slightly clarified some of the points regards Ingwe. Also there is a historical / development structure to the section, starting with Tolkiens early concept of elves, going through the early Silmarillion / Book of Lost Tales, through to the Hobbit (and then the Lord of the Rings then the later silmarillion, as the article developed). For that reason I've moved the comment regards Frey/Freya Lord/Lady to the end of the section generally right historical place. Also, we should check wether Ingwe is BOLT or the later sil, Inwe/Ingwe is properly placed in BoLT. --Davémon (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have currently changed the order of many parts of the article as I think it should take the accademic essay route (e.g. certain subjects, e.g. Germanicism, Catholicism and Celticism, being located near each other). I just found the order to be somewhat off as it kept jumping from points to points. I think paragraphs about Catholicism should remain with other paragraphs of Catholicism. I am not going to say this is the correct order but I think it is the most comfortable.

Awaiting your input, Davémon, Sigurd and co.86.154.189.220 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps we need 2 sections. One is the "Development" which follows the historical development of Tolkiens elves. Ie - The elves in 'The Cottage of Lost Play' are simply not the same kinds of creatures as in Lord of the Rings. The second section would be "Sources and interpretations", which takes the thematic approach across all of Tolkiens works. The 'problem' I see with the thematic approach is that by isolating sources into themes, the historical narrative of Tolkien actually writing this stuff is lost, and it (IMHO) mistakenly treats Tolkien's Elves as a single, fixed immutable object on which people have opinions. As the current section is still nominally "Development" i've rearranged and titled accordingly. Davémon (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hair color
Especially given the films' "all elves are blonde" simplification, it might be nice to include a summary of exactly what is said in the various texts about elven hair color. (See e.g. the discussions and  and .) &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 22:34, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Elves are not all blonde. If you look at the scene in LOTR-TFOTR where the elves dwarves and men etc. are at council deciding who is to take the ring to mordor, you can clearly see a darked haired elve sitting down. He is supposedly names figwit.

And what about Orcs and Goblins, whose origion are Elves?


 * All elves are blonde in the films? What about Arwen? Elrond? A large number of the extras in Rivendell? --UrbaneLegend 11:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Celegorm's hair colour is heavily contested given the context of the word usage of 'fair' in his work. Never did Tolkien state to have Celegorm to have a golden colour of his hair, J.R.R. Tolkien in History of Middle Earth, Shaping of Middle-earth (part 4) of him being 'Fairfax', i.e. fair-haired. What strikes me is that in that certain parts of the series, characters with blond hair are described golden haired, where as Tolkien himself also wrote dark-haired elves as being fair. The fairfax relates to an translation into of the Quenta Noldorinwa into Old English, but in the translation, there is a clear translation to golden-haired, namely: his daughter is Fripuswip Fealuleome (i.e. Finduilas Failivrin; fealuleome perhaps 'golden light'). In HOME XII, the often the correct context is given and this is just one example because I can come up with more references of fair-haired in correlation to dark hair colours: There were  fair-haired men  and women  among the  Folk of  Beor, but  most of  them had  brown hair (going usually with brown eyes), and many were less fair in skin, some indeed being  swarthy. To equal fair-haired to blonde is just incredibly wrong and I cannot imagine it would be the purpose of this article to give incorrect information. 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Citations used from HOME IV and Home XII, Rhapsody


 * As stereotypical it is, the movies did portrait many elves as blonde. However, professor T never once said that the majority was such, nor any other colour. The term "fair" does not mean the archaic form (always) and might even refer to their skin. The Vanyar were descrobed as "golden-haired", the Noldor as "dark" and the Teleri as "of many colours" though their unique rademark was their silverhair (Galadriel's mother and Celeborn most noteably). It... was mostly a mistake Jacksson made with all the blonde elves since the only blonde Elf that had no Vanyar blood ever described was Thranduil ("... and a circlet of red leaves lay around his golden hair" or something, the Hobbit) and he was of Sindar origin. ---Hackeru

