Talk:Maedhros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Maedhros has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
July 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

To-do list for Maedhros:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Priority 5

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles. Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) According to the quality scale, the article cannot be classified as A-class yet, as it lacks a variety of hard external literary references. —MirlenTalk 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Untitled 2 Citations not used in summary paragraph? 3 Wrong reference? 4 Overall suggestion 5 Two examples of contradictions in published Silmarillion 6 Repetitive references 7 Good Article nomination has failed 8 Different style needed? 9 Infobox on characters 10 Infobox part 2 11 The oath reference is wrong. 12 IPA 13 Good article nomination on hold 13.1 Passed

[edit] Untitled

Minor correction: Maedhros' red hair (probably a dark red-brown, actually) comes to him through his mother, but there is no mention of Nerdanel actually having red hair, so it is probably more accurate to say that it comes from his grandfather, Mahtan (who did have red hair). Seeing as there is actual discussion of hair color in Peoples of Middle-earth, and the red is distinctive enough to bear mentioning, it is reasonable (although I am aware of the logical fallacy) to suppose that Nerdanel's hair was not red. Aranel 22:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Citations not used in summary paragraph?

I'm not sure, but I think citations are not used in the summary paragraph. Everything mentioned in the summary paragraph should be repeated later in one of the sections, and referenced at that point. I think! Hence my requests for citations at later points. Still a nice article, but let's get these citations in there! Carcharoth 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just found all the citations in the Trivia section. What I'm wondering is whether the best way to approach this is to say that everything is from The Silmarillion (1977) unless otherwise stated, and to reference the bits mentioned in HoME and other writings. That should, IMO, be the way to tackle articles like this. Somehow intertwine the story biography with the story of the order and sequence in which Tolkien wrote various bits about Maedhros. This involves massive trawling through HoME, but would look nice at the end of it all. Carcharoth 10:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong reference?

I'm not sure, but some of the references seem to have been mixed up in the wrong order. There is a references (currently number 7) that links from the account of the wounding of several of the sons of Feanor at the Hill of Himring, to the boat-burning episode many centuries earlier in Losgar. Not quite sure what is going on there. Carcharoth 10:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The system being used automatically updates the numbering / linking of the references and that reference has been associated with the same text since it was added. The point appears to be to explain why six of Feanor's sons were wounded... because the 7th was already dead at that point. It does seem a bit roundabout though. --CBDunkerson 13:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to what CBD said, except the point was to explain why there were only six, and not seven. If anyone has a better way of making the citation point clear, please do! —Mirlen 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, just say in the reference that the quote is intended to illustrate why there are only six sons wounded. That would make it a bit clearer. I vaguely suspected it might be this, but it really wasn't clear what was going on. Carcharoth 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the suggestion. :) I have made a correction that'll hopefully make the point clear here. Oh, and feel free to fix it. —Mirlen 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall suggestion

Following on from the bit about Silmarillion references, above, the bit I am most unclear about, after reading the article, is which bits come from which texts. I'd like to be shown (by references) which bits come from which text. Specifically, which bits are from 'The Silmarillion' (and if possible to have the biographical details in chapter order with the chapters referenced), and then to have the HoME references inserted, either in the main narrative, or at the end, depending on how much they contradict the story in 'The Silmarillion'. It would also be worth explaining this in the lead introduction - something like:

"Most of the story of Maedhros is contained in The Silmarillion, a posthumous work edited by Christopher Tolkien from the writings of his father J. R. R. Tolkien, and published in 1977. More of the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien were published in The History of Middle-earth series of volumes, edited by Christopher Tolkien and published from 1983-1996. This article references details published in both works."

