Talk:Sauron/Archive 2

Adaptions: Appearence
In the Peter Jackson movie trilogy, can it be proven that his inspiration for Sauron as he is shown in movie: 400px

...is taken from ? Me simply saying so is original research, but certainty, look at the resemblance! Certainly the Silmarillion books and such garnered inspirations of Morgoth's appearance that had inspired Sauron (look at the silmaril's in the crown in Falto's depiction). 4.255.52.57 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the scene where Aragorn exposes himself to Sauron in the palantir, if you look closely, Sauron can be seen raising the palantir in preparation for his response. Therefore his physical form in the movies is his terrible 'Dark Lord' form. And also, how can the palantir that Sauron use move by itself? Mathpianist93 (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have any evidence that Falto's drawing predates the movies? It looks too close to the depiction of Sauron in FOTR to be a coincidence, but I doubt that Howe and Lee would have based their design on a drawing of Sauron by a much more obscure artist.  It is much more likely that the Falto image is based on the movies' depiction of Sauron, no?  john k (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Armour in LOTR
In the text of the article it states:

"In the Jackson films, Sauron wears plate armour, as do many others, while Tolkien never explicitly mentions any use of plate armour in Middle-earth, though there are references to mail and scale armour."

However, there is one mention of plate armour in The Lord of the Rings. When the wounded Faramir is brought before Prince Imrahil, the prince checks for Faramir's breathing by holding his vambrace to his face. To act as an indicator of breathing, archetypally a mirror is used, the vambrace (a term used for a plate defence of the forearm) would have to have been of highly polished solid metal.Urselius (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
Somebody's got to say it. This article is in desperate need of cleanup. Anybody's got any ideas of how we can come together to work on bettering this article of a big time fictional character shall we. All user's welcome. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a "References to use" section at the top of this talk page. Definitely should be able to provide real-world coverage about the character. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I did notice that. I am not sure of where to reference it to though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Did some minor spelling corrections - Yakshavings 69.136.102.30 (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thauron
Anonymous user 220.245.149.25 has made a couple of edits giving Sauron the name of Thauron, can anyone provide a citation for this? The only place I can find a reference to this is the lotr wiki, so I'm dubious about the accuracy of the information. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it, and it doesn't appear on the Thain's Book site, which is usually exhaustive about aliases. -- Elphion (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this is a (very) old entry, but I thought I'd mention that in the Appendix to the Silmarillion, there is an entry "thaur" (meaning "abominable"), stating "Sauron (from Thauron)" as an example. I don't think the name Thauron is found anywhere else though; but at least this name does exist and is not a typo/improvisation. 78.105.77.240 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, good find. Foster has an entry for it too.  I've added a ref in the article. -- Elphion (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

IPA transcription faulty
The IPA transcription of the name "Sauron" (given at the beginning of the article) is faulty. It inserts a schwa following the diphtong _au_, making the name trisyllabic. There should be no schwa, just two syllables: SAU-RON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.55.60.112 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would reflect the pronunciation rules given by Tolkien in Appendix E. The counter-argument would be that in English /aʊ/ is generally not followed by /r/ without the intervening /ə/.  In fact the pronunciation string you object to is generated in the current text of the article by feeding / ˈ s aʊr ɒ n / to template:IPAc-en, which automatically converts /aʊr/ to /aʊər/. One can argue whether the pronunciation to be presented should reflect Appendix E or the usual English pronunciation (and there are periodic arguments in talk:Gandalf about just that).  But I suspect the "usual" English pronunciation is actually .  -- Elphion (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Is timeline correct? 2850 Gandalf discovered Sauron's identity?
This doesn't seem right. It says under the section "Necromancer of Dol Guldur" that Gandalf finally discovered the identity of Sauron in 2850. If Gandalf discovered his identity in 2850, then he would have known who was in the forest at the beginning of the Hobbit (which was 2941), and I don't believe he even knows the identity by the end of the Hobbit. Can someone confirm or deny that statement and explain?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Appendix B says that Gandalf entered Dol Goldur (for the second time) in 2850, when he found Thrain and received his ring, and discovered at that time that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron. This agrees with Gandalf's account at the Council of Elrond, which, though it doesn't give dates, says that he entered Dol Goldur and discovered Sauron's identity, and subsequently urged the White Council to drive Sauron out; but due to Saruman's temporizing, Sauron was not driven out until the year that Bilbo found the Ring (2941). -- Elphion (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