Tolkien made it very clear, in many places, that most Elves have dark hair. Only the Vanyar are blond (or 'golden-haired'). 169.253.4.21 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Elvish vs Elven
I always wondered if there was an "official" difference between these two adjectives. Is elvish used exclusively for languages? Or can one say "elvish sword" in the same manner as "elven sword"? If there is an official source, it might be interesting to add it to the article. --DarthMuffin 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no official statement to the fact, but generally in Tolkien's works (I have read the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion), Elvish refers specifically the the language(s) of Elves, while Elven refers to anything else related to Elves, usually an object or person, such as in "Three rings for the Elven kings under the sky..."--UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image(s)
Why, in the entirety of this article, is there but one picture, and a small and poor one at that. With all the images drawn of elves by so many people, can we not find a single one that follows Wikipedia's image use policies? Seriously, people. Even the "List of Objects in Middle-Earth" article has better images than this one.--UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Elfs?
When is "elf" ever pluralised as "elfs"? It's ungrammatical; and I've never seen it done. "Dwarves" is a different kettle of fish. --UrbaneLegend 12:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The writer could be speaking of different elf races, in which case I suppose "elfs" could be correct, but it still sounds rather strange. I think it should be changed, any objections?  --Eruhildo 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Note's on text in the Book, it's Typed Elfs, Dwarfs. --Yellow Onion (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wot, no Lothlórien?
Why is there no mention of Lothlórien in this article? I'm not enough of a LOTR expert to confidently place it, but can someone take a look? 202.64.168.196 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Physical description
I've noticed that nowhere in the article is there a description of the physical appearances of elves. A potential reader might look at the cartoon picture towards the bottom of the page and conclude they were gray, ugly creatures. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Elves and user:Davemon's mysterious "Northern European mythologies"
Alright, it's absurd that this dialogue is even occurring here, but I guess this is the nature of Wikipedia. Let's make something clear here; elves are not a "Northern European" concept, they are specifically Germanic. Elves do not exist in Celtic mythology. They do not exist among the Sami. They do not exist among the Slavs. They do note exist in the Finno-Ugric sphere. They do not appear in any other cultures outside of very modern borrowings. Tolkien's concept of them involved outside influence, sure, but stating that elves stem from anything but from Germanic myth is totally misleading and, I'd venture, simply a result of ignorance.

