Talk:Mistakes and inconsistencies in Tolkien's works
Well, some of this borders fanwank. Also, I'm pretty sure Tolkien talked about most of it in Letters (the Ring of Thror comes to mind).
On another note: This page needs structure. Maybe a grouping of errors? "Character errors", "Scientific errors", "plot errors", or somesuch? -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- They are too few for now to be categorized. Sage 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Character mistakes:
- Mouth of Sauron
- Gimli's Axe
- Possession of the Nine Rings
- Knowledge of the Palantír
- Moon phases
- Plot errors
- Doors of Durin
- Shadow over Eregion
- Beater and Biter
- It does looks good but I still think it's too few/too early to think of definite categories. For example the Scientific errors could be under Plot errors, while Thror's Ring under Character. But anyway, that doesn't mean that I object to sectionization, only that it's not that useful yet. Sage 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to add a few more errors in the next week or two. Some can be explained as pure character errors, such as Pippin's comment to Théoden that Rohan is the first country he's come to where people have heard any tale about hobbits, when Fangorn is the only inhabited country they've visited where people haven't heard of hobbits.
- Others are of the type, "If they could do A, why didn't they do B?" The best one may be—when Galadriel says she knows Sauron's mind concerning the elves, why doesn't she offer Frodo and Sam any information? Why don't they ask for any? Why didn't she know about Saruman's betrayal, which I would think concerns the elves, or if she knew, why didn't she warn Gandalf? (He says at the Council of Elrond that he'd gotten messages from Lórien after reading the scroll of Isildur.) This could be a separate type from the other plot errors, or a subtype of them. Spearwielder 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since I've been enjoying articles here, I'm glad you found my suggestions interesting. I hope to add two or three more soon. By the way, I think the Vale of Anduin, described as green, should actually be desert, as it's in the rain shadow of the Misty and White Mountains. But it would be nice to find an expert source on that. Spearwielder 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 The palantíri
I think the explanation given is rather far-fetched. What Gandalf says is, "No word of it did he [Saruman] speak to any of the Council [not "at any Council meeting"]. It was not known to us that any of the palantíri had escaped the ruin of Gondor." So he's talking about the members of the Council, including him, not what happened at Council meetings.
Also, he says in "The Pyre of Denethor", "Though the Stewards deemed that it was a secret kept only by themselves, long have I known that here in the White Tower, as at Orthanc, one of the Seven Stones was preserved." This implies, but doesn't quite prove, that more than one Steward was mistaken about the secrecy—otherwise it would be much more natural to say, "Though Denethor deemed..."
Gandalf also says in "The Palantír", "Who knows where all those other Stones now lie, broken, or buried, or drowned deep?" If he knows, that might not be a lie exactly, but it's serious suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.
It seems to me that the most likely explanation is that Tolkien made a mistake. If not, the most likely is that Gandalf is lying to Pippin to protect the secret, which is more Denethor's than his. Another possibility is that he's suffering a brief recurrence of the post-resurrection memory problem that he had when he met Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. Spearwielder 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- He does speak about the members of the Council including himself, but also refers to the past. His phrase doesn't exclude that sometime later he gained some personal knowledge. What if he talked about the Ring? They eventually all found out that Bilbo had the Ring but referring to the past Gandalf would say something like "It was now known to us that Bilbo had the Ring". It's not bad grammar at all and doesn't contradict the facts.
- Second, as for the fate of the Palantiri, it is not a lie, since he speaks about "all" of them. Yes he (perhaps) knows that 4 of them were in Emyn Beraid, Orthanc, Barad-dur and Denethor's tower, but what about "all" of them? Nobody knows.
- Finally, yes, Tolkien perhaps made some mistakes, but this is not the explanation of the inconsistency, but the reason of the inconsistency. Explanations are to find out how mistakes can make an inconsistency and whether they can be explained internally. Sage 09:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I won't argue with you any more. However, I'll point out that the article now reads, "as the Nazgûl are Sauron's slaves, his owning the Rings may be equivalent to the Nazgûl keeping them." Here "his owning" (possessive) isn't parallel to "the Nazgûl keeping" (not possessive). It should be either "him owning" or "the Nazgûl's keeping". As you're the veteran here, I'll let you pick. Spearwielder 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 Corrected error?
