Talk:Morgoth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages 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.
Middle-earth Wikiproject 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
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Tale of Adanel

"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)

[edit] "The Morgoth"

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|Image:Anarion.png]] 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|Image:Anarion.png]] 12:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have added some info on Morgoth vs "The Morgoth" in the article. [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 13:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very nicely done. Thanks for the information. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 16:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[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 too 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

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)
Somebody thought it was too evil. (ha ha) maybe it violated copyright requirements 66.248.102.141 00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
somebody, please, please add a picture of morgoth to this article.
The initial image was likely removed due to a violation of copyright restrictions. A "request for photos" tag has been added. --Thisisbossi 06:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Good luck. You can't even get vampires on film ... Elphion (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)

[edit] Ability to create vs. ability to corrupt

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] ...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] 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)

did he have any plans for the dwarves?

Say hang on. If he was going to kill all the mortals and banish all the immortals then that would mean he would be alone in Arda and there would be no-one for him to rule. I think his plan was to enslave everyone and kill anyone who tried to stop him. Not just kill everyone because that would somewhat defeat the aim of ruling the world.
No my anonymous friend read Myths Transformed in Morgoth's RIng then you'll understand172.201.20.202 15:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way too much OR

Lots of the material here is very interesting, but utterly unsourced and not obviously a standard interpretation of Tolkien's work. The section "The Morgoth" about Morgoth's diminuation as a being because of his discord stands out particularly.

This is not the place to post your personal analysis of Morgoth, whatever it be. Interpretations must be referenced to a verifiable source. --Saforrest 06:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Morgoth's Ring, volume 10 of The History of Middle-earth. I agree that the article ought to be footnoted, but at least the section you mention is not OR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box

Unless there are cogent reasons given for keeping it, I'm going to cut it. It adds no useful information to the article, and much of what's in it is patently absurd. (What is the point of a succession box for an "office" that had only one occupant? And "Dark Lord of Middle-earth"?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

There is some amazing art floating around the internet, by both well known and anonymous artists, depicting Melkor (Morgoth). Wouldn't it be cool to have one right at the top of the article?

For instance, thisis a really good painting.

That painting, like every other image of Melkor you'll find on the Web, is copyrighted to the artist. If you can find one that's available under a free license, go ahead and upload it. Or commission one yourself in such a way that you'll own the copyright, and license it {{FAL}} or {{GFDL}} or something like that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, Please,Please, someone add a picture of morgoth or melkor to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.255.193 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Morgothmu3.jpg was recently added as an infobox image, but it appears to be fan art, so I've removed it.  Elphion (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymologies

User:YLSS left the following note on my talk page instead of here for some reason:

Why was my edit on Morgoth's names reverted? It was a cleanup of both un-Wikipedia information (roots from Etymologies) and mixing internal and external history of JRRT's writings. Plus some clarification.

I reverted (and re-reverted) because there's no reason not to include the etymological information you cut. This is never "un-Wikipedia"; Tolkien's main motivation for his legendarium was linguistic, so linguistic information is never improper. It was furthermore incorrect: "Belegur" was not "the Sindarin form" of Melkor. Melkor means "He who arises in might", as is explicitly said in Valaquenta and can be confirmed in the Etymologies, not "Great Death". TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I still hold that at least not everything of my edit should have been reverted:
  • References to the roots from Etymologies were removed on the basis that they do not appear in the majority of Wikipedia's pages on Tolkien. They are of little use, serving only as an indication where the information was taken from and thus serving only those with the Lost Road. For people with limited knowledge of Tolkien's works - the greater part of visitors of this page - these roots are entirely obscure and misleading. Moreover, the Etymologies are only barely canonical, while such formations as 'KOT/KOTH' or 'mbelekôro' look uncouth and confusing in the middle of plain text. IMHO, we should either add a separate section dealing with the etymologies of names to 80% of Tolkien's articles (for Elves at least, and containing a lot of original research), or put all roots etc., if any, to notes at the end of a page. The latter is possibly the most neutral solution.
  • Translation of 'Morgoth Bauglir' appeared twice within a single paragraph as a result of different wiki-edits. This was cropped of roots and moved before the discussion of these names being epithets.
  • On Belegur(th): these names were already present, by the way, in the section on rejected names - but they were not rejected. On the contrary, they appear in The Shibboleth of Fëanor, PoMe p. 358. Possibly my wording was not perfect: Belegûr was the Sindarin form of Melkor and equally meant 'He who arises in might', but Sindar and Noldor after their exile never used it, like Melkor; and only occasionally another name Belegurth, meaning 'Great Death', was used instead. Also mentioned in the index to the Silmarillion.
  • Distinguishing final etymology and 'historical excursus', the latter moved to 'Concept and creation' section and expanded.
  • Minor stuff - moving 'Children of Húrin' section after the 'Silmarillion' as less important and briefer.
Any consensus? Surendil 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Then move it; don't remove it. But if you're going to say Eytm is "barely canonical" you need to take it up with the Tolkien linguistic community, which I think will disagree with you. That most people don't have LR is actually a strong argument for including etymological information. We're not here to tell people what they already know.
    • No, that name was not translated twice; at least not accidentally as you imply. The entire name is translated; this is followed by a discussion of the origin of the name in which the individual words are translated.
    • Yes, your wording was imperfect. You made it sound as if "Belegur" meant "Great Death. I furthermore mistyped my response above. But all that's necessary here is an edit to the place where it occurs.
The rest I concede I should not have reverted. My apologies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Inconsistency

The section of Morgoth' weapon Grond in the List of Middle-earth weapons shortly describes the fight between Morgoth and Fingolfin; there it says: "Morgoth managed to kill the High King, but not without receiving seven wounds himself. (nine, if counting the foot and face)". This article, in contrast, states that Morgoth "was stabbed seven times, including in the foot, and was left with a permanent limp. That battle also saw Thorondor, the great Eagle, swoop down and scar Morgoth's face with his talons, a wound that also never healed.", giving the impression that there were 8 wounds overall.

