Talk:Morgoth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Morgoth as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Assessment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

"When the race of Men came about, Morgoth is hinted to have temporarily left his caves of Angband, and dwelled amongst them: ancient legends the Atanatari (Fathers of Men) tried to forget spoke of a Dark Lord, who led them to ban Ilúvatar from their hearts, and worship him. The Atanatari were those Men who repented and fled, but Morgoth ever after had many legions of fallen Men at his service. (Morgoth's Ring: "Tale of Adanel")"

I've only recently read Morgoth's Ring, and my first impression was that it wasn't actually Morgoth, but Sauron, working at his master's command. While it was said in the text that it was Morgoth, it was only the conclusion of Finrod and Andreth, not a statement by Tolkien as an objective narrator. Furthermore, Findor didn't actually hear Adanel's tale - only a brief mention of it by Andreth. While not mentioned anywhere in the text, in my opinion the whole action would be more in the character of Sauron. The Lord in the Tale of Adanel was presented as beautiful in appearance, and if I recall correctly, Melkor was at that time bound to the hroa of Morgoth, the Dark Lord. Furthermore, the Lord said that he was the Giver of Gifts - compare Annatar, the Lord of Gifts, the name taken by Sauron in the Second Age. Of course, I might be wrong :) Not that it's really important, anyway :). Ausir 13:52, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree: it is very important. There are references that after his return to Angband Melkor-Morgoth only left the gates once, an event which is nowhere referred to. I am certain that this was Morgoth himself. As for Morgoth's appearance: he lost the ability to change shape after the fight with Fingolfin in which Fingolfin and Thorondor wounded him, iirc. — Jor (Darkelf) 14:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jor, you mentioned when Morgoth left the gates of Angband himself: when he fought Fingolfin. However, you both seem to be forgetting that all that Adanel's tale is is a myth. As in Morgoth's Ring as well as The Silmarillion, there is mention of Eru granting the gift of men, it can be safely assumed that if Morgoth or Sauron did walk among men, it was not exactly as Adanel told. --Ibrantriel 06:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why "the Morgoth"??? This was obviously a deliberate change, but throughout the Silmarillion, it's just "Morgoth". Shouldn't we stick with the more common (i.e. easily understood) usage? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 12:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In late writings, Tolkien always used "the Morgoth". No real objection to changing it back though. [[User:Anárion|]] 12:49, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really, truly? (I'm trying to find it in Peoples. The later references in the book definitely have "Morgoth" and I don't have time atthe moment to look up all the earlier ones.) In this case, with such a jarring change, I think it would probably be better to use "Morgoth" as standard, but reference "the Morgoth" as a possibility. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 12:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check the essays. The Ainu Melkor (most powerful creation by Ilúvatar) is contrasted with "the Morgoth" (personification of what remains of Melkor after Marring Arda). But I'll go change back, It does not read well. [[User:Anárion|]] 12:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added some info on Morgoth vs "The Morgoth" in the article. [[User:Anárion|]] 13:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very nicely done. Thanks for the information. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Valar are gods 2 major rewrite 3 recent edits 4 Attack of the bunny-rabbit ears 5 Points of style 6 Beginning to long? 7 One other thing 8 “Standardized typography” 9 Parts of this entry vs. the popular books 10 old morgoth picture 11 image 12 new picture added (finally)! 13 "The Morgoth" 14 new picture 15 Daniel Govar picture 15.1 ...and the Hobbits do not seem to have been aware of his existence. 16 a morgoth picture 17 comparison with pete disney 18 Requested move 18.1 Survey 18.2 Discussion 18.2.1 Google results 19 narcissism 20 fictional racists

[edit] Valar are gods

It says in the Silmarillion that Valar are gods. → JarlaxleArtemis 23:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not in my copy. You must be thinking of this quote:

The Great among these spirits the Elves name the Valar(…)Men have often called them gods —(Valaquenta, second paragraph).