In my 1971 Ballantine edition, there are almost identical entries in Appendix B for 1455 and 1462, both saying that Sam was re-elected mayor and that at his request, the Thain made Fastred and Elanor Wardens of the Westmarch, where their descendants dwelled for many generations. It has Sam elected for the fifth time in 1455 and the sixth in 1462, which seems right, but I doubt Pippin gave Fastred and Elanor this title twice. Was this corrected in later editions? Spearwielder 00:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's apparently a very complicated matter, as noted in RC721-2.
- In the first edition, the "Warden-making" takes place in 1462. When Tolkien wanted to change something (deleting a line that was between brackets), the second (Ballantne) edition accidentally merged 1455 and 1462, ignoring the sixth term statement. A&U's second edition also ran with this error. In the fourth or fifth printing, Ballantine tried to correct things, which led to the duplication you have. In 1987, Houghton Mifflin "corrected" it once again, by changing the entry for 1462 into the short "sixth term" statement (which both my pre-2004 editions have). Hammond and Scull changed it back to Tolkien's original intent in the 2004 50th Anniversary edition. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, very interesting. If people would find the contradictory statements only in pre-1987 editions, I guess there's little point in mentioning it in an article. Spearwielder 22:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Or a separate article? To me, Tolkien's (apparent) mistakes are in a different category from publishers' mistakes. Putting all the latter together could be an interesting article. Spearwielder 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 Explanation of Gandalf's warning on deep arts
The current explanation mentions the difficulty of defining "magic", but that doesn't seem to me to be the issue. Gandalf's warning is about "the devices of an art deeper than we possess ourselves". I feel sure that Orcrist, Sting, the Barrow-blades, the Phial of Galadriel, and Galadriel's box of earth were produced by arts deeper than Thorin and the hobbits possess—whether they are magical or not. The only question I see is whether they qualify as "devices".
Also, I may not be understanding the comment on Pippin's curiosity correctly, but it seems to me to be based on the assumption that Pippin hasn't looked into the Palantir yet. But he has, and by now Pippin is far from the palantír. If Gandalf is warning Pippin, it's against getting carried away by his curiosity again (and Pippin manages to avoid it). Spearwielder 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 Gandalf's letter
I have two questions about the edits to the item on Gandalf's letter. Why was it moved to "Plot errors"? The only explanation given now is that Gandalf got confused, which seems to fit perfectly as a "Character error".
Also, why was the reference to the fictitious Tolkien removed? He says in Appendix D that he might have made many errors in regard to calendars.
True, he also says the chronology is set out in the Red Book so carefully that there can't be much doubt. However, taking an in-universe point of view, what would the origin of the Red Book's dating be? As far as I can see, you have to assume the following: Gandalf got confused and wrote the wrong date. Sometime later, he realized the date was wrong, though it's hard to imagine what he could remember later that didn't occur to him at the time. (Could Butterbur have remembered the date of the letter he forgot to deliver?) Gandalf would then have told one of the hobbits, possibly Frodo. The correct date would have gone into some chronology in the Red Book that was one of the sources for the Tale of Years, and Tolkien the translator would have put it there without making a note of the discrepancy.
The other possibility seems much simpler. Tolkien the translator would have had no source for the date in Appendix B other than the date of the letter, and he would have miscalculated, as he says he might have done.
Of course, it's very unlikely that the real Tolkien would have imagined either of these things.
