Talk:Maedhros

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)