From Tolkien Gateway

Parentage 2006[edit]

Ereinion Gil-galad was the son of Fingon (vide. Quenta Silmarillion - after the fall of Turgon, Ereinion Gil-Galad sone of Fingon was named High King Of The Noldor in Middle Earth.

I'm afraid this is a question of Canon. But most Tolkienists agree that this was a mistake on the part of Christopher Tolkien, as almost all of Tolkien's later works say he is Orodreth's son. It is not his only marked mistake in the Silmarillion, though the Silmarillion is largely dependable. --Narfil Palùrfalas 09:54, 1 September 2006 (EDT)


I undid the changes made by an anonymous user showing preference to the version of the published Silmarillion. We have consciously preferred the "later" version for some time; such a pro-Silmarillion revision should not be done ad hoc, but require some discussion and agreement first, as we did with Celeborn. Sage 09:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, I tend to express a preference on the "later notes". Sage 10:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I have the same preference. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 10:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
+1 --Amroth 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for changing it without warning, but as it was simply a rearrangement of the text, I thought it wouldn't be so important, since all the alternate versions are still referenced and everybody can choose whatever s/he prefers. I guess that most people who stumble in this article do it because they have read the Silm or LOTR, not "The Shibboleth of Fëanor", so it's really confusing placing the less-known version first. Moreover, that revised version of the story was never included in the Silmarillion, and C.Tolkien had doubts wether it was definitive or not, or if his father would have included it in the narratives after all.Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

My preference would be: if Tolkien wrote about a certain concept in any of the works published during his life-time, we use that as the "main" version in an article (no matter if a later note contradicts the concept as originally published). When different posthumously published writings disagree about a concept, we have at least two choices: (1) to use the most well-known version (often = The Silm) or (2) the latest version (final intent). Here, I'm not sure which is best, taking into account the readers of the encyclopedia. The first choice would perhaps be more "encyclopedic", while the second would be more "Tolkienologistic". Perhaps we will have to decide from case to case, unless we want the same standard applied on each and every article.--Morgan 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Though I admit that I have a preference for the most polished works and the main narratives over the essays or notes (late or not). This is mainly because the essays are derived from the narratives, more concerned with linguistic/philosophical matters than the legends themselves, and many times incomplete. I think it's also very difficult to discern what is a true "final intent" and what it's just a fleeting idea, specially when new ideas appear in some notes, but never again reappear in other writings.Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Gil-galad in the isle of Balar[edit]

The published Silmarillion says that Gil-galad went to the isle of Balar and later sent help to Elwing during the Third Kinslaying, but arrived too late. Was this an editorial invention by Christopher? I can't find the original source for this statement, nor for that about Cirdan helping Earendil to build his ship. Maybe should this information go to some "Controversial" section?-- 00:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this controversial? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe controversial is not the word, since there's nothing which contradicts it; it's rather an issue of canonicity. I don't know this site's policy when dealing with editorial inventions in The Silmarillion, like Finrod creating the Nauglamír in Nargothrond. But maybe there should be a note saying that these developments were made by Christopher and were not in the originals.-- 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


I took the liberty to change and add some more images in the article. Lelia's portrait was a featureless elven face, without any context that it was Gil-galad and could have been anyone from Feanor to Legolas; Lelia has a lot of good artwork but this was not one of them and offered nothing to the article, therefore I changed it with a portrait of him holding Vilya.

Same with the portrait of Gil-galad with Aeglos by Maureval, who unexplicably stants like a statue; I preferred a much better portrait with Aeglos, made by Jenny Dolfen. Also I added one related to the Last Alliance, being an important historical event of which we have artwork. Sage 07:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Birthplace and stuff[edit]

At first sight I'm fine with having the new info from TNOME added to the History section, but it is not compatible with the idea of him being young during the Dagor Bragollach. I think we should discuss the overview of all the versions and see how to explain them in each section. --LorenzoCB 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer that the discrepancies on his date of birth were added to Other versions of the legendarium. There are conflicts even within NoMe and it is not easy to separate the details from the conflicting manuscripts to get an exact date. Until a section can be written up (which I would like to have a shot at doing, though others are probably better versed in this subject) I think we should remove the dates but keep the History section ambiguous, retaining statements such as "still young for an elf at the time of the Dagor Bragollach". JR Snow 14:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I moved the NOME material to OVOTL since I was already making other edits. I hope you don't feel like I'm stepping on your toes, and certainl feel free to further revise as the spirit moves you. --Mord 08:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Parentage 2022[edit]

I believe that the parentage of Gil-galad is the most well-known and best-documented case in the Legendarium where JRRT changed his mind, CJRT improperly exercised editorial agency, and CJRT subsequently fessed up to his mistake. There's 0% chance of achieving consensus by endorsing any single explanation; the solution that makes everyone the least unhappy is to cover the entire controversy in its own section.

As such, in my opinion it's best not to relitigate the issue in multiple places in the article - especially not in the infobox. Abbreviating the subject so it can be included briefly in the History section or infobox is necessarily going to either A) show preference to one of the several explanations available or B) result in massive duplication of text. Leaving the parentage issue in the Parentage section and replacing all discussion of parentage elsewhere in the article (including the infobox) with links to the Parentage section is the best way IMO to achieve neutrality, provide all relevant information, and avoid needless repetition.

Furthermore, as to why Gil-galad's parentage deserves special treatment above and beyond other inconsistencies: it is more visible, more complicated, and more significant than the vast majority of OVOTL materials. It's widely-known among fans (the latest edits were the result of Reddit comments), it affects the text of LOTR, and is an actual deliberate/explicit editorial change by CJRT. All these make the parentage question unique and worthy of special-case handling. The remaining OVOTL materials in the article can IMO remain OVOTL, because they refer to earlier and later versions of the character/setting in JRRT's own conception that are contained exclusively in materials JRRT left unpublished in his own lifetime. --Mord 22:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Ar-Zigûr's request, discussion continued in User_talk:LorenzoCB#Gil-galad and TG:CANON --Mord 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)