As I do not know which article needs to be corrected (or enhanced to remove confusion), can somebody more knowledgeable please clarify...?

Dirk Stegemann 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is due to differing interpretations of the text. Tolkien wrote that Fingolfin wounded Morgoth seven times. Then a few sentences later he wrote that Fingolfin hewed Morgoth's foot while he was being crushed to death beneath it. I've always taken the 'seven wounds' to be a description of those Fingolfin dealt while on his feet dueling with Morgoth and the wound to the foot an additional blow after that. Others take the wound to the foot as one of the seven. --CBD 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing.In the text morgoth has already recieved 7 wounds before he crushes fingolfin - at that point he recieves another (to the foot) - so I am fairly certain the figure is 8 (plus one from the eagle) -I'll make this change if it already hasn't been dealt with. 87.102.81.184 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it says several - which is sufficiently vague , and the weapons page also seems to be correct.87.102.81.184 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I decided to create a point of reference for removing any irrelevant categories from the article, at the present moment and at any time they reappear in future. These are IMO improper:

For a historical reference, other categories had also been added to this poor article at different points (many got deleted completely): Category:Fictional characters who appear to be somewhat vain or arrogant, Category:Fictional misanthropes, Category:Fictional narcissists, Category:Literature antagonists, Category:Literature villains, Category:Fictional generals, Category:Fictional warlords, Category:Fictional megalomaniacs, Category:Dark Lords, Category:Chief Dark Lords, Category:Fictional magic users, Category:Fictional characters with the power to change their size, Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate darkness or shadow, Category:Fictional evil geniuses. Súrendil (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! This category clutter is really aggravating, and really defeats the whole purpose of categories. I support all your removals. The "Fictional Twins" bit probably arises from the description of Melkor as the "brother" of Manwë — a reach at best. Elphion (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with their disinclusion as well per above. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

However I have for the time being re-added three of the above categories which I consider relevant. I have explained why on the history of the page. If anyone has any objections, please contact me. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is the place for the discussion. Your arguments [for reference: He's dictator and emperor of Beleriand and he's a mass murderer because he killed thousands of people for no reason other than power. As for mage and demon, well duh!] don't answer the objections above.  Elphion (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Bravo on removing that vandalism by the way Elphion, I'd have undone it myself but I didn't notice it. Anyway, here's my take on the categories. He may have planned on disposing of the Orcs, Wolves, Balrogs, etc once of they were of no further use to him but he was for a time a dictator to them. As for emperor, he was the ruler of the Continent of Beleriand which was certainly large enough to class as an empire. With regards to Fictional mass murderers, he did indeed order the deaths of thousands of people who weren't doing him any harm simply because he wanted to ruler creation. This is quite unlike the innocent Iraqis (rest their souls) who have died in the Iraq War as people like George Bush aren't actually trying to kill them. They're trying to kill lunatics like the late Sadam Husseine to prevent them from killing more people. I admit Bush is a berk but I think he's a well-intentioned berk. On the subject of the Fictional mages category, a rather ingenious category of my own invention, he does use magic as a weapon and thus is effectively a mage. I thought it would be unfitting to label him a wizard. Finally as regards Fictional demons, he is a fallen angel which is basically what a demon is and he is also an allegory of Satan. I hope I've explained myself sufficiently. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well:

  • Dictator refers to one who is given (or takes) personal responsibility for the laws. But Angband is not a law-based society.
  • Emperor is a specific title, which Tolkien does not use. (In any event, it does not refer to the size of the realm, rather to its organization. It does not mean "ruler over a vast area".)
  • Magic refers to a learned skill, not innate power. Would you call Christ a "mage"?
  • Mass Murderer (according to the category definition) does not include warfare -- we're talking of the likes of Richard Speck or Harry Roberts. Tolkien does not record Morgoth killing many in cold blood.
  • More generally, all of the above properly apply to humans. It's a category error to apply them to divine beings. Otherwise we might call Jupiter a mass murderer. We may call someone like God the "emperor over the sea", but this is figurative, metaphorical usage.

Of all your categories, "Demon" is the only one worth considering. But Tolkien avoids the word in his books, just as he resists calling the Valar "angels" -- precisely because both words carry too much freight from other contexts. He felt they were misleading, even inappropriate words to apply within his "sub-created" mythos. Elphion (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. Do you think we should include Fictional demons then? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't, which I thought I had made clear. He's already categorized as a Vala -- and that most accurately reflects what Tolkien wrote about him. Like each of the other Valar, he has his own characteristics; you won't capture him completely by spinning categories around him, and you run the real risk of misleading people by applying categories that really aren't germane.  Elphion (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You may be right. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)