Talk:Middle-earth/Archive 4

Are there any GLBT people (or any hints) in Arda or Middle earth?
You may add some extra links if you what.Thanks.
 * No, not to my knowledge. El_C 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. The situations in Tolkien's work where sexual attraction or romantic love was a character's major motivator could be counted on the fingers, and they're all heterosexual. Even if this was not the case he would have been unlikely to include any GLBT characters for a number of reasons. First, he was a devout Roman Catholic and objected to homosexuality on moral grounds. Second, he was part of an informal reactionary movement at Oxford against the kind of flamboyance represented by Oscar Wilde and others, and accurate or not this would have been his main impression of homosexual culture and behavior. He found it repulsive and he was utterly uninspired by it. Third, he was deeply unfamiliar with the subject. He claimed to have not even known what "homosexual" meant until he entered the university. (Since he received a thorough education in the Classics and spoke Ancient Greek fluently at the time, his syllabus must have been heavily bowdlerized.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Numenor map
I found this map on Armenelos. Its not as descriptive as the Numenor map on this article at the moment, but it is public domain. Should it be put in the article? -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There will always be a 'derivative work' question about any map of an area of Middle-earth that maps have been published for already. This version actually includes less 'original content' than the Encyclopedia of Arda map (and might therefor be more likely to be classified as 'derivative'), but as you note, the copyright on it does not prevent downstream commercial use - as the copyright on the Encyclopedia of Arda maps does. Switching to this one makes sense to me. Since it is PD we can probably put some identifying text on it. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia?
See: Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive V. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread. Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Bombadil
From the history: 19:52, 9 January 2006 Steuard (→Peoples - I don't think Bombadil ought to be included in what should be a brief overview section)

Since it is an undisputed fact that there was a character called Tom Bombadil in Tolkien's fictional Middle Earth, and since it is generally accepted that his qualities differed enough from those of other peoples to cast doubt on whether he fitted the original list, so to speak, I do not think it is unreasonable that the question of which group Tom Bombadil belongs to, should be noted or discussed in a encyclopedic treatment of Tolkien's world.

The question, then, is where it should be discussed. I feel that an article that talks about Middle Earth, and that has its own section on Peoples of Middle Earth, should aspire to be complete and accurate (as should any other article). If you feel the article is getting too long, perhaps having a separate article on the peoples of Middle Earth would be in order.

As an aside, I find it extremely rude, and hostile to Wikipedia, that you just remove facts. If the facts had been disputable, or if they had not been encyclopedic facts such as Wikipedia defines them, the removal would have been justified. Despite your name, you are not my steward. Please keep your hands off my facts, unless they are wrong, or in the wrong place. In the latter case, you move them to the correct place, either by splitting up the article, or by just moving the fact.--82.92.181.129 15:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the question of Bombadil's nature should be mentioned on Wikipedia. He's actually a particular interest of mine; my essay on Bombadil is one of the most popular and well-regarded on the net.  But this particular article is meant to give a general overview of Middle-earth; it cannot be expected to include every detail itself.  Wikipedia recommends that no article exceed 32Kb, but the current Middle-earth article is a whopping 41Kb.  Back when it was selected as a featured article, it fit within that limit (after lots of hard work by many editors); since then, it has ballooned back up.


 * So the question is, where should Bombadil be discussed? Despite my substantial interest in him, I honestly don't think he's a major feature of Middle-earth or a major player in its history.  In an article that's already very much pressed for space, I just don't think this is the place.  Fortunately, many sections of this article already give links to longer "main articles" on each subtopic (see Summary style).  And indeed, the "Peoples" section includes such a link; that would usually be the right place for this sort of detail.  At the moment, though, that "main article" is just List of Middle-earth peoples.  Not only is it not in a prose style where this Bombadil paragraph would fit, but it's explicitly only for groups, which Bombadil very much is not.  As an individual character, he fits best under List of Middle-earth characters, which the peoples article links to; he's already on that list.