In fact, that could be worked up into a template to use on many articles, similar to the "canon" template. What do people think? Carcharoth 10:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'm rather confused on what you're trying to say in the first paragraph. For the message — wouldn't the canon template serve the same function as what you're proposing? —Mirlen 19:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the canon template and what I am proposing is that the canon template is (I think) meant to be used when there are glaring and major contradictions between various parts of the writings, especially when it is unclear what Tolkien's intent was. What I am suggesting is some sort of template that would say that, unless stated otherwise, the article is based on Tolkien's published writings, and further (something I failed to make clear above) that any other details from other writings are clearly referenced.

This would be suitable for articles where the unpublished writings are being used to expand upon what we see in 'The Silmarillion'. To take the example here, the following are bits that I think (please correct me if I am wrong) are from outside 'The Silmarillion', and should be referenced to the other writings they are from (some already are, some aren't - I've bolded the ones I think need referencing as being outside 'The Silmarillion'):

• Auburn hair
• Like Mahtan
• Other names
• Most diplomatic of the sons
• Travelled far and wide with their father
• The friendship of Maedhros and Fingon proved to be true and lasted their entire lives
• Maedhros lived in Formenos
• Maedhros brought the tidings of Finwe's death

The rest seems, to me, to be mostly from 'The Silmarillion', though maybe expanded versions appear in various HoME texts. It's just this distinction between the published Silmarillion and HoME that I feel should be made clear. Hope that was clearer! :-) Carcharoth 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the template is needed, since the References section already implies that we're referencing from The Silmarillion and the HoME books.

• Most diplomatic of the sons - This I think is pretty clear in The Silmarillion (I hope I'm not seeing this through a scholarly view, I don't think I am, but I may be — it all depends on what the majority of Tolkien editor think). Though it is not stated ouright that he was the more diplomatic one — Tolkien shows this through Maedhros's actions. There are several mentions throughout the stories that Maedhros restrained his brothers and that moved his brothers out of Mithrim to "lessen the chances of strife" between the Elves. After abdicating kingship over all Ňoldor, it is stated that he remained in "common counsel" with the houses of Fingolfin and Finarfin. Later, instead of immediately attack Sirion, he sent a message to Sirion of friendship but with stern demands to the people/Elwing to yield the Silmaril (he does the same with Dior as well at Doriath). I don't know if searching for the sons of Dior after Celeegorm's servants left them in the forest to starve adds to my point, but if all his actions stated above isn't being temperate and diplomatic in comparison to the other Fëanorians, then I don't know what it is.
• Travelled far and wide with their father - This is stated in The Silmarillion
• The friendship of Maedhros and Fingon proved to be true and lasted their entire lives - This is something that is pretty clear in The Silmarillion as well. Though it may be called "interpretation", this "interpretation" is widely accepted as canon by Tolkien fans. However, I don't think the fact that they were best friends is an interpretation, it is something that Tolkien clearly intends to show through the actions of Maedhros and Fingon. At the burning of the ships of Losgar, we learn that Maedhros and Fingon had a close friendship, but when Morgoth came and spread discord, they quarreled and parted not so friend-like. Despite the fact that they argued, Maedhros still remembered Fingon and asked his father at Losgar if he was returning for Fingon first among Fingolfin's hosts that were still in Araman. When Fingon decided to rescue Maedhros in 5 Y.S. to heal the feud between the Ňoldor, the text states that he still remembered their "ancient friendship". It is also said that "Fingon had been close in friendship with Maedhros" in the same paragraph. After Maedhros gave up his position as High King, he still remained to be touch and in friendship with the House of Fingolfin, especially with Fingon after Fingon takes over the throne, and Finarfin in "common counsel".
• Maedhros lived in Formenos - This too is stated in The Silmarillion
• Maedhros brought the tidings of Finwe's death - I think this is in "The Shibboleth of Fëanor", so I agree that should be referenced.