There is only one God in the universe where Arda is placed, and He is called Eru Ilúvatar. The Valar are comparable to Angels (and Demons). I believe Tolkien was also referring to the pagan gods of the Hindus, Greeks, Anglo-Saxons, or other "gods": these may have actually been fallen Angels (Demons), i.e. Valar/Maiar. Jordi·✆ 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it useful to use terms like archangel to describe the Valar—it conveys a better impression of their place in Tolkien's cosmology. (To call the Valar archangels and the Maiar simply angels also gives a better impression of their relationship to each other—as beings of the same order—and to Ilúvatar.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Jordi·✆ 22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I did have that quote in mind. But Aranel's right, they are very much like archangels. ‡ Jarlaxle 22:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The earlier versions of The Silmarillion (see History of Middle-earth, esp vol 4 - The Shaping of Middle-earth) did indeed refer to the Valar as 'gods', and Tolkien never seems to have utterly abandoned the term - but calling them 'gods', and thinking about them as being like the gods of traditional myths, is as problematic as calling them 'angels' or 'archangels'. The term angel can be taken many different ways, according to different traditions - so too can god (small 'g'). But it is dangerous to try and utilize such comparions for any reason other than as an 'entry' into understanding the role of the Valar in Middle-earth. One can and cannot read too much into a comparison of Odin and Zeus, for example. Odin is not the 'Norse Zeus', and visa versa: Odin is Odin, and Zeus is Zeus. As characters of mythologies with historical developments, it might be possible to see a common origin - but at the same time one sees a great divergence. This applies to Middle-earth: one can see a common origin between traditional myths and Tolkien's fictional myths, yet there is also a great divergence. The Valar are most certainly not the archangels of Middle-earth, and the Christian archangels of Milton's poems are not the Valar of Catholicism. Ulmo is Ulmo, and the Archangel Michael is the Archangel Michael. black thorn of brethil 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] major rewrite

The article, on the whole, needed a stylistic cleaning and content uprgrading. I took the article as I found it, and rewrote it, incorporating as much of the original content as possible. The first volley of edits were done when I was (accidentally) not logged in. The final edits were completed whenever and as I could. I removed the 'canon' disclaimer as this article now contains references to the multiple versions, revisions, abridgements and amendments that were made to the stories concering Melkor/Morgoth over Tolkien's career (not to mention the fact that the whole 'canon' discussion seems as fragmented and un-final as Tolkien's works!) More edits to follow black thorn of brethil 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

1. It is important that Morgoth be discussed in the context of his 'mythic' role vis-à-vis later inhabitants of Middle-earth. The Silmarillion is, for characters like Aragorn, what the Old Testament is for latter-day members of Western civilization: it is the body of foundation-myths and explanation-myths of their world that, regardless of their historical accuracy, act as (among other things) a moral guide and a justification-for/explanation-of current cultural attitudes/beliefs. That the characters of Middle-earth take these myths as history reduces not one whit the mythic nature of the early tales - disbelief is NOT a condition of 'myth-ness' (see myth).

2. There is no need in the introductory elements of this article to go into Morgoth's detailed history (as an ex-Valar, for example) as the 'history' section goes over everything. Anything else would be redundant.

3. The term 'ressentiment' is NOT a misspelling of 'resentment' (see ressentiment): it is, rather, a precisely chosen term that best describes the relationship between Melkor, Eru, and Melkor's rebellion/turn to Evil. black thorn of brethil 21:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack of the bunny-rabbit ears

Does anyone else think that the vast number of inverted commas is rather excessive? Just to pick an example or two:

• 'Morgoth Bauglir' is actually an epithet. His name as first mentioned in Ainulindalë (the 'creation myth' of Middle-earth and section 1 of The Silmarillion) is Melkor. This too, is an epithet since he, like all the Ainur, has a true name in Valarin (the language of Tolkien’s ‘heaven’), but this name is not recorded.
• But he is not properly called ‘Morgoth’ until he is given the name by Fëanor of the Noldor. This occurs in the First Age of the World, after he escaped Valinor having subtly corrupted the virtue of the Noldor 'tribe'

I can understand the requirement to put some names in inverted commas but examples like 'creation myth', 'heaven' and 'tribe' seem superfluous and needlessly distracting. Is there something odd about the terms that requires the emphasis? I come from a scientific background so maybe my natural language is different to those of a more literary inclination.

If no one says anything I'll be bold and edit the article. I just thought I would say something before wading in. Slinky Puppet 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You're comments are justified - and I 'ought' to know (or, rather, I ought to 'know') as I am the one who wrote them in. I might get confused, so you take 'em out where necessary. Leave 'em in if the thing in rabbit-ears seems a bit abnormal though familiar (e.g., 'tribe' for 'branch of Elves') - where a Tolkien fan/freak (like myself) might get agitated otherwise. Tks - black thorn of brethil 17:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Points of style

This is all excellent work, but could I make three sylistic complaints?