That said, I see there has been some discussion involving this above, and I've recently been reverted by for having a "biased emphasis on Germanic myth"  and who prefers to describe elves as beings "in Northern European mythologies". Er? I encourage anyone watching this page to not allow Davemon's evident, aggressive ignorance on the subject result in the spread of misinformation by way of this article. bloodofox: (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Elves are not a specifically "Germanic" concept. Get some sources to support your POV if you want it reflected in the article, otherwise it's just more hot air and vitriolic talk-page posting from you as usual. You might also want to take note of the Edit / Revert / Discuss cycle rather than trying to start edit-warring. Davémon (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Davemon, please get your hands on any work on English etymology that exists, or any scholarly text handling the subject of elves. Rest assured, you are, without argument, most clearly in the wrong here. Now, normally this wouldn't be an issue, but you've proven, time and time again, that your ignorance is a real time waster. Still, I'm willing to help you out; here's a basic work handling the subject of Norse elves, for starters: . As for the pan-Germanic concept of elves, here's a Google Book search using the words "elves" and "Germanic" for you: . With these two, I believe you have all you need to start wrapping your head around the basics. bloodofox: (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bloodofox, you are simply confusing etymology with meaning. Have a look at: (oh, and ) for example of non Germanic elves. And stop removing cited content from the article, it makes you look like a troll (pun intended)!  Davémon (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Davemon, do I really have to walk you through this? Once more, elves do not exist in Celtic mythology; the word and the concept are Germanic. What you are seeing in that link above, consisting mostly of non-scholarly works, is a gloss. What is a gloss? It's like when, say, Danish nisse is translated into English as "goblin" (or, in this case, when the aos sí are referred to as "elves"; this is a comparison, not something found in the source material—elves and the Aos Sí are not the same concept and do not stem from the same cultural spheres). In other words, it's when a word that is culturally specific to one culture is used to translate something from another culture without retaining the specific cultural term from the other. Again, basic. Again, you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with these fundamentals, and, again, you would do well to do these things before venturing into a revert war on a subject you are ignorant about while claiming that your ignorance is simply the "bias" of the other editor. bloodofox: (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your misunderstanding is clear, the concept 'elf' is defined by the "gloss", not by original sources, when
 * What? You seem to have again pressed the "save page" button a little too early, Davemon. However, I may be able to save you some trouble. Now that you're familiar with what glossing is and attempting to save face by doing some worming around, it's not going to fly; glossing another concept with "elf" would mean that it is "elf-like" and only in the opinion of the editor. Claiming that the aos sí, for example, are simply "elves" would bring a number of scholars up in arms, as well as members of the Celtic linguistic sphere for a variety of reasons. It's bad practice and avoided by scholars because it is inaccurate. The simple fact is that elves stem from Germanic mythology and exist in English from native belief, as in all other Germanic languages. bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you are simply mistaking etymology with meaning. The world 'elf' does originate from Germanic languages, but the concept (in the context here, not in your context of 'native belief') does not stem from soley Germanic sources. --Davémon (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have Davemon restoring "He also retains the usage of the Celtic and popular term 'fairy' for the same creatures" citing this work. Now, it should be evident enough that fairy is not a "Celtic" word without checking up on the reference cited (it, in fact, ultimately stems from Latin fata 'fates') and so it is clear that something is up here, but taking the trouble to dig up the reference itself results evidence of blatant misrepresentation; the section makes no such claim. That said, I am willing to simply chalk this up to someones's confusion or simply poor syntax. Now, whatever was intended here needs to be rephrased so it does not appear that the line is claiming that "fairy" is a "Celtic ... term". Which, of course, is exactly what I said in my edit summary when removing the offending section. bloodofox: (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK so now we have bloodofox: admitting that he removes cited content before checking the sources, and removing citations rather than taking the trouble to improve the article. Davémon (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Davemon, I obviously checked the reference before pulling it. That was the issue. Had you bothered to check the source on your own, you would have seen the issue and not simply reverted me. Again, you are in dire need of learning to familiarize yourself with a subject before pressing the button. bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * bloodofox: your choice