official indiscrepancy "one of the minor spirits created before the world"
Tolkien says that Sauron was a spirit created before the world, yet in The Two Towers, page 134., when recounting his fight with the Balrog, Gandalf says "...Far, far below the deepest dwellings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he.". So one would guess something living in the world could not have done its worldly work before the world existed. Perhaps they are other fallen Maiar like the 'Balrog' is? Though what is implied is that Sauron is not older than the world, perhaps not his physical form. 216.227.108.69 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is simply a nice turn of a phrase; you are overthinking it. Perhaps Tolkien, or Christopher Tolkien, would have said that it referred to Sauron's presence in Arda only; and that before he came to Arda with Melkor, there were already dark and evil things in the Middle-earth. But that's not what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote it. It's a just a rather poetical, somewhat philosophical phrase. Not everything in a sprawling, epic fantasy like LOTR is going to be consistent. That the work is as detailed and as consitent as it is, is rather amazing. 219.101.196.2 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Vainamoinen


 * Sauron was created before the world as one of the Ainur, but some of the things in the world may be older than his coming to Arda, or it may mean that they are older than his corruption by Melkor and assuming his evil form and name. So not necessarily a contradiction. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Gandalf not much less powerful
The section "Before the creation of the world" quotes one of Tolkien's letter stating that Sauron was of a "far higher order" than e.g. Gandalf. However, in the Unfinished Tales, in Part Four, II ("The Istari"), there is a "brief and very hasty sketch of a narrative" that tells about the council of the Valar when they decided to send some Maiar to Middle Earth; and Manwe says: "Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might". This seems to indicate that the Istari were not really so much weaker than Sauron; and the reason they didn't go and kill him themselves was because they "forwent their might".

I'm not sure whether a hasty and unfinished note is more reliable than a finished, well-though-out and sent letter; however, at least mentioning it in the article might be a good thing. Also, the Tolkien might have not have formed a definite opinion himself on these "orders", and so while writing this letter he might have stated one thing, and wrote another some other time. In this case the latest writing should probably be recognized as correct, but in the Tales the only information given is that they date from after the completion of LOTR, which is also almost certainly true of the letter. Thus I think the letter should be presented as the main view, and the "hasty sketch" should only be included as a possible alternative.78.105.77.240 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sauron definitely tied up a lot of his power in the stuff he made, as did Saruman, at the end. (And he lost a lot when he lost his body in Numenor.)  Gandalf could have been as powerful as Sauron, one-on-one, but Sauron's minions magnified his effective power, and the ring was a big magnifier, if Sauron ever had gotten his hands on it.  So Sauron probably started out  alot more powerful than any of the Istari, and was effectively a lot powerful than any of them.  I don't think order necessarily correlated to might, either, although it could have. Petronivs (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Re "order": Tolkien was clearly influenced by the medieval notion of orders of angels, but he uses the term imprecisely: (a) implying that the wizards constitute an order; (b) saying that Sauron was of a much higher order; but (c) referring to all the Valar and Maiar as "their own high order" (in the essay on the Istari in UT). Sometimes it seems to indicate power; sometimes dedication to a particular mission.  We read far too much into his casual use of the term.  As far as Gandalf's strength goes; I think it is clear that without using Sauron's Ring, Gandalf could not have prevailed against Sauron in a direct contest.  Gandalf is dubious whether he could prevail even against the Witch-king.  The point is that might is not the only factor in the equation.  Guile and careful planning can defeat might; and even in battle Sauron was brought low by wounds from Elendil and Gilgalad, to the point that Isildur could take the Ring from him. -- Elphion (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive text.
There is far too much text in this article that has little to do with Sauron, more to do with the plot of the Lord of the Rings. I think we need to look at shortening it considerably. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  19:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hurrian
I'm calling WP:RS on the blurb about Alexandr Nemirovsky and the suggested Hurrian source of "Sauron". The referenced webpage is an amateurish self-published page by someone with no chops as a Tolkien scholar. The chance resemblance to a Hurrian phrase is at best a mere curiosity, at worst aggrandizing and misleading. I propose removing this unless someone weighs in. -- Elphion (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, looks similar to the claims from a few years ago that Boromir was Bulgarian in origin. Seems anyone with access to a web page can claim to be a 'scholar' these days. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  17:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Elphion (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Iris or pupil?
Someone added that Jackson's Hobbit shows the eye's iris as the "spiritual essence". Is it truly the iris, or the pupil? -- Elphion (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The "sigul" of the Crimson King
This phrase appears in "Allusions in other work" in the first paragraph, discussing King's mythos. Does King use this misspelling, or can we correct this to "sigil"? -- Elphion (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Mezigue has rendered this moot by deleting that sentence as unsourced. -- Elphion (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing Information
This article is missing important information on the character's critical reception, namely critic's reactions to the character, major polls, surveys, that list the character as a major literary villain. These need to be added into the article in order for it to completely cover the scope of its subject and meet wikipiedia's standards of a well developed article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you
Thank-you to all who have participated in the writing of this wonderful page. Many times I have read some of Tolkien's formative works only to become frustrated and lost. I think through this article I finally think I have a grasp enough to be able to try and tackle these books once again.