I do agree that the last bullet should be referenced, but for the rest, I think it may be overreferencing. If majority do not think so, then referenced it shall be. Hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, I have a tendency to go into debating mode at times. (Oh, if you want specific quotes in bullet #2 and 4, I can give you them to you :) — I'm just too lazy to type up the text from The Silmarillion :P — Tolkien is rather wordy [I know, I know, bad me]). —Mirlen 22:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if something can't be explained by references, it might be veering into the realm of opinion/speculation. I actually agree that Maedhros was diplomatic at times, and that he and Fingon were certainly good friends, but I'm just disagreeing with the emphasis that has been placed on these aspects of Maedhros's story. I'd rewrite those sentences, but don't have time at the moment unfortunately. Thanks for the extra references anyway - I hope you feel they improved the article. Don't get me wrong, I do like the way this article has been presented. I'm hoping to find the time to expand a character article to be as good as this one! Carcharoth 12:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps I should just "let the facts speak for themselves"...perhaps it is tiptoeing into opinion. Feel free to rewrite the sentences :) — you'd write it more encyclopedic. Yeah, it's really improved with help from all of those who've edited this article, isn't it? That's what so beautiful about Wikipedia I think. That everybody is able to help to improve an encyclopedia that enables everybody to edit. Of course, you always have your vandals, but aside from that, most seem to be working hard to improve Wikipedia into a dependable encyclopedic resource in the future. Please keep going with your constructive criticisms, they really help me. —Mirlen 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two examples of contradictions in published Silmarillion

There are two examples of contradictions with the published Silmarillion that could be made clearer:

• The reference in footnote 8 to Amrod/Ambarto dying in the ships at Losgar needs to be reconciled with the account in 'The Silmarillion' of Amrod and Amras dying in the attack on Earendil's people at the mouths of Sirion (see index entry for Amras).
• The different texts about the sons of Elwing, with either Maglor or Maedhros searching for them, needs to be made clearer in the main text, rather than left to a trivia note at the end. Personally, I would leave it out altogether, like the account about the Dragon-helm - unless you can clearly reference something that shows which one was Tolkien's intent.

If I hadn't heard of this before, these bits would have confused me. Carcharoth 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As for footnote 8, that was what I was asking in the talk page of the WikiProject (but I didn't get an answer, so...): Also, I'm pretty sure that it was Amrod who was burned in the ships of the Teleri, not Amras. Amrod was the younger one of the twin, and it was he who was called Ambarto. —Mirlen 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC) I'm sure that it's mentioned somewhere in the HoME books that Amrod was Ambarto and that there was a mistake in The Silmarillion about the translation of Ambarussa/Ambarto.

Well, anything that's "Behind the scenes" information go under the 'Trivia' section. The bullet in the Trivia section mentions the original/earlier drafts. ORIGINALLY, Tolkien planned to have Maedhros rescue Elrond (there was no Elros), but obviously, he changed his mind to have Maglor rescue Elrond and added Elros, twin brother of Elrond. As for the Dragon-helm (the story of how it was given to Maedhros is in UT [Unfinished Tales]), should that be moved to the Biography section? But I do like how it ties in with the original drafts concerning the Elfstone. —Mirlen 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to check the other bits (Elrond/Elros, Dragon-helm, Elessar), but my point is that there is a quote from 'The Silmarillion' that directly contradicts the footnote about Amrod in this article, and we need to make clear why this is, and, if we present one version as more canonical than another (I don't think we should really do this), why we are doing this. Anyway, the quote is:

"...Maedhros and Maglor won the day, though they alone remained thereafter of the sons of Feanor, for both Amrod and Amras were slain." (Of the Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath)