 * At any rate, rather than write an entire prose article about the various peoples of Middle-earth, their history, and their interrelationships (in which this Bombadil paragraph would be very appropriate), I decided that given the current state of affairs there really wasn't a good place to move this to (apart from the main article on Bombadil himself, which already explains the situation in greater detail). So, following the "Be bold" philosophy here, I cut it.  If you or anyone else has a better solution in mind (best of all, if you have time to write that longer article), I'm happy to hear it.  But I really believe that we should be working to take things out of this article, not put them in.


 * Oh, and while I'm at it, this paragraph does have one fact wrong. It says that "Tolkien himself said that some things should remain mysterious in any mythology, hidden even to its inventor."  What Tolkien actually wrote (in Letter #144) was "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists)... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."  That suggests that Tolkien did in fact have an explanation in mind for Bombadil, which is the opposite of what the article currently states.


 * At any rate, I'm not going to start a revert war over this, but I hope that other contributors here will weigh in with their thoughts on what should be done. My vote is still in favor of simply removing the paragraph (and trimming the rest of the article substantially as well).--Steuard 18:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just started Middle earth peoples so that we can have an article on all the 'peoples'. Its pretty rough at the moment. -- Astrokey44 |talk 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a very smart idea. Just casually reading over all the LoTR-related articles on individual characters makes me think that some cleaning needs to be done.  Perhaps the main characters of The Hobbit and LoTR deserve their own articles, but most of them should probably be grouped together.  First of all, it seems excessive and somehow wasteful, but it also makes it a lot harder to navigate between them when you constantly have to keep going between articles. -- Freshyill 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd cite the various entries on weapons like Glamdring, Orcrist, Narsil, Sting, etc. All are great articles, but a "Weapons of Middle Earth" article might be better.  Just a thought Freshyill 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
Rather than trying to sort through each passage for POV, inaccuracies, redundancies, et cetera I reverted the prior update entirely. Some portions of it may have been valid, but examples of the numerous problems I saw are listed below:


 * 1) All of the 'multiple mythologies' changes throughout the page need some sort of source citation. See Talk:Middle-earth canon for a citation of Tolkien stating the opposite.
 * 2) "The name 'Middle-earth' occurs first on a map Tolkien made for the Ambarkanta in the mid-1930s. Originally a center-point in the middle continent of the flat world..."
 * Middle-earth was never the term for the 'center-point'. It was always the 'middle continent'. The confusion presumably arises due to the change in meaning of 'Endor'. Originally Tolkien translated 'Endor' as "Earth-middle"... making it the mid-point of 'Middle-earth', which was at that time translated 'Ambar-endya'. Later Tolkien dropped the mid-point concept and changed 'Endor' to "Middle-earth"... replacing 'Ambarendya'. Thus, the meaning of 'Endor' changed, but not the meaning of 'Middle-earth'.
 * 1) "None of these maps are consistent with the several 'flat Earth' maps..."
 * Consistency is of course a subjective matter, but Ambarkanta Map IV is a 'flat earth' map which shows Beleriand, the Blue Mountains, and the Iron Mountains... portions of which survived into the 'round earth' timeframe and maps. At that, the Beleriand map in Silm (and its preceding drafts) is also a 'flat earth' map.
 * 1) "'Middle-earth', when used by Tolkien, refers to the whole world and not to any specific part of it."
 * Tolkien said that Middle-earth referred to "the inhabited lands of Men 'between the seas'." (Letters #165). 'Ambarendya' and 'Endor' translate to 'Middle-earth' and were clearly shown to be a specific portion of the world (specifically the area between the eastern and western seas prior to the reshaping) rather than the whole.
 * 1) The Years of the Sun are further subdivided into Ages. Most Middle-earth stories take place in the first three Ages of the Sun.
 * Tolkien never used the term 'Ages of the Sun' (which is why it was a red link), nor defined the three ages referred to as being related to the Sun in any way. The creation (or appearance in some versions) of the Sun took place towards the end of the First Age.