• It is wrong and very ugly to start a sentence with E.g., as is done here frequently. Please spell it out as "For example."
• "a.k.a" belongs in cheap tabloids, not an encyclopaedia. Please write "also known as."
• The use of "ressentiment" in a non-technical article looks and is pretentious and unnecessary (like using weltanschauung when all you mean is "outlook"). According to the word's article it means no more than "profound sense of resentment, frustration, and hostility". Why not just say that? Adam 09:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll note from the page history that several contributors have made additions to this article. When you spot something wrong, you are not necessarily addressing the most recent editor (though you could be!) While I have made many contributions to this page, I resist sitting over it like a hen. There are sentences here and there that I prefer to see others amend. If it is true that starting sentences with 'E.g.' is wrong and ugly, then make edits accordingly, noting changes in the discussion page. The same goes for 'a.k.a.'

The difference between 'ressentiment' and 'resentment' is that the former acts as a generator of moral values, while the latter does not - something VERY important for understanding the role of Evil in Middle-earth in general, and something necessary to any discussion of the development of this character in particular.

"Starting with 'E.g.' is considered wrong" is a statement that might be supported (E.g., one might quote a respected style manual). Of course, "Using 'ressentiment' is pretentious" is not: it's p.o.v. black thorn of brethil 20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning to long?

Most article openings are short and to the point, giving background information and a summary. I think that is almost law for wiki am I right?

So whats with the book that begins this article? User:69.151.56.35 05:34 16 May 2006

True. Changes made. Do sign your comments with four tildas. I've gone back and done it for you. black thorn of brethil 20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One other thing

I've only read the Lord of the Rings books, so where is the rest of this coming from? I mean, this is like almost giving away the whole Tolkien series.

The LOTR article is ok, but just Morgoth alone is incredibly just making reading the books pointless. Remember, we are not here to put the books online, rather for summary and info.

This should contain critical info about Melkor/Morogoth, not his lifes story, thats why people would read more than LOTR! User:69.151.56.35 05:39 16 May 2006

This is, in my opinion, a general problem with nearly every "Synopsis" section for articles relating to media with large fanbases. Some fans just can't stand to see their favorite parts omitted. Since every one has a different favorite part, we end up with these inappropriately monstrous synopses. If it were up to me I'd cut them all back, but I don't think the cuts would last long. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Valid points, to be sure, though it becomes a question as to what method you would use to make your cuts (whose list of favorite parts would we be looking at I wonder?) One might reduce this synopsis to a consensual list of bullet-points (staccato literary analysis, I reckon). Why not try it? black thorn of brethil 20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

p.s. what does an appropriately monstrous synopsis look like? or is that nugget of adverbial hyperbole an example of (quite) subtle irony? black thorn of brethil 20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what would be most appropriate to cut. It's arguable that synopses don't belong in these articles at all, just brief plot summaries where possible. I have some trouble imagining what use a synopsis has in an encyclopedia article. The trouble with beginning a project to eliminate them is that they are endemic to articles on works of fiction. It's a very large job which I am unwilling to spend all that much time on. I might do one or two to see what happens if there comes a time where my dander is sufficiently up about it.

With regard to your PS, yes. Only it's not subtle. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis or Summary - which to choose? Offer me differing definitions of each, and we might have a place to begin. While some of your concerns are puzzling (what role a synopsis plays in an encyclopedic entry, for example, seems clear), it is true that this article can cut much that does not pertain to the character of Morgoth. At any rate, the reader above felt like it made The Silmarillion not worth reading (And this seemingly without knowing of its existence!!!!) To this end, I plan on revisiting the article and editing it down. Last note - I am not convinced the 'irony' remark was properly understood; but, there you go - that's why it was made! Cheers. black thorn of brethil 03:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have replied to this earlier. There's no difference in definition between a synopsis and a summary, but I generally think of a summary as briefer. A synopsis may have some part to play in an encyclopedic article, but not as lengthy and detailed as we find them on Wikipedia! They're absurdly so, and seem mainly to provide a forum for fanboys to retell their favorite story points in overwrought and breathless tones.