Once again, thank-you to all. --Skippingrock (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking "the Necromancer"
feels it's inappropriate to link "the Necromancer" to Necromancy, I guess because it would be redundant. I disagree: "necromancer" is not a common word, and many readers may not realize that the moniker "Necromancer" actually means something. -- Elphion (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ring-eye-sauron.gif

Tevildo
I'd bet a shilling that Tevildo got his name from Tybalt, Prince of Cats, a character in Reynard the Fox. —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, who knows, but this isn't a forum for such matters, and WP:OR isn't allowed in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the article.



Concept and Creation
As early as 1967, W. H. Auden correctly conjectured that Sauron might have been one of the Valar.[2]

This statement is incorrect. Sauron is not of the Valar. Lava Lamps (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sentence has now been changed to remove the word "correctly". 182.1.69.149 (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Adaptations of any type
All adaptations are grouped as such. There is no "canon" or "non-canon" - by definition, adaptations are changed, adapted, from the original, whether the change is subjectively small or large --- none of it is "pure Tolkien". Please could editors refrain from making structural changes to this article, which has been formally reviewed, without first obtaining consensus here on the talk page. Until then, the page should remain in "status quo ante", i.e. as it was before the discussion started. I might further note that the "In culture" section is plainly not for media like film and games, which have their own sections already. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is what the page looked like when I edited it yesterday ("status quo ante") after watching the new Rings of Power trailer. My main intention was to add a sentence about Sauron in the context of the show, when I noticed an inconsistency in formatting. Sauron's appearance in the Lego game was listed under "Adaptations" and the Lego Batman movie was listed under "In culture." As such, this is why I moved them together under "In culture," as the Lego versions themselves are homages to the character rather than 'adaptations' within the context of the Tolkien legendarium.
 * My changes were not explicitly reverted in the subsequent five edits by @Chiswick Chap, which removed content in the "In culture" section, while also reordering my edits to put both the movie and the game under "Video games" in the "Adaptations" section (resulting in this version). Various characters paying homage to Sauron were removed, though Stephen King's paragraph remained, which at the time seemed inconsistent to me. While still recognizing the value of limiting this section, I made my second edit to condense this Stephen King paragraph and restore the deleted material to make one paragraph discussing fictional villains whose authors have drawn inspiration from Sauron. In the process, I also returned the Lego material to "In culture" per the reasons above. This  is what that edit looked like.
 * This edit was reverted to the current version of the page (which, to be clear, does not represent "status quo ante" because it is different than from before the disagreement), and here we are. I perceived that my material was only reverted one time, hence my confusion when @Chiswick Chap brought to my attention that I have been pushing/forcing changes through two reverts. To summarize my actual content-related argument, the Lego material should be under "In culture" because they are references rather than adaptations, and there is still encyclopedic value in listing other villains that have explicitly paid homage to this iconic character. Thank you. TNstingray (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaborate explanation. I don't think the extremely minor attempted distinction to make something a 'reference" not an 'adaptation' is tenable, but supposing it was, we should not even be listing 'references' here beyond the most substantial - if some product, book, film, or whatever just alludes to or pays 'hommage'' to Tolkien we should not mention it: this is not a list of minor mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are however correct that I had not fully reverted to the last good version: I've done that now. I also agree that we should briefly mention Rings of Power. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should not just be a list of minor mentions, but I think it would be notable to frame it as a "Legacy" section. In other words, Sauron as an established literary villain has inspired other authors in the development of their villains whether in name, appearance, or characterization. That could be accomplished by condensing the points regarding Stephen King's work, Bill Willingham's Fables, and the Marvel Comics villain into one paragraph.