Additional references on the above issues are available if those cited are deemed insufficient. --CBDunkerson 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Conrad is very familiar with the numerous citations that I have provided regarding the distinctions between the mythologies. I have accordingly pointed out his misuse of Letter 165 in the discussion page referred to.

Point 2: He's simply wrong, as Christopher Tolkien himself noted that the name "Earth-middle" as it occurs on the Ambarkanta map refers to the center-point of the continent and not the continent itself.

Point 3: The Ambarkanta maps are from a pre-LoTR mythology.

Point 4: Mr. Dunkerson is equally poorly informed on the meaning and use of "Middle-earth".

From Letter #151:

Middle-earth is just archaic English for [irreproducible letters deleted], the inhabited world of men. It lay then as it does. In  fact just as it does, round and inescapable. That is partly the point. The new situation, established at the beginning of the Third Age, leads on eventually ane inevitably to ordinary History, and we here see the process culminating.

From Letter #154:

Actually in the imagination of this story we are now living on a  physically round Earth. But the whole 'legendariium' contains a  transition from a flat world (or at least an [unprintable characters   deleted] with borders all about it) to a globe: an inevitable transition, I suppose, to a modern 'mythmaker' with a mind subjected to the same 'appearances' as ancient men, and partly fed on their myths, but taught that the Earth was round from the earliest years. So deep was the impression made by 'astronomy' on me that I do not think I could deal with or imaginatively conceive a flat world, though a world of static Earth with a Sun going round it seems easier (to fancy if not to reason).

The particular 'myth' which lies behind this tale, and the mood both of Men and Elves at this time, is the Downfall of Numenor: a special variety of the Atlantis tradition. That seems to me  so fundamental to 'mythical history' -- whether it has any kind of basis in real history, PACE Saurat and others, is not relevant -- that some version of it would have to come in.

I have written an account of the Downfall, which you might be  interested to see. But the immediate point is that before the Downfall there lay beyond the sea and the west-shores of Middle- earth an EARTHLY Elvish paradise Eressea, and VALINOR the land of the VALAR (the Powers, the Lords of the West), places that could be reached physically by ordinary sailing-ships, though the Seas were perilous. But after the rebellion of the Numenoreans, the Kings of Men, who dwelt in a land most westerly of all mortal lands, and eventually in the height of their pride attempted to occupy Eressea and Valinor by force, Numenor was destroyed, and Eressea and Valinor removed from the physically attainable Earth: the way west was open, but led nowhere but back again -- for mortals.

From Letter #165:

'Middle-earth', by the way, is not a name of a never-never land without relation to the world we live in (like the Mercury of  Eddison). It is just a use of Middle English MIDDEL-ERDE (or  ERTHE), altered from Old English MIDDENGEARD: the name for the inhabited lands of Men 'between the seas'. And though I  have not attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginitively this 'history' is supposed to take place in a period of the actual Old World of this planet.

From Letter 169:

...As for the shape of the world of the Third Age, I am afraid that was devised 'dramatically' rather than geologically, or paleontologically. I do sometimes wish that I had made some sort of agreement between the imaginations or theories of the geologists and my map a little more possible.

From Letter #184:

"I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world.   The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still   in use) of MIDDENGEARD > MIDDEL-ERD, an ancient name for the   OIKOUMENE, the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world,   in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or   unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell).  The theatre of my tale is this   earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is   imaginary.

From Letter #211:

May I say all this is 'mythical', and not any kind of new religion or vision. As far as I know it is merely an imaginative invention, to express, in the only way I can, some of my (dim) apprehensions of  the world. All I can say is that, if it were 'history', it would be  difficult to fit the lands and events (or 'cultures') into such evidence as we possess, archaeological or geological, concerning the nearer or remoter part of what is now called Europe; though the Shire, for instance, is expressly stated to have been in this region (I p. 12). I could have fitted things in with greater versimilitude, if the story had not become too far developed, before the question ever occurred to me. I doubt if there would have been much gain; and I hope the, evidently long but undefined, gap in  time between the Fall of Barad-dur and our Days is sufficient for 'literary credibility', even for readers acquainted with what is known or surmised of 'pre-history'.