As this article now stands its much improved and the problem no longer exists here, but it remains endemic elsewhere. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Standardized typography”

Was that really necessary? Very few articles use this style, so it's not "standard" on Wikipedia by any stretch. It's also a PIA to type, so it's not going to remain uniform for any length of time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it. I’ve added it to my watchlist, and will check over it every couple of weeks to maintain typographical uniformity. Doremítzwr 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite apart from the natural drift away from this typographical style, I'm puzzled by a few of the changes. First of all, why write "id est" instead of "i.e."? That's decidedly non-standard in English text, and it's bound to confuse people (I have trouble remembering what "i.e." stands for despite using it not infrequently in my own writing; I guarantee you that I'd be at least momentarily confused to see it written out as it is here). Are there any mainstream English style manuals that advocate this change? As it stands, I pretty strongly object. Next, what's up with "reënter"? I can't seem to find that spelling in the OED; all that they list is "re-enter". Why prefer the form with the funny dots? :) I'm also a little puzzled as to why the perfectly good word "princedom" has been replaced by the synonym "principality" (the OED seems to think that both are fine), but I don't have any particular preference in this case.

Finally, while I agree that proper left and right quotes look a bit better than straight quotes, I'm not convinced that they look a lot better (at least on a computer screen). Going to the considerable effort of keeping them "standardized" in this article (let alone maintaining them as a consistent look throughout Wikipedia or even Wikipedia's Middle-earth content) isn't something that I would be eager to spend my time on. But if you do want to do so, there seem to be a number of uses of straight quotes in the current article that you haven't found yet (most notably in the introductory section). The article will look really weird if this isn't done consistently.--Steuard 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parts of this entry vs. the popular books

Whilst I enjoyed reading this, I was frustrated by the lack of connection between the section on "Character development & history" and the way Melkor is featured in the popular books, specifically, The Silmarillion and the LOTR.

I guess my issue is this: this section begins with "In the early versions of Tolkien's stories..." which immediately implies that The Silmarillion as published is somehow "wrong". It might not be what Tolkien was working towards, but it is what most of his readers will be familiar with.

Is there a way to word this section so that instead of being pejorative, the section distinguishes between how Melkor appears in the mainstream books and how Tolkien continued to develop the character in the ultimately unpublished versions of the story only now revealed in, for example, Morgoth's Ring? As it stands, it is a nonsense to have an article that says that he was "more powerful than all of the Valar combined" and yet in The Silmarilllion he quite obviously isn't that powerful, given the multiple times the Valar defeat him in that book.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that the Silmarillion is wrong on many accounts, as revealed by primary editor/secondary author Christopher Tolkien. Melkor/Morgoth does not actually appear in the LOTR text itself, so the only references to him are from the Silm materials. Due to the overediting parts of the Silm received, and the failure to include chronologically later material on the Morgoth in the texts, the account as given in the published book is based on early versions at best, and flat out wrong in other cases. This is part of the overall problem of deciding the M-e canon. -- Jordi·✆ 11:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

While there is something to be said for 'most familiar'... in this case I don't think it matters. The published 'Silmarillion' does reference Melkor's original great might... note that he kicked all the Valar out of Middle-earth and sent them packing off to Aman. The defeats you mention the Valar dealing to Melkor came later, after he had squandered his original power. Alot of this article could do with a rewrite, but that bit doesn't seem to be presented overly prominently as it is towards the end of the article amidst an explanation of the changes to Melkor's power over time. --CBD 11:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree. Look, there are two ways of looking at Middle Earth stuff. Firstly as a simple "consumer", buying the mainstream books: LOTR, Hobbit, and Silmarillion. Then there is the ME from the "lit crit" perspective, where serious scholars of the work look at how it developed over time, how characters changed, plot lines diverged, and so on.

What I'd suggest would be rather than Melkor in the Quenta, there is a section on Melkor, the character in the published Silmarillion, followed by textual criticism for those who want it, outlining how JRRT changed the character as he developed the stories. Until such time as there is a fully revised Silmarillion sold in place of the 1970s version, it seems bizarre to me to focus on a character who doesn't appear (as such) in the mainstream works.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt most "consumers" bother with the Silm, to be honest. Most people I know who actually read the Silm have either discarded it, or have gone on with the Unfinished Tales and HoMe series. I believe that the number of people who consider the Silm relevant and NOT know about UT&HoMe is very low.