So I'm not disputing that the Amrod that dies in the ships at Losgar can be identified with the Amrod said to die at the Mouths of Sirion, but rather I'm saying that if we include this footnote about Amrod, we need to explain the whole set of inconsitencies. On the other hand, we could just leave that footnote out. It properly belongs in an article about Amrod anyway. The only thing being that it is nice to have it here because of the ships. In any case, I'd link the reference to the earlier account and picture of Maedhros at Losgar. Carcharoth 16:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you! Alright, I'll leave the footnote out, and let you reference it the way you think it should be, because I see that it should've been referenced earlier. :) --Mirlen 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put it in the Amras article, although if that is wrong it should be in the Amrod article! Couldn't really work out how to put it in this article. Carcharoth 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It should go in the Amrod article, methinks, because in HoME XII, I think it mentions JRRT switching around their birth order so that Amrod was last, but it doesn't indicate any changes about their father names. Since Amrod is the younger of the twin, then should his and Amras's father names be switched around? Or should we just add a note in the articles saying that Tolkien switched around the order, but it's not certain if their father's names are switched around? —Mirlen 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord, why!! :-) Why did he change his mind again! :-) I'm afraid I don't have the time to change it now, but you are right, this does need to be mentioned. Somehow. Carcharoth 07:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha, lol, I agree. Tolkien needs to make up his mind — it's frustrating how he keeps changing his mind, which creates contradictions, therefore makes it harder for us to decide which one is canon! —Mirlen 17:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think it should stand in the intro or the infobox where you can find this character; nowhere did I find any references to what work he was related, just add it. --Shandris 09:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive references

Some of the references seem a bit repetitive, especially 2, 3, 4, and 13. Is there not a way to do Ibid, or whatever that phrase is? Carcharoth 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the HoME books right now, but I was hoping that anyone who had the HoME books would be able to specify the references by adding the page numbers, and what "chapter" the information referenced was stated. Sorry, I should've added a comment about that in the article. —Mirlen 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So references #2, 3, 5, and #14 need page numbers. If the page numbers between two of these are the same, then we would combine the references. —Mirlen 23:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Maedhros has failed, for the following reason:

Bullet-pointed text is bad prose. If the things listed under trivia are significant they should be mentioned in the main text, and if they're not they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Worldtraveller 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of other things. The article needs to conform to WP:WIAGA For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, significance outside of the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship. The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe; otherwise the article may be better placed in one of the many fictional-universe specific wikis. What I would like to see (and will do if I ever have time and energy) is to take some of the things from trivia and make an External History section covering the evolution of Maedhros' character and history in Tolkien's writings. As an aside the pronounciation My'thros really annoys me, even if not wrong it is confusing. Could it replaced by IPA or a more detailed explanation? Eluchil404 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different style needed?

Based on the comments above, from the failed "Good article" nomination, it seems that a different style is called for for character articles. Something along the lines of the "textual history" that Eluchil mentioned. I've rewritten the Maedhros introduction in draft form below:

"Maedhros is the name of a character from J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium. The character first appeared in The Silmarillion, a work published posthumously in 1977, but the first writings about the character date back to <insert date and details here>.

In the published Silmarillion, the character arc is <insert details>. The publication of the History of Middle-earth series in the 1980s and 1990s revealed some of the details of the creation and development of the character <insert details here>."

In other words, a balance needs to be kept between writing about the character and what happened to the character, and writing about how Tolkien came to create the name and write the character. At the moment, the sections are "Biography" and "Trivia". Maybe a more rounded structure for "character" articles would be along the lines of: (1) "summary paragraphs"; (2) "Context in legendarium"; (3) "Character arc"; (4) "Textual history"; (5) "Etymology" (getting a language section into all the articles would improve them immensely). The infobox could similarly be revamped with a section saying what book(s) the character appears in - the above comment from Shandris is very telling: there is no reference in the current Maedhros article to The Silmarillion outside of the references or trivia sections.

In particular, if an article in general can have a robust section on the relationship of the names in the article to how Tolkien developed his languages, then that, IMO, makes it relevant enough for Wikipedia - the relevance being a summary (using sources) that provides an insight into how Tolkien created his world.