Incidentally, I'm a bit surprised that I couldn't find anything here about the fictitious Tolkien, the "I" of The Hobbit and the Prologue and Appendices of LotR. Maybe that's for the same reason that I'm not writing such an article: I imagine there are interesting scholarly papers on it somewhere, but I'm not going to track them down. One question is: Are we supposed to read the fox's thoughts about the hobbits as written by Frodo? Did he know, or did he whimsically invent it? Or are we supposed to understand that the fictitious Tolkien, the translator, invented it? That leads me to another thing I can't find here, namely, anything on point of view in LotR. Spearwielder 05:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It was me who made those edits. First of all, I'd say that the categories here (character and factual) sometimes overlap since they all mainly have to do with characters, and the characters usually make factual mistakes; so, I will not argue strongly that your entry is totally a factual error and not a character one. The reason why I consider it to be a factual error is because it is a dating error, more or less like the astronomical ones. It is the explanation that Gandalf made a mistake that makes it a character error (perhaps other explanations can be possible). But the error itself is factual.
- I wanted to move your reference to the fictitious (or "alternate history") Tolkien to the introductory paragraph, but something occurred (a 500 server error IIRC) and I abandoned it. The reason is that the fictional Tolkien argument can be the explanation for all of the mistakes, not only this one. I thought that an explanation that "solves" all problems mentioned here shouldn't be under the explanation of one problem. Another "Generic" explanation is the fact that the texts are actually diaries, so one could easily argue that the characters and the authors themselves did not remember well the facts, or that 4rth Age cross-referencing by the Gondorian historians was contradicting (eg. the first version of the Hobbit with the non-canon history about the Ring).
- However I guess these two explanations are too easy and convenient; that's why people generally prefer to consider all text as absolute truth or "facts", written by an omniscient narrator; if 2 conflicting references are made, we first consider them equally valid and try to find the best explanation between them, before rule out one of them. The "Easy" explanations like "this character said a mistake", "Frodo did not remember well while writing his diary" or "Fictional Tolkien made a transcription error" are last resorts. Or so I am seeing.
- Now, it is very interesting this you are reminding us about the fictional Tolkien. As I said above, he is not taken into consideration in most of the Tolkienian discussions, and a possible explanation is what I a saying in the above paragraph. It's true that I don't remember reading about him in many places (except Foster's Guide and this). It would be interesting to have an article about it. Sage 08:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that's what the "Character mistakes" section was for—mistakes that could have been made by the non-omniscient characters.
- Good point about not ascribing errors to the fictitious Tolkien and his sources. However, in view of Tolkien's comment that he might have made many errors on the calendar (which I didn't include), I thought it might be worth a mention, but as I think about your comments, I'm not so sure. Spearwielder 04:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 Removing "One pony more"
It seems clear to me on the first page of "The Old Forest" that there's a pony for each hobbit and one "to be the baggage carrier", which is the "laden pony" that Merry gets first. So I think this is completely consistent with the five ponies Tom Bombadil recovers, and I deleted that section. Spearwielder 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch Spearwielder, nice to see you back! --Hyarion 01:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 Murder in the Shire!
Would the following be considered too cheeky to put under Character Mistakes?
When Pippin foresaw fighting half-orcs and ruffians in the Shire itself—to rescue Lotho Pimple, Frodo responded, "But remember: there is to be no slaying of hobbits, not even if they have gone over to the other side…No hobbit has ever killed another on purpose in the Shire, and it is not to begin now."
Frodo’s statement that no Shire-hobbit had ever killed another purposefully is inconsistent with the questionable demise of Lalia Clayhanger. Lalia the Great (or more rudely the fat) was the "matriarch" of the Tooks and the Great Smials for 22 years. Her son, Ferumbras, had no wife because allegedly he could find no one willing to live in the Great Smials under Lalia’s rule. In her last and fattest years it had been her custom to be wheeled to the Great Door to take the air on fine mornings. In the spring of S.R. 1402 her clumsy attendant let the heavy chair run over the threshold and tipped Lalia down the flight of steps into the garden, which killed her.