I have, I suppose, constructed an imaginary TIME, but kept my  feet on my own mother-earth for PLACE. I prefer that to the contemporary mode of seeking remote globes in 'space'. However curious, they are alien, and not lovable with the love of blood- kin. MIDDLE-EARTH is (by the way & if such a note is necessary) not my own invention. It is a modernization or alteration (N[ew]  E[nglish] D[ictionary] 'a perversion') of an old word for the inhabited world of Men, the OIKOUMENE: middle because thought of vaguely as set amidst the encircling Seas and (in the northern-  imagination) between ice of the North and the fire of the South. O. English MIDDEN-GEARD, mediaeval E. MIDDENGERD, MIDDLE-ERD. Many reviewers seem to assume that Middle-earth is another planet!

From Letter #325:

The 'immortals' who were permitted to leave Middle-earth and seek AMAN -- the undying lands of VALINOR and ERESSEA, an island assigned to the ELDAR -- set sail in ships specially made and hallowed for this voyage, and steered due West towards the ancient site of these lands. They only set out after sundown; but if any keen-eyed observer from that shore had watched one of these ships he might have seen that it never became hull-down but dwindled only by distance until it vanished in the twilight: it followed the straight road to the true West and not the bent road of the earth's surface. As it vanished it left the physical world. There was no return. The Elves who took this road and those 'mortals' who by special grace went with them, had abandoned the 'History of the world' and could play no further part in it.

Point 5: As with "the mythology" and "the silmarillion" and other words, Tolkien uses "age" and "ages" in multiple contexts and ways. Since the "ages of the stars" ended with the rising of the Sun, it follows that the Years of the Sun are divided into the Ages of the Sun. Tolkien said that the term "Elder Days" was appropriately used to refer to all the ages prior to the Fourth Age (of the Sun) but that it was often used only of the First Age (of the Sun). The expression "Ages of the Sun" makes it clear to the casual reader that chronological ages described in Appendix B of The Lord of the Rings are distinct from earlier chronological ages described in The Silmarillion (such as the three ages of the imprisonment of Melkor in Mandos).Michael Martinez 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To point out a couple of items: I'm not trying to take a position here myself, I'm just asking for clarity since I'm not sure I understand you here. (I don't have the books handy at the moment myself.)


 * Your objection to point 2 doesn't actually contradict what CBDunkerson said. He agreed that "Endor" originally referred to a point. If you dispute the meaning and usage of "Ambarendya" you didn't say so.


 * In your objection to point 4, you seem to be agreed (unless I misinterpret what you're trying to say with your citations) that "Middle-earth" should exclude Aman. Since you appear to disagree with the contention that it referred to the middle continent "between the seas", and there was no other continent between it an Aman, is it your position that in the "Flat earth" era there was another continent to the east that should be included in Middle-earth? I'm just trying to see exactly where you percieve the disagreement to lie. (There are, by the way, no "unprintable characters" in Wikipedia. Any symbol encoded in Unicode can be represented here, assuming your computer has the requisite fonts installed. One can, for instance, write "οικουμενη" with little trouble.)


 * Under point 5, unless Tolkien himself used the term I don't see how use of it here, logically consistent as it might be, can be anything other than original research without a citation to some analysis of Tolkien's work where it's introduced. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Point 2, Chris. Conrad said "Middle-earth was never the term for the 'center-point'." He's wrong, but you have to open the book The Shaping of Middle-earth and read Christopher's comments on the map to see that Conrad is wrong. The entry on the map that Christopher referred to was "Earth-middle".

Point 4, Chris. Conrad objects to the sentence, "Middle-earth, when used by Tolkien, refers to the whole world and not to any specific part of it." The sentence is clearly followed by an explanation that many people incorrectly use the term to refer only to the lands found in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. If he wants to include additional wording that shows the name could and should be applied to the middle continent prior to the shaping of the world, fine. But deleting all references because Conrad doesn't like the facts is not appropriate.