Comments welcomed. Carcharoth 15:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the introduction should be more encyclopedic and less 'wikia', but I think renaming the sections is a bit overdoing it. For example, Mythology of Final Fantasy X: a good article, it's less 'wikia', but it still manages to keep a general balance. I would say renaming the Biography to 'History' or something more "real-world". On a rather random note, I am confused on what "summary paragraphs" are. Anyway, I do agree on renaming some of the sections, but I do not think it's necessary to go that far into doing so. I would think 'Textual history' would be necessary — as for an Etymology section — that could be easily merged within the introduction. As for the infobox, hm, perhaps...but I think mentioning the character's appearances in the introduction should be fine. —Mirlen 21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, about the "summary paragraphs", I meant the introductory section that doesn't have a title. It should summarise the article and everything in it should be repeated and usually expanded upon later in the article, which should be able to stand alone without the introductory section. Have a look at a typical biographical article like Copernicus, to see what I mean.

As for the wider Wikipedia/wikia issue, I've just been reading the Mythology of Final Fantasy X article, and to be honest, as someone who knows nothing about the subject matter, I was frankly a bit lost. After a few explanatory sentences, the article dives deeply into detailed stuff. I fear some people fell like this when reading the more detailed Middle-earth articles. I think the basic problem here is one of audience. Who are these articles intended for? Applying this to the WikiProject Middle-earth articles, are they intended for people who have never read anything of Tolkien's works, people who have a passing familiarity with Tolkien's works, or the fan who has read everything they can get their hands on? I would say that the first two would be in something like Wikipedia, and the last sort would be a wikia-style article.

It would be very easy to write these articles in these different styles (and both styles would use the same set of information, but would express it differently) , but at the end of the day I think we need to settle on a consistent style and write and edit articles accessible to the reader of a general-purpose encyclopedia, rather than have a group of articles written by fans for fans.

Don't get me wrong, I like both styles, and I want to see both styles written, but this will be an ongoing problem unless some sort of consensus is agreed. Carcharoth 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but summary paragraphs for "real-world" articles are different from fictional articles. The introductory paragraph, for fictional articles, should not contain any spoilers, hence the spoiler tag is placed AFTER the introductory paragraphs.

Hm, well, I see your point and it is an entirely valid point — it's not that I'm against what you're proposing. I agree with you on some parts, but I also think that there should be a general balance in-between that would still serve as a general-purpose encyclopedia at the same time. I think there should be a renaming of the sections to make it more "real-world", but I also think there should be a balance kept. —Mirlen 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox on characters

Taking Maedhros as an example, I want to raise a few points about Template:Infobox_Tolkien (comments also copied to the talk page of that template), and some of the entries I disagree with. In general I am uncomfortable with the idea of assigning characters to a realm or culture, and especially a weapon. It comes across very much like a role-playing card, or "attributes" list, rather than a character within a work of literature. I have been trying to find suitable "literary" infoboxes, but failing. The key fields I would like to see in a Tolkien info box should show the key points about the character, not the incidential and sometimes trivial aspects.

When I think of Maedhros, I don't think: Sword, Noldorin King, or even his other names (a complicated matter). I think of "Sons of Feanor", "The Silmarillion", "Noldor" and "Elf". And not a lot else.

Taking another example, with Samwise Gamgee, his "other names" are again something that is not trivial and not easily summarised in a box. That sort of thing should be dealt with at length in a section of the article. His title of "Mayor of the Shire" is a spoiler anyway, and also not something that is key to the character until the end of the story. And saying that his weapon is "barrow-blade" makes me laugh, unfortunately.

When I think of Sam, the key points that come to mind are: "hobbit", "The Lord of the Rings", "Fellowship of the Ring", and so on.

My point is that we should maybe be adapting these character templates a lot more to fit Middle-earth. Maybe even adapting them to fit different races, different books, and moving them from a "wargaming" slant to a "literary" slant. For example, the language might be a better way to characterise characters in Middle-earth, as that would be more natural for Tolkien's writings. Carcharoth 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I agree, the 'weapon' category should be removed. But I think the titles should be kept. I think what the character is (e.g. titles) specifically in the literary work is important to know, even in a general-purpose encyclopedia. I also think that the names/aliases should be kept. Of course, your point about the titles and other names being spoilers are entirely correct. However, if a summary paragraph is there to summarize the article, then the infobox would serve as a summary of stastical information that would later expand in its respective section, wouldn't it? If the history behind the other names are given in the texts, then it should be addressed and expanded in its history, however, I think a general listing of the character's names/titles should be kept as a listing for the same purpose summary paragraphs serve.