- It is possible that Frodo never heard this story although that is highly unlikely since wide rumour had it that the attendant was Pearl, who was Pippin's sister! It is also possible that Frodo did not wish to discomfit Pippin who was standing right there when Frodo made his statement. However, the most likely explanation is that Frodo did not mention the Lalia incident because he wanted to keep his message short and clear, that hobbits should stick to their highest ideals and not harm one another.
- Of course the simplest explanation is that there was no inconsistency because there was no murder—it was just an "accident". The fact that after a decent interval Pearl appeared in a splendid necklace of her name-jewels that had long lain in the hoard of the Thains was merely a coincidence…really! 
- ↑ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King, "The Scouring of the Shire"
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 J.R.R. Tolkien; Humphrey Carpenter, Christopher Tolkien (eds.), The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 214, (undated, written late 1958 or early 1959)
Gamling 01:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
What was the problem (or what were the problems) with my edits? Spearwielder 00:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Spearwielder, I agreed with Ederchil's revert because it seemed to decrease the quality of the article...then I realized I was comparing the changes in the wrong order, and your version contained several improvements. Maybe Ederchil caught something I missed? --Hyarion 02:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Hyarion, and I'm glad you agree about at least some of my changes. Maybe I should have done them one at a time, Ederchil. A moment ago I did the one that I think should be the least controversial, and if nobody objects to that, I'll move on to the next-least controversial. Spearwielder 00:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- For the ones that I think are more controversial, I'll explain why I did them here before redoing them. Spearwielder 00:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for not being discouraged Spearwielder, we really appreciate your contributions! --Hyarion 02:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Next: The page currently notes Tolkien's admission that he might have made mistakes with the calendar, with "Appendix D" as the source. Tolkien also noted a mistake by Frodo—taking the Sindarin dialect of Lórien to be Silvan Elvish—which for some reason Tolkien didn't correct but commented on with a footnote. Thus (apparent) errors in the text can be explained as those of the narrators as well as those of Tokien the translator, and Tolkien raised both of those possibilities explicitly. I take it the people who are uninterested in the first possibility are equally uninterested in the second, for the same reason, so I decided to deal with both possibilities on the same footing and changed that paragraph to:
Any inconsistency can be blamed on the fictitious Tolkien who adapted ancient sources such as the Red Book or on the characters who wrote and compiled those sources. Tolkien himself mentioned in Appendix D that he might have made many errors on the calendar while "translating" the "ancient sources", a comment written as a fail-safe for any narrative mistakes the author might have made, and mentioned in Appendix F that Frodo had erred in thinking the dialect of Sindarin spoken by the elves of Lórien was Silvan Elvish.
- I also added "the 'original sources'" to the next sentence.
- Does this change need an additional source, namely a reference to the chapter "Lothlórien" where Frodo makes his mistake? Is there another objection? Should we mention Bilbo's first version of finding the Ring? Spearwielder 12:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with any change (I can't research all of what you say, but I'm sure you've done your work) as long as you source everything, and don't remove other sourced statements if they show something contradictive (if that happens, highlight the contradiction). --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I agree that statements should be sourced and we should be careful about removing sourced statements. I'll make the changes above, and sometime soon I'll make a case that the article would be clearer and more concise without some sourced but irrelevant statements about dwarf mines in the Blue Mountains. After that I'll open up a can of worms about "Sauron" and other names. :-) Spearwielder 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 Which end of the Blue Mountains?
Here's the current version without the map or references:
- In a parenthetical comment made in "Of Dwarves and Men" in The Peoples of Middle-earth, Tolkien indicated that beyond the inflow of the Little Lune was 'Dwarf territory'.[ref] This corresponds with another comment made in Appendix A which states that Arvedui, the last king of Arthedain, 'hid in the tunnels of the old dwarf-mines near the far end of the Mountains'.[ref]
- However, in the "Tale of Years" (Appendix B) it states,
- This is in concurrence with the notion that most dwarves lived in the southern range of Ered Luin (made in Appendix A):
Dwarves dwelt in the east side of the Blue Mountains, especially in those parts south of the Gulf of Lune, where they have mines that are still in use.[ref]
- Therefore it is difficult to reconcile the suggestion made in Appendix A (that Thráin, Thorin and their followers moved to the northern range of the Blue Mountains) with the statement made in Appendix B (that they settled in the "South of Ered Luin beyond the Shire").