to look at the source and delete it, rather than improve the article text based on your reading it speaks volumes. On no account did the source need pulling, what possible explanation do you have for doing that? --Davémon (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the information referenced to the source was outright wrong ,and whatever was intended to be said was unclear. Misattribution is a serious issue. Reinstatement of misattribution, which you are guilty of above, is worse yet. bloodofox: (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I fixed the misattribution once you brought it to my attention. See, thats what I'm doing here. Trying to improve the article, not push an agenda onto it. In this edit you added (twice): "In the same letter, Tolkien goes on to say that the elves had very little in common with Germanic elves or notions of Fairies, " you are misattributing to Tolkien the concept of "Germanic" elves. What Tolkien actually wrote, and is being cited is this:


 * "But I suppose that the Quendi are in fact in these histories very little akin to the Elves and Fairies of Europe" (Tolkien, letter 144)


 * As you say, misattribution is a serious issue. Reinstatement of misattribution, which you are guilty of above, is worse yet Davémon (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And here we come back to the troublesome combination of your ignorance combined with snark. A better solution would be to do some research and get familiar with what you're talking about. Tolkien uses the term "European" here in reference to the gray concept of "fairies", not elves, which he, as a Germanic philologist, was all too aware was a, yes, Germanic concept, just as the aos sí stem from Celtic mythology. Therefore, your echo of my comments is entirely unnecessary. Further, as is clear enough, were you "trying to improve the article", you'd have checked the reference before reverting me and saved me from having to point out the obvious to you. bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again: you could have just noted the obvious yourself and made the amendment yourself, then I wouldn't have had to revert your arbitrary deletion of a valid source. But hey, it's a team effort, and the end result is a good one, don't you think?
 * Tolkien used the word "European" in the context of both Elves and Fairies, your insistence that he wrote otherwise is baffling. I suggest you do some research on the subject area by reading Tolkiens Letters and the critical literature around his work. Look, I'll help you. Terry Gunnell writes (actually cited in the article, so you should be able to find it):
 * "While the word elf, which Tolkien chose to use instead of "fairy", is Germanic, the beings denoted by the word are much more international."
 * There are sources (and Gunnell is one) that do discuss the Germanic influence in more depth than the article currently shows. May I suggest you use these sources to add material of substance to the article? --Davémon (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Davemon, at this point I suggest you drop the issue. You were wrong, it's evident for the world to see, and it would do you well to just admit it and move on. bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Spin it any way you like. The article history stands as a matter of record. Davémon (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please stop the bickering and your semi-edit-war. There is a wealth of sources that show how Tolkien drew his inspiration from all across Norse, Celtic and even Finnish mythology and what he is trying to express in letter #144 is the fact that his Quendi must not be mistaken for tiny, airy, winged creatures à la Tinkerbell. The current revision by Davemon seems quite alright and I for one see no need to specify any Germanic (or Celtic for that matter) class of elves when dealing with it. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is no such thing as Celtic elves and that Tolkien's primary philological interests were Germanic, the shying away from simply calling them what they are—creatures bearing the name and some features from an earlier English and pan-Germanic tradition—is absurd and can be simply explained by ignorance on the issue on the part of Davemon in particular. I've since added information regarding the name and a little background to the concept, which Davemon was repeatedly removing. bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only absurd thing is that you seem to be completely ignorant of the critical literature discussing Tolkiens work and think that because the word 'elf' is Germanic in origin that somehow makes Tolkiens concept 'Germanic', whereas in fact it represents a synthesis of various influences. --Davémon (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the Simek reference I added makes perfectly clear, his employment of the concept is part of a larger English continuum stretching back to Germanic prehistory to Christianization to Shakespeare to Tolkien. I do note that your attempts have resulted in some comedy for me though, such as your fantastic 'Simek was born in 1954, so how did he influence Tolkien?' comment . Now, I could be considerably crueler here, but I'm biting my tongue with just about every edit on this article. Again, I suggest that you play it safe—stick to the sources. bloodofox: (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of context information
The following was added to the section "Early Writings". While informative, and about 'elves' generally it is clearly not directly relevant to subject of this article.