Point 5, Chris. There is nothing original in using the expression "ages of the Sun". The ages only occur after the rising of the Sun. That much is clearly documented throughout the Tolkien texts.Michael Martinez 23:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with claims of multiple 'Middle-earth' mythologies... and the fact that JRRT never described his stories in that way. If there is a quotation where Tolkien said his stories should be divided into separate mythologies it need only be cited. Otherwise this seems, at best, 'original research'.
 * We are agreed that 'earth-middle' referred to a center point. Where your changes to the article were erroneous was in stating that 'Middle-earth' was originally the term for that center point. It was not. Middle-earth was always a large region. I have the book and it does not say what you claim it does. If you believe otherwise, cite the passage.
 * The Ambarkanta maps were made around the same time as the early work on LotR. In any case, there are clearly connections between the LotR and Silm maps and the Ambarkanta maps.
 * Tolkien used 'Middle-earth' to refer to the lands where 'Men' lived. Originally that was a land-mass between the great seas in the East and West. After the change of the world it was all lands 'on the globe', but not Aman. Thus, saying that Middle-earth was "the whole world" is clearly incorrect for some time periods and incomplete/misleading for others.
 * Changing the article to say, 'First Age of the Sun' and the like is not merely 'original research' / 'extrapolation', but simply incorrect. At different times Tolkien put the start of the First Age at the creation of the world or the Awakening of the Elves ... never at the rise of the Sun, which took place millenia after those two events. The form 'Ages of the World' appears in LotR, 'Ages of the Children of Iluvatar' in various other texts, and 'Ages of the Sun' nowhere at all. Likewise the claim that the ages began only after the rising of the Sun is clearly and obviously false; "In those days, in the Year one thousand and fifty of the Valar, the Elves awoke in Kuivienen and the First Age of the Children of Ilúvatar began." - Morgoth's Ring, Annals of Aman, Of the Beginning of Time

--CBDunkerson 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien never spoke of "an evolving mythology", but if you have a citation where he uses that wording, I'll be glad to look it up myself.

As far as "earth-middle" and "middle-earth" go on the Ambarkanta map, I had the book open in my lap as I made the changes. You're more than welcome to cite Christopher's comments in their entirety and I'll check your accuracy against my copy.

In any event, you continue to mix your ideas in with the facts. If you will suggest specific wording here, I'll agree to compromise with you provided that wording is decided upon and agreed upon here.Michael Martinez 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mythology/ies?
For the sake of fairness, here's the quote that may directly contradict Michael Martinez's views, from the Middle-earth canon talk page:


 * "But the mythology (and associated languages) first began to take shape during the 1914-18 war. The Fall of Gondolin (and the birth of Eärendil) was written in hospital and on leave after surviving the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The kernel of the mythology, the matter of Luthien Tinuviel and Beren, arose from a small woodland glade filled with 'hemlocks' (or other white umbellifers) near Roos on the Holderness peninsula - to which I occasionally went when free from regimental duties while in the Humber Garrison in 1918.
 * I came eventually and by slow degrees to write The Lord of the Rings to satisfy myself..." - JRRT, Letters #165 (~1966)