First, the unsuspecting reader gets the impression that Dunland and the Battle of Azanulbizar are relevant in some way, maybe the main topic of the entry, but they're not relevant at all. If they should be mentioned (so the reader knows where T. and T. removed from), they should be in a subordinate clause or parentheses or something.
Second, the contradiction, as KingAragorn astutely noticed, is between Appendix A ("beyond the Lune") and The Peoples of Middle-Earth (even beyond the Little Lune) on one side and Appendix B ("the South of Ered Luin") on the other. The statement in Appendix A "Dwarves dwelt in the east side of the Blue Mountains, especially in those parts south of the Gulf of Lune, where they have mines that are still in use" is consistent with both. The quotation about Arvedui shows that there were some Dwarf mines north of the Lune, which we knew from the previous statement, and again is consistent with both. The current way the entry is set up suggests that those two statements—in blockquotes, even—have some importance to the contradiction, but the contradiction would be the same without them. If they're desired as background, they should be in parentheses or a footnote or something.
On the other hand, not everybody looks at pictures, especially ones that you (that is, I) need to click on before they're readable, so I think we do need an explicit statement that "beyond the Lune" is from the point of view of Eriador or just the Shire and thus means "north of the Lune".
What do people think? Spearwielder 21:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and change it. I think the inclusion of a map is fine.-- 09:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do that sometime soon. I think the map helps, but it didn't seem necessary to copy onto the discussion page. Spearwielder 04:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 Mouth of Sauron
I added some material that I don't think should be too controversial. The suggestion that Sauron makes exceptions to the ban on using his name is ascribed here to Hammond and Scull in the 50th Anniversary edition. Can anyone check that?
Now the can of worms. That passage is based on the point that "Saruman" and "Sauron" both begin with an S (or S-rune). But "Saruman" isn't the wizard's real name—it's an Anglo-Saxon name used to translate his Westron name. We don't know his Westron name and have no reason to think it started with an S. Or should we assume it did, and Tolkien found an equivalent that conveniently started with the same letter?
The same problem comes up in other places. The G-rune Gandalf uses is important enough to Tolkien to have it printed several times in the letter Gandalf left at the Prancing Pony. Are we supposed to believe Gandalf's Westron name also started with G? And that the hobbit-children used some Westron word starting with G in the exclamation that the fictitious Tolkien translated as "G for Grand!"? And that when Galadriel says her initial can also stand for "garden" in Sam's language, some Westron word for "garden" or some other appropriate concept began with a G? Or did the real Tolkien forget that the text was supposed to be a translation?
(I got some of that from a discussion at rec.arts.books.tolkien, which also points that it's odd for Aragorn to refer to "Sauron" as the Dark Lord's "right name" when it's an insulting moniker bestowed by the elves.)
Is this worth bringing up in the article? Spearwielder 04:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe the best example of this Westron-versus-English (and Rohirric-versus-Old-English) confusion is "This was Orthanc, the citadel of Saruman, the name of which had (by design or chance) a twofold meaning; for in the Elvish speech orthanc signifies Mount Fang, but in the language of the Mark of old the Cunning Mind." But orthanc is Old English for "original thought", "cunning", etc. Spearwielder 20:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 Revising "The peril of deep arts"
I think there's a problem with this section. I mentioned magic, which is a red herring here, as Gandalf mentions "art deeper than we possess ourselves", not "magic". My mention prompted Sage to add a sentence that is true but has nothing (as far as I can tell) to do with whether this is an inconsistency.
Also, the current version seems to imply that Gandalf was trying to keep Pippin from looking in the palantír, but he had already looked.