Anyway, I'm not sure how to address it at this point, but I agree that the infobox has to go on a less "wargaming" slant.

Perhaps you should address this at Template talk:Infobox Tolkien as a proposal, so members can decide this at the concensus with votes. —Mirlen 22:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox part 2

Have a look at User:Carcharoth#Tolkien_infoboxes. Do people think that looks better? Carcharoth 17:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The oath reference is wrong.

The version of the oath in the footnotes is from Morgoth's Ring. See here for its textual history. Uthanc 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

By pure researching, the IPA in pronouncing Maedhros's name may be wrong...I am not expert, and I am just learning. The pronunciation of Maedhros's name as I know it in non-IPA would be MY-thros. In IPA, I've "translated" this to this: /ˈmaɪ.ðrɔs/.

However, there is a difference between Sindarin and North Sindarin, which was the dialect used by the Sons of Fëanor, so the pronunciation would differ. I don't know Sindarin (much the less North Sindarin) very well, but according to Ryszard Derdzinski's Northern Dialect of Sindarin, it would be /mˈaɜ.drɔs/ — which has me confused. In the back of The Silmarillion, it states that 'dh' should be pronounced the th in then, and 'ae' should be pronounced 'ai' in Maedhros's case, but Derdzinski seems to suggest something a little different.

Personally, I'd go with the latter, aside from the fact that Derdzinski obviously knows his stuff better than I do, which is very little. Comments? —Mirlen 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest we go with the pronunciation guides of authorized publications. john k 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See, the problem is that my "translation" uses the ð, which now I discovered is the 'th' in this. I chose to use th based on what the Sindarin article had put in its chart, but it isn't the one Christopher Tolkien reccomended to use. To paraphrase C.T.'s words, it was a soft 'th' in then, and not a distinctive 'th' in this. So I think d is afterall, a better choice. But I don't quite understand the use of ɜ instead of an ɪ, so I was hoping someone who knows the IPA and North Sindarin better might explain this to me. My revised translation: /ˈmaɪ.drɔs/...but I need somebody to check the accuracy on this. —Mirlen 10:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I had thought "this" and "then" use exactly the same soft "th" sound. john k 17:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I meant the th in thin, sorry. For some reason, my brain equated this with thin, and that was the seed of my mixup. Never mind then. >_< —Mirlen 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So are we agreed that the "dh" in Maedhros is the soft "th" sound, as in "the" and "then"? john k 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about confusing you. I was being stupid... —Mirlen 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not much of a Tolkienite, but if we are to trust the rules given in the phonology section of the Sindarin language article (and this is a conlang, after all, not English), I think there's no doubt that the name is supposed to be either /ˈma͡ɛðrɔs/ (if we go by the actual description) or /ˈma͡eðrɔs/ (if we go by the German analogy given there - supposing that Tolkien used it). The essay about North Sindarin doesn't mention differences that would justify another pronunciation. /ˈmaɪ.ðrɔs/ would, according to the article, be an option "if you don't care about details". That seems likely to me; if I were making a conlang, I wouldn't have two spellings for the same diphthong (since there is already an ai in Sindarin). And /ma͡ɛ/ is much more interesting and exotic! --Anonymous44 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So is /ˈmaɜ.ðrɔs/ the one you are going with? —Mirlen 18:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Though The Silmarillion denotes ae to be pronounced as individual vowels (as you suggested: /maɛ/), it also indicates that it could be prounounced as one syllable. Since ae is a diphthong in Sindarin, it would be pronounced as ai. So I am finally going with ai, because I feel it is the most accurate. And yes, it seems that Tolkien has two spellings for the same diphthong (only in Sindarin I think) since it is said in Appendix B of RotK and TS that "ae and oe may be pronounced ai, oe" respectively. —Mirlen 09:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed this, looking through my old contributions. You said that "Since ae is a diphthong in Sindarin, it would be pronounced as ai." I'd just like to point out that there do exist diphthongs (pronounced as one syllable) that are pronounced as /ae/ and not /ai/ in the world's languages, for example in German phonology. As a linguist, Tolkien was probably aware of that. Of course, they don't exist in English, and they could be difficult to imagine for an English speaker. As for the sentence that "ae and oe may be pronounced ai, oe", it can be interpreted as a guide for the linguistically unexperienced readers of the novel, rather than as a description of actual Sindarin pronunciation. In any case, I guess that the Wiki article might as well reflect the pronunciation of the actual fans rather than the one that Tolkien perhaps intended originally. --Anonymous44 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As an English speaker, yes, it's hard to imagine, since there are no ae/oe counterparts. I agree with you to a certain extent that the guide is for readers who are linguistically unexperienced, but the Appendix is the only primary source published regarding Tolkien's languages; meaning, it's the best that we have in terms of primary sources. (HoME would be considered a secondary source because it is followed by a commentary and largely edited by Christopher Tolkien.) The Sindarin article seems to state that Tolkien reccomends using ai and oe for the diphthongs ae and oe "if one does not care about details" — but I don't remember reading the quoted part from the Appendix or from Christopher Tolkien in the back of The Silmarillion. Not that I am doubting those who are experts on Elvish languages, you understand — I would just like the primary source (or secondary source HoME) specified where that was mentioned. To quote Wikipedia, that statement is "likely true, but needs specificity" for my benefit (I need to brush on the Elvish languages, though I'm focusing more on Quenya and the Tengwar than I am on Sindarin.)