However, can't we just say that some readers view all of the stuff as one evolving mythology while other readers don't? 202.78.127.202 03:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In some places I've replaced disputed 'mythology' vs 'mythologies' wording with neutral terms like 'stories' (which can then be imagined to belong to one mythology or several)... I'd rather avoid the issue entirely than set up a 'false dichotomy'. It is true that there is at least one person who believes Tolkien meant for the texts in the 'History of Middle-earth' series (and other 'Middle-earth' stories) to represent multiple mythologies rather than one evolving mythology, but I don't think it is an at all common view. The above is just one of several quotations to the contrary from the author... plus various similar statements from his son/literary executor and other authors noted for their works on Tolkien. In the absence of any references stating 'separate mythologies' my first choice would be to leave it out as unsourced, but failing that neutral wording should work. I'd prefer working towards something like that rather than having the 'singular vs plural mythology' disagreement repeated throughout the article. --CBDunkerson 12:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism
A content dispute does not constitute vandalism, and it's not civil to claim that it is in edit summaries. It is advisable to bear in mind that Wikipedia is not Usenet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dunkerson's goal is to advocate a very specific point of view which is contradictory to the published texts. His activities are indeed vandalism as determined by Wikipedia practice.Michael Martinez 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And you should sign your contributions appropriately, so that people know who you are. It appears you are Chris Csernica, who has participated in the Tolkien news groups and is therefor very familiar with the history behind these citation wars. Disclosing your presence in the news groups would at least give other people a fair warning that your own viewpoint may be biased in these matters.Michael Martinez 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel that his edits are contrary to published texts, that needs to be established. His own remarks on this page indicate that he genuinely believes his edits do in fact conform to published texts better than yours do, and can back up his opinion at least to some degree. He is therefore editing in good faith, and his edits cannot reasonably be called vandalism.


 * Very often in these cases, we end up with a compromise text not completely satisfactory to all parties, but not as objectionable to any of them as the alternatives. CBDunkerson has indicated above he is willing to compromise in at least one area by wording the article in a "softer" way than he would prefer.  There needs to be give-and-take. Efforts to establish a One True Version of an article over the objections of other editors are rarely successful on Wikipedia.


 * Of course I'm Chris Csernica. ("Chris" is not actually my first name; hence the "T".) What of it? I see no particular reason to sign myself identically everywhere the Internet touches, and a glance at my user contributions would reveal that my edits to Tolkien-related articles are a very small proportion of my total. Naturally I'm familiar with the citation wars.  They are not appropriate in this context, where the powers that be desire less contentious interaction, and I do not choose to import animosities from elsewhere to here.  I am purposely not contributing to this article at this time exactly in recognition of my own biases.  But a charge of vandalism is very serious, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of its full import. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Openness on your part and anyone else's about their involvement in the news groups will help people here understand that these are long-standing disagreements that have been thrust upon Wikipedia because of its high visibility by people who have, until now, been relatively isolated and ignored by the very large readership around the world.

As far as Conrad's willingness to compromise goes, he needs to compromise to the point of being faithful to Tolkien and not to his own ideas. Relying upon partial and misleading citations is a mark of poor scholarship, but clearly he intends to flood these discussion pages with citations until he wins his way.

There were multiple mythologies, conceived of indepedently of each other in several cases, which were only drawn together starting in the late 1930s onward. Representing these well-established facts in any other way than that is not going to serve the Wikipedia community in any useful fashion.

But if you want to see compromise prevail, suggest something and we'll see who agrees to it. Wikipedia does, however, have the stated goal of providing a professional-quality reference. That won't be achieved by allowing people to obscure the facts with fiction about comprehensive mythological constructions.

In 1917, Tolkien wanted to write a mythology for England, about England, and not about Hobbits. Hobbits didn't even come into his thoughts until 1925 and at the time he didn't even know what they were. By the time he began bringing his mythologies together, he had moved on from the mythology for England (The Book of Lost Tales) to a Silmarillion mythology, which in turn was replaced by a comprehensive Middle-earth mythology.

Let your proposed compromises begin and end with the facts, and leave out the fiction.Michael Martinez 23:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My edits are backed up by cited sources. Yours by insults. I'll let people make their own decisions as to which are 'facts' and which 'vandalism'. --CBDunkerson 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think anyone cares about any prior histories of any disuptes, on Usenet or anywhere else, and it's not necessary to drag all that baggage in here.


 * No one disputes that the Silmarillion material, the Númenor myth, and the "Hobbit" threads were originally distinct, although I think it's a bit of a stretch to call The Hobbit a mythology. However, it seems to me that your "no connection" contention is likely to be controversial.