Current de-facto policy on M-e articles here is to use final author's intent wherever possible, unless contradicted by canon materials (canon being material published during JRRT's lifetime; this mostly comes down to Hobbit, LotR, Tom Bombadil, and The Road Goes Ever On) the canonicity of (parts of) the Silm is questionable mainly because of later comments by CJRT in UT&HoMe. -- Jordi·✆ 11:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the comments made by Jordi I also still don't see what you are actually objecting to. You say that the examination of how Melkor's status changed over time should be later in the article in a separate section... which... it is. --CBD 11:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Neale Neale Monks 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] old morgoth picture

what in the name of durin happened to that picture of morgoth that someone took away? please post it back up

Somebody thought it was too evil. (ha ha) maybe it violated copyright requirements 66.248.102.141 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

What happened to the image that used to be on this article? Why was it deleted? 66.248.102.141 00:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new picture added (finally)!

CHECK THIS PIC Out!!

[edit] "The Morgoth"

In my opinion I don't believe it was Tolkiens' intent to portray Melkor as weak, and "washed-up" Vala. It could be argued that Tolkien's emphasis was on the might, courage, and strength of Fingolfin.

In the days of Melkor's greatness, the fight never even would have happened in the first place. Morgoth was compelled to meet him, or be diminished in the eyes of his followers; he had no choice. This reflects a much personally diminished Melkor. The account in Sil in Chapter 3 is heavily cut, and it's really there where Tolkien would have clearly shown Melkor's personal dwindling, not in Chapter 18. (Although really, the fact that Ungoliant was able to ensnare him in Chapter 9 should have been a clue.) For more details, you need to read the relevant parts of HoME, particularly Morgoth's Ring. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, In the beginning of the Silmarillion, Tolkein mentions that Morgoth, 'Lost his ability to create, and was left only with the power to alter, and used that power rather to destroy or corrupt, and would twist all that he would to his own designs.' If this is true, then what species did he corrupt to create dragons? Tolkein says in the book that Morgoth 'created' dragons later in the book, but doesnt this conflict with what he said about Melkor/Morgoth earlier in the Silmarillion?BlueChicken 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where in Sil does it say that? TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It does say that somewhere in the cannon. Look for references to trolls as a mockery of ents. The exact quote is "he could only mock, not make", Treeberd also alludes to this, and says that Morgoth missed the mark with ents as Trolls are inferior to ents in many ways. As for dragons they are twisted versions of "wyrms", but what those are previsely is not described - some soft of large intelligent lizard most likely. The first versions were cold drakes, later versions gained flight and (finally?) fire.Ggb667 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There are quote marks around the sentence in question. I don't recall this exact quote. My question isn't about the truth of the statement, but were exactly this quote can be found.

"Wyrms" are dragons in this context. That's an archaic sense of the word, and the normal word used to refer to them by the unlettered in "Farmer Giles of Ham", albeit spelled "worm". In any event, Tolkien is silent about this and it's worse than useless to speculate for the purposes of the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new picture

then add a new picture of morgoth that's less evil please.

[edit] Daniel Govar picture

add the daniel govar picture to this article. please.

[edit] ...and the Hobbits do not seem to have been aware of his existence.

I dispute this "fact". Even Sam (hardly a scholar) knows that the crystal phial in which was caught the light of Eärendil's star was from a Silmaril rescued by Beren from Morgoth. There is a lengthly discussion where Sam and Frodo observe that they are part of the same story and legend and that these go on and on. Bilbo certainly was farmiliar with the lay of Luthien. One might argue that Bilbo didn't know this until he came to Rivendell, but this seems unlikely given the bredth and depth of his love for elvish culture, (even preceeding his first adventure!) which was not every unusual as we can see from the attitudes of the Hobbits towards the elves when they meet them while being pursued by the Ringwraiths when they are still in the Shire during the first leg of their flight to Rivendell. They certainly know about Mordor and Sauron, and the kings of the Shire and at least some of the history of those kings. I would say their knowledge is comperable to that of an average american's knowledge of Oliver Cromwell and William the Conqueror. They know the names, and have some vague idea they're associated with england, but maybe don't know what they did precisely or when. I'd like to replace "...and the Hobbits do not seem to have been aware of his existence." With "and the Hobbits have some vague knowledge of Mordor, Sauron and the history of the Silmarils. Ggb667 14:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a morgoth picture

somebody, please, please add a picture of morgoth to this article.