I note that the Sindarin article also states that "If one does care, it is similar to pronouncing a or o respectively in the same syllable as one pronounces an e (as in pet)" — but surely there are exceptions to this. For instance, take Maedhros's name. Originally, Tolkien created the pronunciation of Maedhros's name and then came up with the meaning. The original spelling of Maedhros's name was Maidros, suggesting that he intended having it pronounced /ai/. The reason why he changed the original spelling was due to the fact that he usually needed to keep to keep the same spelling for the same meaning (though that didn't work out too well; the meaning changed from "glittering of metal" to "well-shaped copper" due to complications). Also, take note that Tolkien decided that Maedhros was a combination of his mother-name, Maitimo and his epessë, Russandol. It's quite safe to say and quite likely, with aforementioned supporting evidence, that the component ai in Maitimo matches the pronunciation of Sindarin diphthong ae as ai in Maedhros; seeing as the shifts (pronunciation-wise) from Quenya to Sindarin occured primarily in the consonants, not in the vowels. (*sighs* This would be easier if Tolkien was alive...) —Mirlen 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming that there was a primary source describing the pronunciation of Sindarin, and that the wiki article about Sindarin was based on it. Otherwise, all of these considerations would be original research. I would suggest you contact the editor who wrote the phonology part of the Sindarin article and ask him/her. --Anonymous44 11:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. The "diphthongs" part was added by user:Matjlav [1]. Now, if he does have a source for that, I think it's safe to assume that Tolkien eventually came to mean "Maedhros" to be pronounced as "Maedhros" and not "Maidhros", whatever the original forms of the name and the motives for its choise were. Conlangs tend to have a rather regular spelling, unlike modern English, and pronunciation isn't memorized word by word. If, on the other hand, there is no source for the statement in Sindarin, then it should be deleted, and then, of course, we are only left with your sources and the most likely pronunciation of Maedhros would be Maidhros. --Anonymous44 12:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And here is what seems to have been Matjlav's original source: this article, part of this beautiful site, made by thisNorwegian guy with a philological education with the e-mail helge.fauskanger@nor.uib.no. This site, featuring even soundfiles, confirms the [ae] interpretation, and this course mentions ae as a diphthong distinct from ai (without describing their pronunciations, though). I don't know what all these people's original sources were, but I think that the matter should be checked before any particular IPA transcription is chosen. --Anonymous44 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I'm going to remove the IPA for now. If the information about ae is correct, then it is most likely true for most cases, but there are always exceptions to rules. And there is the question of the sources. And while the people who run the aforementioned sites are no doubt well-learned and experts, I quote from one of Wikipedia's official policies: "Verifiability, not truth."