 * I'm not going to get involved in quote wars. Half my books are in boxes in the basement anyway, and this just isn't important enough to me to invest the time, so don't expect any proposed compromise versions from me either. I'm just telling you how things work here, and that merely insisting on your own way by accusing others of dishonesty isn't going to get you anywhere on Wikipedia in the long run. Is it all that hard to argue on the merits only? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I'm only going to make this point one last time: Conrad is here to use Wikipedia to advocate his personal ideas. So, yes, the history is very important. It's not "something in the past", it's very much in the present and is completely relevant to what he is doing here with respect to vandalising these articles.

Regarding: "it seems to me that your 'no connection' contention is likely to be controversial."

That's rather stating the obvious, since Conrad is here to rewrite Tolkien's history, don't you think? However, controversial or not, " From this point forward, Middle-earth became a separate, distinct mythological 'ancient Earth' with no connection to the previous mythologies" is a completely accurate summation. Tolkien did not go back to the previous mythologies.

Regarding, "I'm just telling you how things work here, and that merely insisting on your own way by accusing others of dishonesty isn't going to get you anywhere on Wikipedia in the long run."

So, you are picking sides after all. Well, the point is that Conrad's edits are not intended to accurately depict Tolkien's work. I object strenuously to his rewriting Tolkien history in his own image. And the Wikipedia community also objects to that kind of intrusion and vandalism.Michael Martinez 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When did I ever say I wasn't picking sides? I said, as part of a different thread entirely, "I'm not trying to take a position here myself" and then added that I was seeking clarity -- as part of the same sentence, the subject being what you had just written. (Clarity you didn't see fit to provide, as it happens, as you're perfectly free not to do.) When I'm having to argue with you over the meaning of my own words, something's amiss.


 * Yes, of course I'm picking sides. That ought to have been obvious from the beginning. I started out by objecting to the word "vandalism" being used to describe what is plainly not vandalism. Only one person involved has been doing that in his edit summaries. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, has no one explained the 3 revert rule to you? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the 3-revert rule, which is why I reported Conrad's abuse. The question, why did you then file a report against me?

Michael Martinez 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just checked the [] page again and I stand by what I wrote in the original comments.

Conrad is not making "good faith" efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Michael Martinez 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked me the same question on my user talk page. I answered you on yours, but you removed my reply for some reason. For the record, the answer is that you violated the rule and he did not.  It clearly states that one may make no more than 3 reversions in 24 hours.  CBD's first revert was several days ago, as you yourself noted in your own report against him, and he has reverted only three times since.


 * The only evidence you have that he's not making good faith edits is that you disagree with him. That's not sufficient evidence of bad faith. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputes
Ok Michael, your block should be expiring shortly so let's try taking these issues one at a time. Starting with the most obvious:

Your various 'Ages of the Sun' changes. Can you provide any reference for Tolkien having used the term 'Ages of the Sun' or described a concept of 'Sun Ages' or 'ages starting with the first sunrise' or 'ages linked to the Sun'? I've looked, and so far as I am aware no such references exist. You alterred the article to state that the 'First Age' began with the appearance of the Sun, but how do you rectify that with;

"'It was no longer a birth-tongue but had become, as it were, an 'Elven-latin', still used for ceremony, and for high matters of lore and song, by the High Elves, who had returned in exile to Middle-earth at the end of the First Age.' - LotR, App. F"

Fingolfin and his followers arrived in Middle-earth just as the Sun was first rising (the Feanoreans not long before that)... which would make it the very beginning of the First Age under the chronology you are suggesting, but here in LotR itself their arrival is stated to have been at the end of the First Age. Is it not clear that the 'First Age' began far earlier, as indeed Tolkien stated unequivocally;

"'In those days, in the Year one thousand and fifty of the Valar, the Elves awoke in Kuivienen and the First Age of the Children of Ilúvatar began.' - Morgoth's Ring, Annals of Aman, Of the Beginning of Time"