 * To further clarify the distinction between "adaptation" and "reference" — I view the former as meaning direct adaptation of Tolkien's work in a Middle-earth context (for a parallel example, Batman appearing in the context of a Batman or DC story), while the latter is anything else the character appears in that is not intended to be taken as a serious adaptation (e.g. Batman appearing in Ready Player One, or Space Jam). The Lego movie and game both incorporate villains from various franchises more as parodies, not true versions of the character. TNstingray (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * All of that sounds like trivia. Vague inspiration of other authors' villains is not encyclopedic, leaving aside the "more as parodies" which sounds even worse, and you'd be using WP:PRIMARY sources - the other authors's works - to assemble (WP:SYNTH) your own opinion of the inspiration: that's basically a giant NO-NO in flashing red lights. No thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (emphasis in original). If we need to fill things out with secondary sources, that is fine, but I still don't see the harm in cultivating a Legacy section, because a character's impact on future literary installments is encyclopedic. To be clear, I am in favor of paring this stuff down, but there is a core idea here that is not discussed elsewhere in the article, and it is not just vague inspiration. I also understand your concerns about violating WP:OR, but I don't think that is what I am doing. It's in the definition of the word: Google second definition for adaptation states, "a movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel" (emphasis mine). The Lego examples are not adaptations of Middle-earth novels, and as such Sauron's appearances are a reflection of his cultural significance (I have never played the game, but in the context of the movie, Sauron, Voldemort, the Wicked Witch, etc. are cited as representing the greatest fictional villains to assist the Joker, but the whole movie is obviously a parody of all the characters it features). I've tried to explain this several different ways, but in the simplest terms, there is a distinction between this sort of appearance and an actual work featuring Middle-earth characters in a Middle-earth story. TNstingray (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all WP:OR within the meaning of the act. Not keen on Wiki-lawyering, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Devolving into passive-aggressiveness is not going to result in a productive conversation. You asked me to explain my POV on this talk page, which I have done in a number of different ways regarding the structure of the final two sections on this page. It is not original research to suggest that we address this information in the following sections: 1) Sauron in Middle-earth themed adaptations, 2) Sauron in other media [e.g. the Lego installments], and 3) the legacy of Sauron [influence on other literary characters, as well as nebulae/species named after him as reflected under "In culture", which itself is a very broad and poorly defined heading]. Structural changes and my personal reasoning one way over another are no more OR than your reasoning for how the information should be displayed; that's why we have these conversations. TNstingray (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The basic thing is that the article's job is to cover the main points, which it does. Articles are not obliged to try to cover every minor or trivial mention, and the Lego thing is certainly no more than minor or trivial. We already have coverage of Sauron in the media and culture; we've already added a mention of the forthcoming prequel series; frankly, we have the bases as you enumerate them covered. If a scholar chooses to write about the impact of the image of Sauron in pop culture, we'll have a decent source to cite on the matter; otherwise, we'll have nothing more than a list of "And another mention was made by" items. And if you look, the "In culture" section is already dangerously close to being just such a list: the last thing the article needs is more of the stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree with you on basically everything you just said, meaning there has been a clear disconnect in my explanation. I agree that we need decent sources; I agree that we are not obliged to cover every piece of trivia; I agree that all of the content we are discussing is present in the article; and I agree that we should avoid turning the article into a mere list. I was only advocating for an adjustment in structure to address all of those points, so we both want the same thing at the end of the day. TNstingray (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding my most recent (and final) edit, I removed an extraneous detail from the plot of Lego Batman, and I moved the Russian technology to its own paragraph with an invisible comment titled "Technology" to match the rest of the formatting for that paragraph. Cheers. TNstingray (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Melkor vs Morgoth
This article should take greater care to be consistent about naming Melkor as Morgoth, as this does not happen until the Silmarils are stolen and Finwë is slain. There are some inconsistencies here and there, e.g, should probably be "Servent of Melkor" as this describes the time when the Elves were awake but not yet in Valinor. Without them being there, there is no way Melkor could yet be named Morgoth. Patarroyo (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed from the physical world.
"Eru destroyed the attacking fleet and armies, but also drowned Númenor, which was removed from the physical world"

This has been added to the article, but I don't think it's quite correct. Númenor was still under the ocean, wasn't it the blessed realm that was removed from they physical world? GimliDotNet (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was Aman that was removed. I'll fix it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)