The word elf, after which Tolkien chose to name his beings, derives from Old English and has cognates in all other Germanic languages. In Germanic paganism and Germanic mythology, numerous types of elves are attested and veneration of elves is mentioned (such as during the Scandinavian Álfablót). Into the modern period, elves appear in English literature from Shakespeare to Tolkien.

Can it be improved in some way so it talks to the subject at hand? Davémon (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, try harder, Davemon. Of course it's relevant; it's the background of Tolkien's word choice, and frames his employment of the word and concept in a historical context. bloodofox: (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Haha, try harder, Davemon." please see WP:CIVIL. Also try to understand WP:BRD, it's there for a reason. Who says Rudolf Simek "frames his employment of the word and concept in a historical context." - do you have a citation for that? The fact is Tolkien only used the word elves much much later than his initial development of the concept, where they were called Gnomes, Fairies and all sorts of other things. So if it can be seen to frame anything, it is meerly that point of development, so rightly the text belongs with that (if anywhere). Further, there is no evidence that "numerous types of elves are attested and veneration of elves is mentioned (such as during the Scandinavian Álfablót)." has any relevance at all. The cultural context(s) that Tolkien was informed by is more adequately discussed in the article as at each point in the development, different influences can be shown to be greater or lesser. Just sticking "Cultural Background" at the top is grossly oversimplifying the Tolkiens long creative process. There are subtleties and nuances to the development of Tolkiens ideas that you are treating with a sledgehammer.  --Davémon (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Davemon, you're going to have to try harder than methods such as adding scare quotes to section titles, for example. And, obviously, I do have a citation for that—the citation provided. Again, this is cultural and contextual background to Tolkien's employment of the term. bloodofox: (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided a citation that Rudolf Simek frames (Tolkiens) employment of the word and concept in a historical context. Ruldolf wasn't even born until 1954, so how on earth did his potted history come to inform Tolkiens views? Who says this is the "cultural context" Tolkien was operating in? Your fundamental error is in assuming that Tolkien was influenced by this specific history, rather than supplying sources that actually state it. Also you need to explain (with sources) how Álfablót has any relevance to Tolkien's elves, or can we assume this is meerly an interjection on your part? --Davémon (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The history of one word does not a "cultural context" make. The real cultural context encompasses cultural attitudes to fairy-tales, fairy-lore, the cultural attitudes of the English towards things Celtic and things Germanic, the role of Romanticism, the cultural contexts created by Two World Wars, the place of Catholic church. Without these elements in place, calling the section "cultural context" is misleading and biased towards a Germanic reading of Tolkiens elves, which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has read any critical text on Tolkien is an oversimplified view. Simply put, the notes on context should be integrated properly into the development of the concepts. --Davémon (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Simek is an authority on this matter and there is nothing controversial about what he has said here. While you're still wrapping your head around these basics, we have (and, considering your evident lack of familiarity in these areas, certainly you have) no reason to question Simek's statements regarding basic linguistic and cultural matters. There exists, indeed, a long cultural history of which Tolkien is only a part of, as Simek makes quite plainly clear. bloodofox: (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Simek is not an expert on Tolkien, his POV is narrow, over-simplistic and does not actually encompass the subject at hand. You could try actually reading some of the literature on Tolkien and at least have a basic understanding of his work before making such elementary errors in the article. --Davémon (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys. Reading through this I'm thinking that perhaps the "Cultural background" section could be merged with "Names and naming conventions". It could be revised to more concisely show why Tolkien chose the word "elf" over "fairy". What do you think? --Fang Aili talk 08:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good place for it to me. --Davémon (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll work on a synthesis. --Fang Aili talk 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, it will be a while, if ever, before I make any substantial edits. I believe the article needs substantial restructuring and editing, and I do not have the knowledge for such a task. My apologies. --Fang Aili talk 07:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I encourage you to be wp:bold! I've moved the relevant information to the "naming" section, and I can see that the two paragraphs are quite repetitive. --Davémon (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In-universe
The "history" and "life=cycle" sections appear to me to be totally in-universe and a useless synthesis of Tolkiens work (Just read Tolkiens books if you want to know this stuff!). Before I make the overbold step of deleting them, are there any strong objections? --Davémon (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think both sections could be edited down, but I wouldn't like to see them wholly removed. --Fang Aili talk 20:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OFS/LOTR
The material coming from On Fairy-stories (1938) belongs with the Lord of the Rings (1937-1949) because it was written during the composition of the larger work. OFS certainly does not form part of the 'background' to Tolkiens creative development of the elves, but is rather part of it. Davémon (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It provides however evidence for Tolkien's final use of the word "elf" and that use is analysed in the "Background" section. The detailed development of his Quendi can of course be seen from the various book sections but I have a strong feeling that we should conclude the "Background" with a statement on how JRRT chose "elf" as the non plus ultra. We need not arrange everything in a chronological order but have to put things where they make most sense. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I would say the lead paragraph would be the best place to make the statement about Tolkien having ideas then settling on 'elf', then let the chronology do the detail (like the OFS quote), and leave the 'Background' showing the kinds of things that were going on before and around the time Tolkien began his journey. --Davémon (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the current Background serves quite nicely as an extended introduction. And since you have removed the "bias" tag I think we should just leave it as a well-balanced section that gives an overview before the chronology begins. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