[edit] comparison with pete disney

call me crazy, but does anyone here see similarities between pete of disney and morgoth?. well i do. similarities: both are the first evil, both have lots of evil remaining, and both are jealous of good. write more similarities here please.

I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no reason to make this connection (especially since Tolkien hated Disney AND the fact that the character existed prior to Black Pete). Johnboy3434 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Melkor/Morgoth Bauglir → Morgoth — Reversion of an earlier move, which was not discussed. Original title was fine TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the guy's point but to tell you the truth if Big M bears resemblance to any Disney villain it's Maleficent as she was the first proper Disney villain and arguably the scariest, the most powerful and the most evil. The relationship between Morgoth and Sauron is similar to the relationship between Maleficent and the Evil Queen and at the present minute Sauron is indeed being compared to the Evil Queen on his discussion page.

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support, obviously. I can't move the page back myself, so I'm putting it through the process. I expect this to be non-controversial for most editors, but I thought I'd allow Sauron161 a chance to explain himself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. Carcharoth 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support See discussion below. I don't mind if it's at Morgoth or Melkor, but the current name is definately not acceptable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Using Morgoth follows the guidelines (WP:NC). —Mirlen 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

[edit] Google results

17,700 hits for "Morgoth Bauglir",
66,900 hits for "Morgoth", I'm not sure where I got 66,900 the first time
1,030,000 hits for "Morgoth",
674,000 hits for "Melkor".

I think Melkor wins. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's 960,000 for "Morgoth". But this isn't a good method to decide on the article title anyway. A reader of Lord of the Rings who might want to look this character up is going to know only Morgoth. You don't encounter Melkor until you get to The Silmarillion and the other works. As LotR is the most widely known Tolkien work, that's the title this should have. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, a redirect from Morgoth to Melkor will deal with those looking up Morgoth. I don't really mind whether it is Melkor or Morgoth, but please, for the love of all that is holy, undo the mess created by Sauron (nice name by the way), and please stop anyone doing the same for Manwe Sulimo, or other so-called "surnames". So yes, I support a move back to a sensible name. Carcharoth 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way, yes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I support a move to either Morgoth or Melkor, but frankly, I don't recall Bauglir at all, though I'll admit I only just bought Silmarillion today, and I'm going to attempt again to read it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you find it in Valaquenta. Nope, not there. I don't have the book in front of me. Perhaps it's when Feanor names him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It's when he hears that... Hmm. Someone here hasn't read the story. I'll keep quiet! Happy reading, Wirbelwind. Let us know if you get stuck. I had problems the first few times. Carcharoth 00:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I should do ok, since back in the days, I read the appendix in RotK and I read a good deal of Unfinished Tales, including the index. It's jut that it's been almost a decade. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated: Morgoth clearly wins. Sorry for the error in google results. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good god, I've never known a page to get moved so many times by a single user. Someone find an admin to fix this mess. -- SFH 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved this back to Morgoth and fixed all the redirects. Melkor would also be a reasonable name, but in addition to the Google results I think Tolkien clearly used 'Morgoth' more often than 'Melkor' and that is therefor the most commonly used name. --CBD 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] narcissism

how is morgoth a narcissist?. please tell me.

He fell from grace because of pride, like Lucifer. He considered himself too good to serve anyone but himself, including Illuvatar. I'd say you'd have to have a pretty big ego to think that

[edit] fictional racists

i think we should Add him to the fictional racists category because as it says in the article, morgoth is known to have betrayed his own servants: e.g.,after the noldor were defeated, he confined all men in his service to the lands of hithlum, forbidding them to enter beleriand, their promised reward. since melkor could never fully conquer men, he could really never trust them. it seems that, once victorious, he would have destroyed them just as destroyed them as he intended to destroy his enemies. you'd have to have a bigoted mind about men in order to do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.255.194 (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

More like a speciecist. Morgoth's own race was the Ainur, Men and Elves were other (and in Morgoth's views) lesser species. Morgoth's ultimate goal was to destroy them all without distinction, not just the Ñoldor or Edain. Had he won the war, he would have gone on to eliminate all other Men and Elves. -- Jordi·✆ 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, basically, it didn't matter what race you were. Morgoth was still going to kill you. -- SFH 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

what about the ainur? he couldn't kill them since they were immortal, and you can't kill immortals.

No, but he could expel them from Arda. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)