In a nutshell... I can provide clear citations (and many many more than just those above if it is really neccessary) from the primary source directly contradicting your position on this. Can you provide anything to verify it other than your belief that "it follows"? If not, I'd request that we restore the previous wording, which was actually neutral on this issue... saying only 'First Age' rather than 'First Age of the Sun' or 'First Age of the Children of Ilúvatar' or any other variation. Can you provide any basis for abandoning that neutral wording in favor of your changes which seem to directly contradict The Lord of the Rings and other texts? --CBDunkerson 02:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The West
What were the lands to the west at the time of LOTR? (where Frodo, Gandalf etc. were heading off to) Numenor had sunk, so was it only the lands depicted in Image:Valinor.gif - Valinor and Tol Eressea, or are there any other islands? -- Astrokey44 |talk 06:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The lands now constituting the New World were to the West, but that's not where the ship was headed. At the sinking of Numenor the world was bent back on itself and made round, so the Undying Lands were no longer directly accessible by sea. But the Eldar and those mortals with special permission to make the trip such as Frodo and Bilbo, were still allowed to find the "Straight Way" that would take them there.  Prior to the round world the Enchanted Isles lay as a barrier between Middle-earth and Aman, but I don't know if they would still be encountered.  I know of nothing that says they would be. (see the Akallabêth) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, is this world being bent round accepted as canon? I hadn't heard it before.. But the undying lands are the ones shown in that map are they? There arent any other continents or lands to the west which existed in the third age that are not shown on the map? If so we could make a map of the whole of middle earth by putting the valinor map together with the other middle earth map but Im not sure what size it would be in relation. -- Astrokey44 |talk 08:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is canon. You'll even find it in the Appendix A of LotR, although more elliptically. "But when Ar-Pharazôn set foot upon the shores of Aman the Blessed, the Valar laid down their Guardianship and called upon the One, and the world was changed. Númenor was thrown down and swallowed in the Sea, and the Undying Lands were removed for ever from the circles of the world."


 * The Valinor map is more or less correct as far as it goes. It used to lie physically to the west of Middle Earth, but that was no longer true after the Downfall of Númenor, when other lands were made to complete the round earth. However, before then you could indeed create such a map as you'd like. It would look different in the Second Age than in the First because in the War of Wrath a large region called Beleriand was destroyed and sank beneath the sea. Relative to the maps in LotR this was to the west of Ered Luin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On 'canonicity' - note that in the 50s and 60s Tolkien began considering the idea that Middle-earth was round all along and with the Sun and Moon present (but hidden) from early on. He even made adjustments to the published texts to remove some (but not all) of the statements which contradicted this new cosmology, but did not insert anything establishing the 'always round' version in the texts. Things like this make it very difficult to pin down 'canon' for Tolkien's works. The flat to round version was definitely the view at the time Tolkien published the texts, but he came up with different ideas later. The vast inconsistencies between these later concepts and the early stories were largely responsible for Tolkien never completing The Silmarillion. --CBDunkerson 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New map
The new map looks good, but should it be cropped to only show middle earth as shown in the Lord of the Rings? Is this some sort of expanded universe map that was published, or are the extra details to the north and south and some of the towns just made up by someone -- Astrokey44 |talk 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe much of that map is derived from the ICE MERP materials. It's not even remotely canon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok ive noted it and moved it further down the page. -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sauron's destiny
The article says : 'Sauron was destroyed forever and his spirit dissipated.'

Could anybody explaine me how an originally immortal Maia was 'destroyed forever'? I found nothing like this statement in the Lord of The Ring trilogy.Sea diver 09:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Sea diver.


 * You're right that the wording there should be changed. In particular, the "his spirit dissipated" part strikes me as almost the opposite of the actual story.  But the underlying intent of this sentence is clear, right?  Sauron's physical form was destroyed forever, and with it his ability to substantially affect the world (especially physically).  (It's never been entirely clear to me to what degree Sauron could still exert "spiritual" or "psychic" influence in the world after his fall; it couldn't have been that much, but I've had the impression that some tenuous contact remained.)  Feel free to adjust the wording to better reflect that.--Steuard 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)