bloodofox:s Biased "Cultural Background"
I fail to see why bloodofox: continues to insert the "cultural background" section, which goes against the consensus being formed here - that the use of the word 'elf' should be covered in Naming section. I will not bother repeating myself, but please read the discussion above, especially with regards what would actually pertain to a 'cultural background' and note that Simek is not an expert on Tolkien, so the emphasis on his opinion is misplaced here. If you really want to get some better coverage of the Germanic influence on Tolkiens Elves, may I suggest you start with Tom Shippey, who does the subject far better justice than the superficial and erroneous view that Simek gives, and ensure it is properly integrated into the article structure (i.e. Silmarillion elves are not conflated with Hobbit elves - they are quite different literary creations). Meanwhile, I do agree that a proper "cultural background" section is relevant. Davémon (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm well familiar with Shippey's work, and the two are hardly at odds; Shippey would solidly agree with Simek in this case, as would Tolkien, and so would Grimm, for that matter. There's nothing to disagree with; Tolkien is neither the last nor first to use the concept of an elf in his writings in the Anglosphere, a concept which stems ultimately from Germanic paganism and simply continued as a concept post-Christianization, no matter how Tolkien visualized them in his "Middle-earth" (oh, look, another concept brought over from Germanic paganism) writings. As for an expert on on "elves", as a Germanic philologist (like Tolkien), Simek is fully qualified to make his statements. Now, if you've got problems with Simek, that's your beef, but there's hardly a "consensus" here but anything against you; any user can look over this talk page and find your bizarre shunning of the term "Germanic" repeatedly mentioned above by users other than myself.  bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Supply sources where Shippey and Tolkien 'solidly agree with Simek', otherwise your assertions are pointless. So let's walk you though the basics: Tolkiens elves sang in the Wilderland long before "Middle-earth" was even named thus, and his elves had built Kortirion long before that. Tolkien wrote of elves before he became a philologist. While there are ideas derived from Germanic philology that influenced Tolkiens elves (particularly in LoTR), these influences were not there from the start of their development, and it is a mistake to assume or imply they were. This article does have a (small) problem in that the Germanic influence on Tolkiens work is not as well covered as the Celtic but those inserting 'Germanic-this' and 'Germanic-that' consistently fail to provide adequate sources for their opinions.--Davémon (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a statement I support. While Tolkien himself wrote in the end that his elves are much like the men-sized elves of Norse mythology his early concepts and many other storylines drew from Celtic mythology and the tiny winged or dwarf-like fairies he later despised. And we are supposed to present all aspects. I think however I can understand where Bloodofox is coming from. Coming from a mythological and linguistic point of view he seems to be insisting on the fact that the only "elves" are even those tall, mighty álfar of Germanic origin and anything else must be called "fairies". And there lies the problem when he says that there are no elves outside Germanic lore, because even Tolkien himself noted in On Fairy Stories that the two terms have long been mixed. De728631 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that is part of the problem. As Terry Gunnell writes, "the original álfar in fact seem to have had very little to do with elves as most people saw them before The Lord of the Rings came to be written". So from a mythological and linguistics point of view the problem stems from a kind of genetic fallacy in assuming álfar and elf as if they are always were equivocal. We should, and the article does, use terms that the sources themselves use rather than impose an ideological structure onto them.


 * Another part of the problem. Importing ideas from modern faery-scholarship to 'frame' Tolkiens creative endeavours can be hugely misleading, we have to look at the scholarship, Märchen and contemporary literature that Tolkien had available and which reliable sources say he was actually influenced by. Simeks glib comments that elves have influenced Shakespeare and Tolkien - these are hardly the same kinds of elves at all! and scholars working in both Shakespeare and Tolkien have a much clearer understanding of what models of "elf" (Germanic/Celtic/Romance) their works draw from. Simek is an expert in Germanic mythology, but not in English Literature or Tolkien, his POV is too narrow to adequately provide the basis for a 'background' for Tolkiens work. Fortunately filling out the Background has negated the undue weight being placed upon his opinions. --Davémon (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will again point out that Simek has attempted none of the things here that Davemon is rallying against; Simek's entry is simply about elves in Germanic paganism and the continued linguistic and cultural currency thereof without commenting on "kinds" employed by Shakespeare or Tolkien. Simek simply mentions Tolkien as yet another author who has used the concept and term, briefly tracing it from its origins in Germanic paganism to modern literature. The apparent "POV" seems to be your own, as you continue to pussyfoot away from the cultural continuity for unknown reasons. Further, what is this mysterious "faery-scholarship"? bloodofox: (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Davemon, I'm hoping that eventually you'll outgrow this sort of behavior (specifically the need for parroting after having been stung). I note that you nigh always strike me as poorly-read, immature, and heavy-handed with just about any matter I encounter you with (generally limited to areas in which Germanic mythology overlaps with modern pop culture) and I know that I'm not the only one. I'd welcome a change. Anyway, as Simek points out, Tolkien was simply a part of a larger picture, which he remains; a tradition of elves in the Anglosphere and Germanic Europe in general. Of course, particularly post-Norman Anglo-Saxon "elves" became a blurred thing in the Anglosphere, and there is much debate about exactly what elves were seen as in Germanic mythology, but there was an aspect of them that certainly seems to have been considered both beautiful and bright, which Tolkien definitely picked up on. The main issue here is that when you use oblique and obtuse terms like "fairy" (which means nothing in specific), you're going to need to be very specific as to what you're talking about.