"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth."

Because Tolkien's legendarium is so contradictory and unclear in many parts, it's hard to establish waht exactly is canon. That is exactly why WP:Me decided to use primary sources and Christopher Tolkien's HoME books as the only sources that Tolkien articles are allowed to be referenced to. Plus, Wikipedia's guidelines state here "...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The sites you list above are what are considered tertiary sources (Encyclopedia of Arda is a prominent example, however respectable it is considered among Tolkien fans), and because Wikipedia discourages tertiary sources to be used, we must rely on primary sources (and with exceptions, secondary sources).

Of course, your interpretation in that the spelling of Maedhros's name was changed for pronunciation instead of translation is perfectly valid of course (they are both, in the end, merely interpretations), but I would keep in mind that the fact that Tolkien combined Maitimo and Russandol together to form Maedhros is also valid evidence in that the ai in Maitimo matches that of the ae in Maedhros, since components of both pronunciation and meaning was incorporated into his Sindarin name. Another evidence suppporting that would be the fact that russ in Russandol attests to the the ros in Maedhros.

The conception of Maedhros and its evolution from Quenya:

Quenya	Northern Sindarin	Translation
Maiti ->	Maed (Maid)	Shapely
Russ ->	Ros(s)	Copper

Again, because Tolkien did not define the pronunciation for Maedhros's name and in the end all we can do is speculate, I think you are right in the fact that it is best to abstain from adding pronunciations. Even though he listed rules and guides, there always exceptions to rules (and the fact that ros was meant to mean red-haired was actually water spray is a good example of contradictions and mistakes).

I second your opinion in that /ˈmaɛ.ðrɔs/ sounds better than /ˈmaɪ.ðrɔs/. For some strange reason, /ˈmaɪ.ðrɔs/ reminds me of Midas, which then reminds me of donkey's ears. >_< —Mirlen 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BTW, this whole "ae" issue (and which particular legitimate source those illegitimate secondary sources are based on, if any) is indicative of a more general problem. Neither the Quenya article, nor the Sindarin article give their sources or explain what is the ultimate legitimate source about them, i.e. who made standardised and systematic descriptions of the languages. Did Tolkien himself do that, at any point, or - as is my impression - did people do research based on his various writings? In the latter case, don't those articles contradict the WP:Me guideline that you mentioned? Also, I think the Sindarin article should have a history section where the development from Quenya to Sindarin is shown in terms of sound correspondences. If such a thing had existed, it could have been helpful in our particular case, too. --Anonymous44 13:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you have said earlier. I've tagged the Quenya and Sindarin articles with 'Unreferenced' templates. I wish I could help fill in the references, but I'm still an amateur where Tolkien's languages are concerned, even though I am currently learning and researching. (Somebody requested a Quenya Wiktionary, so if somebody can get that started, it'll be really useful.) —Mirlen 15:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 15, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes. Fix the broken first sentence, and do something about the second, one-sentence paragraph in Appearances. Expand it by explaining why, or merge it with an existing paragraph.

2. Factually accurate?: Current citations sufficient.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability? Yes. Editing is sparse.

6. Images?: All in order.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Carson 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All set! Edited intro and paragraph in appearances. Judgesurreal777 05:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passed

GA nomination passed as minor concerns have been addressed. Bypassing the 2-day minimum hold as I don't foresee any changes or concerns. Congratulations! Carson 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)