User talk:2A01:799:868:4600:803F:3214:E276:6C24

December 2023
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Smaug, you may be blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Didn't you say that these categories misapply to Tolkien characters, and that citing primary sources to support it is considered Original Research? 2A01:799:868:4600:803F:3214:E276:6C24 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What categories, which Tolkien characters? You seem to be referring to something I wrote in another context? Primary sources are fine if identified as such and for certain purposes, in the case of Smaug simply telling briefly what Tolkien wrote – that isn't Original Research, that's just setting out the context for all the description of scholarly analysis which follows, all the secondary sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What you did on Sauron's and Morgoth's page isn't that different from what I did on Smaug. 2A01:799:868:4600:803F:3214:E276:6C24 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All the difference in the world. Both pages are now fully-sourced to the best scholarship; both have a list of Primary sources for Tolkien's accounts, and of Secondary sources for the scholarly and journalistic discussion that gives the subject notability. If I've removed anything it was unsourced speculation or materials not needed on the page: for example, we use direct quotations from Tolkien very sparingly, and only where essential to make a specific point. (That is different from a fansite, where people freely quote large amounts of Tolkien's writings and feel at liberty to decorate the site to create a pleasant atmosphere or whatever; those sorts of usages are inappropriate (unencyclopedic) and would be considered copyright violations here on Wikipedia.) All you did just now on Smaug was to remove sources without explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed Sauron from categories like necromancer even though he's known as the "Necromancer", and even taught the Black Numenoreans necromancy. You removed him from torturer even though he has tortured characters like Gorlim, Beren, Finrod, Celebrimbor, Thrain II, Gollum, and Pippin (the latter through the palantir). You removed him from Maia even though Tolkien and his books says that he is. You removed him from demon even though he's one of the Umaiar (basically the Middle-earth equivalent of fallen angels/demons). How is that different from what I did on Smaug? 2A01:799:868:4600:803F:3214:E276:6C24 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is quite different. I was removing inappropriate categories, as Sauron, for example, is not defined by being a necromancer, despite the epithet: there are no accounts of his practising necromancy, divination involving the dead. Your reasoning "basically the Middle-earth equivalent of fallen angels/demons" is illuminating here, as it shows that you believe that one can make one's own inferences and then edit Wikipedia based on the deductions from that reasoning. So:


 * 1) Sauron is a Maia.
 * 2) It's possible to assert that the Maiar are like Angels.
 * 3) Sauron has become evil.
 * 4) It's possible to assert that becoming evil is like the Biblical Fall.
 * 5) The Devil is a Fallen Angel in Christianity; his Demons are perhaps also Fallen beings of some sort.
 * 6) Therefore Sauron is a Fallen being, something like a Demon.
 * 7) Therefore we should categorise Sauron as a Demon.

I hope you can see that even though (1) and (3) can be assumed correct from Tolkien's statements, and (5) is roughly sourceable from the Bible or interpretations of it, (7) is at best a stretch. Worse, the reasoning (1..7) is an example of pure Original Research, inferences made by an editor; that is explicitly forbidden by policy. The "torturer" description, while not involving such an elaborate chain of reasoning, is still an inference on your part, and again, it is not a defining attribute. In contrast, Tolkien calls Morgoth a "Dark Lord", and there is no doubt that Morgoth is a fictional character in The Silmarillion, nor that he is one of the Middle-earth Valar: no inference is required for those categorisations. I do hope this is clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "there are no accounts of his practising necromancy"
 * Have you never heard of the Nazgul or the Barrow-wights? 2A01:799:868:4600:803F:3214:E276:6C24 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the "chain of reasoning is forbidden" point here. But neither the Nazgul nor the Barrow-wights ARE Sauron: you would need another (1..N) chain of reasoning to arrive at the highly suspect conclusion that Sauron actually practised; and even if you constructed such a chain and even if a consensus of editors agreed with you and didn't think it Original Research, that would STILL not make necromancy a defining characteristic for Wikipedia's categorisation scheme. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nazgul and the Barrow-wights wouldn't exist if Sauron wasn't a necromancer. 2A01:799:868:4600:803F:3214:E276:6C24 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Um, you are continually making inferences, deductions, drawing conclusions. That is the definition of Original Research. Could you please, please, go and read Wikipedia's policy on this, as it is essential. WP:OR. Nothing else will do, as every one of your edits and all your replies fall foul of this one mandatory and core policy. We will only go around in circles "But what about..." "No, that's OR" ... "But..." until you have read and understood the policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)