 * De, you may get a clearer picture of what is going on here by going back over some of the exchanges I've had with Davemon here above. It's been a process of pulling teeth and hand-holding to even get this far. Of course, Tolkien's influences were partially typically post-Victorian, but Tolkien was an academic with a focus on Germanic philology and Tolkien's writings are first and foremost oozing with influence from Germanic sources, sources which he was quite familiar with and expressed much fondness for. The term "elf" has been much blurred in the Anglosphere, yes, and to varying extents in other parts of Germanic Europe, but we need to be precisely clear about what we're talking about; rather than a confused mish-mash of "fairies, elves, and Northern Europe", we need a clear separation when we're talking about the elves from Germanic myth and their post-medieval descendents and recognition of cultural spheres. bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * bloodofox, apart from the tiresome and predictable ad-hominems and colourful oral-sadistic imagery, that's a just lot of opinion about Tolkien which is utterly worthless without proper sourcing. As I said before, if you want to add more detail on the Germanic influence on Tolkiens Elves, the way to do that is to add sourced material from reliable sources to the article rather than putting undue weight onto the sources you favour, or arguing your point on the talk-page. Davémon (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate quotes from The Big Lebowski as much as the next guy ("Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"), I am afraid it doesn't reflect well on your actions here, including such child-like behavior as placing quotation marks on section titles that you disagree with. bloodofox: (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thranduil
What about Thranduil, of the Mirkwood Elves? He held one of the three rings... --Timo 23:59, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, he didn't. Ausir 00:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I think its in the appendix of LOTR. However, he was still important, as he ruled one of the elven forests, then after the Wars of the Rings, he and Elrond cured Mirkwood from the gloom --Timo 00:02, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not in the appendix. Mirkwood was mainly cleared by Celeborn of Lórien. Thranduil was mainly a fringe figure, a Sindar who had become almost like his Silvan subjects. Thranduil was not even king at the time of the forging of the Rings of Power: his father Oropher was. The holders of the Elves were Gil-galad (two rings) and Galadriel: Gil-galad's rings went to his lieutenants Elrond and Círdan. Círdan then gave his ring to Gandalf. &mdash; Jor (Darkelf) 00:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * To be more precise, there where many elven rings, but only three remained, the others where taken back by Sauron, when he saw, that the elves were getting to know, how to control these rings. DJ 08:45, 17 Aug 2006 (UTC)

No, there were only 3 Elven Rings and they were forged WITHOUT Saurons interference. And they were given to Gil-Galad, Cirdan and Galadriel, only in the Unfinished tales are 2 Rings given to Gil-galad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.64.132 (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There where only 3 'great' elf rings, but there were an unknown number of weaker rings created. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What is a 'High Elf'?
The funny thing is that 'High Elf' re-directs to this article, in spice of the fact that nowhere does the term 'High Elf' occur on this page. Isn't this rather a problem? --Peter Knutsen 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for spotting that. High Elves (Tareldar) should redirect to Calaquendi. I've done that now, and added a note here as well. Carcharoth 13:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on. I'm confused now. High elf, High Elves and High Elf all redirect to High elves, and looking at the redirects towards Elf (Middle-earth), I can't find anything corresponding to the re-direct you point out. Can you explain further?

There is a contradiction in this arcticle ! They say that elves celebrate conception and after that they say that elves point of view about sex is intimate. --Tepes Doamne 04:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that gondolin sholdent be placed in the castels i wich elves live (cave castels). It is built from the ground and has no part of it in caves. --Tepes Doamne 16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The High Elves were the Noldor; the Deep Elves were the Vanyar; the Sea Elves were the Teleri.

169.253.4.21 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn

A 'High Elf': an Elf who has smoked a little too much pipeweed. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.130.38 (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arwen the lastborn of her folk (in Jackson)?
I'm sort of sure this exists, and Jackson and company made this up, but then again... I was going to add the following because of a statement building on bodiless spirits Lingering - that at the end of the world, only young Elves would remain visible since they really won't stop reproducing:


 * Theoretically, if the Elves did exist, at the end of the world the youngest of them would still be visible, since for them all to become invisible would logically require that all Elves stop reproducing at some point. Incidentally, this voluntary cessation of reproduction appeared in material related to the Jackson films. In the material (not explicitly stated in the films themselves), Arwen is supposed to be the lastborn of her people, thus her being called "the Evenstar" (evening star). However, this does not appear in the books.

202.78.127.202 03:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Evenstar is a metaphor; Arwen was not the last Elf born in Middle-earth, although the Elvish birthrate was doubtless very low by the end of the Third Age. Legolas, for example, was born hundreds of years AFTER Arwen, and Thranduil's folk in Mirkwood are said to have "recovered their numbers" during the Third Age (after the Last Battle at the end of the Second Age).222.230.128.157 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)TexxasFinn


 * We don't have a date of birth for Legolas. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not in the 'Tale of Years,' but Legolas at one point says something along the lines of "600 times have the leaves fallen in Mirkwood since I was born..." I don't have the book in front of me, so it might not have been 600, although that number sticks; but in any case, the reference indicated that he was born early in the third millenium of the Third Age. 222.230.130.38 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)TexxasFinn


 * That passage doesn't mention Legolas' birth, this is the passage you are referring to I believe.

It can be inferred from this passage that Legolas is at least 500 years old (although that could be considered O/R if we just make the assumption).

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Elves are Germanium based life forms?
Is it true that elves are Ge-77 based life forms, and this explains their apparent immortality? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 10:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never ever seen any evidence in any of Tolkien's works that would indicate that. Where such an idea would come from is beyond me. --Eruhildo 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. They'd have to have the same biochemistry as Men, since they can interbreed. Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Note in the Sundering section
Regarding the note "note: Ingwë, Finwë and Elwë are not the same elves as Imin, Tata and Enel", I assumed that they were the same Elves. Admittedly there doesn't appear to be textual evidence that JRRT regarded them as such, but nor can I find evidence that he did not. Clarification anyone? Markfiend (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be rather hard to reconcile the fact that Imin, Tata and Enel woke up with their preordained spouses with Elwë marrying Melian the Maia. Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Elves as Men not fallen?
The larger Elves are also inspired by Tolkien's personal Catholic theology — as representing the state of Men in Eden who have not yet "fallen". First, there is no such thing as "Tolkien's personal Catholic theology", at least not in the sense intended. There's Catholic theology, and the matter of the Fall is sufficiently clear that it's not about "personal theologies" properly speaking (i. e. in their legitimate Catholic sense). But this is an aside, and I came to the discussion page because I wanted to say something different. Elves are not non-Fallen men. That is, the ones in Paradise might in a sense be, especially the Vanyar; but not the ones we find in Middle-Earth, who either rejected the proposal of Orome, who in this interpretation would be the Soul-Hunter, from the outset (Avari), or tarried on their journey lingering in mortal lands (Umanyar), or have actually fallen by outright and outspoken rebellion against the holy Powers - which latter (the Noldor) are even the most noble of them! [because they have Seen the Light, which apparently is still good enough even after all they did] We certainly could say that the sympathetic treatment of Elves even who have fallen, and their portrayal as good, shows some sympathetic Catholicism which (to cut a long story short) believes in "concupiscient, wounded and off of Communion with God" but not in "utterly depraved". But the connection of Elves with the Fall is not so easy as presently presented in the article. Elves are, quite openly, designed just as people who are, by nature, different from Men. (The Fall did not principally change human nature, according to Catholic theology.) Among these differences is immortality and resting within the world, and - apparently - superior gifts (which might be due to the Trees, though). "Resting within the world" is the important thing, even if it is in Earthly Paradise (and Earthly Paradise is indeed a Catholic concept, distinct from Heaven). You get the impression even in the Silmarillion (which is by design "Elvish point of view") that Men have the actually higher destiny - are not bound to the circles of the Earth, etc. Human death, for Tolkien, means giving up connections to the created world (for the sake of the Creator, though he does not say so explicitly); hence his point (which, if we would take it as a narration of what actually happened in the real world, would appear to contradict the Bible) that Men have death from the onset as Illuvatar's gift, and the tale about it being a punishment was spread by Morgoth and false. (Which, though as I said appears to contradict the Bible, still reflects the fact that Catholics assume with virtual unanimity that without the Fall, Men had still to pass some life as wayfarers - a word which Tolkien frequently applies to especially Aragorn btw. - before being assumed into Heaven.) Cf. Tolkien's saying that the humantales of the Fairies are about escape from Deathlessness; "Beren and Luthien" is certainly intended to be an example of that. Hence Elves are not non-Fallen men, but... Elves. However, you might defend to say that the Edain are originally non-Fallen Men, who are then given Paradise (Numenor) as a reward for their conduct (differently from the Bible). The majority falls with the holy rest escaping from the destroyed city (here of course the religious component is rather palpable); during the Kinstrife there is another Fall.--131.159.77.171 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)