So I'd like to revise the section to this (where I've deleted a reference that wouldn't show up on the Talk page):
- In connection with the palantír of Orthanc, Gandalf observes to Pippin, "Perilous to us all are the devices of an art deeper than we possess ourselves." However, never in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings does he warn Thorin or the hobbits against using elvish swords, which glow in the presence of orcs, or daggers from the barrow, which are especially effective against Ringwraiths. He returns the Phial of Galadriel to Frodo and Galadriel's box of earth to Sam without any warnings. Also, there is no apparent danger in characters' using other products of elven arts (cloaks, hithlain ropes, lembas).
- Maybe the palantíri are "devices" in a sense in which the other things named are not.
- Furthermore, it's possible that Gandalf was only attempting to discourage Pippin's curiosity, worrying that it could lead to another dangerous situation like that with the palantír.
Since this change involves taking something out, I thought I'd present it here before making the change in the article. Spearwielder 14:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Much better, I think. -- 19:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, done. Spearwielder 04:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 This is a mess
- By "unsourced" I take it you mean that most (not all) of the items aren't mentioned in secondary sources?
- I like it the way it is, obviously. I think it has a lot of interesting information presented clearly, and I suspect that a lot of that information isn't available anywhere else. Is it in violation of some policy, maybe one that requires secondary sources, or limits the wiki to articles and lists and defines those terms, or forbids trivia and defines that? Or do you consider it a mess for other reasons? Do you think it needs reorganization, or more than that?
- By the way, I don't consider all of the items trivia. Some of them, in my opinion, reveal Tolkien's methods of creating an atmosphere of menace without creating the actual menace, and of making certain characters appear wise without thinking about what their wise utterances would mean. Spearwielder 15:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- The "explanations" are almost entirely unsourced making them purely conjecture on the part of TG (which broadly is against out policy). I don't mind primary or secondary sources - e.g. if Tom Shippey or Tolkien explained why "Moria" is on the Doors of Durin, I would be fine with its inclusion - but the problem is the sources broadly provide no explanation at all. At best there are quotes used to explain away other quotes; if one chapter explains away an "inconsistency" in another is it actually an "inconsistency"? (Incidentally, the references themselves could do with tidying up a bit.)
- The article itself lacks any kind of structure or coherency (hence why I say it is an assortment of trivia), and some of them - such as the mithril coat and "Tales of hobbits" - I don't think are actually worth including at all. As an example, you could take each section out and put it in their respective articles elsewhere, which would have a certain logic.
- I certainly think the article needs splitting - mistakes and inconsistencies don't need to go together - and I think it could be rationalised. It does include original research I don't approach of (which we do have a very old policy on) as well as trivia (which we don't have a policy on but which we generally avoid). --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications. I'd be interested to know where to find those policies you mention.
- I agree that most of the explanations are pure conjecture. However, they're clearly important to some people, and as a practical matter, I don't think people can be stopped from adding them except by great strictness. I have to admit that I've gone along with this myself and added some explanations to my contributions before other people could do it. I agree, of course, that sourced explanations would be better, even if for most of the items here they'd have to be just as pure conjectures.
- If one chapter explains an inconsistency in another chapter away, I imagine I'd think it wasn't an inconsistency. Did you have anything specific in mind?
- The one inconsistency that I know of that Tolkien addressed in a letter (153) is one that isn't in this article, about the origin of the Orcs—Frodo is right and Treebeard is wrong.
- What are your objections to the mithril coat and the tales of hobbits, and any others you don't think should be included?
- Two items, the moon phases and the Eagles, already refer to other articles, obviously. Some of the items could go into other articles, such as the two about Galadriel, though not even her claims to read Sauron's mind and not to be a counselor are in Galadriel now. Some, such as "The eyes in Orthanc", I don't see another place for. In any case, I think it's useful to have everything at least mentioned in one place. I don't understand what scheme you propose for splitting the article—inconsistencies that can be blamed on the characters and those that can't? If it is split, I think each article should have a reference to the other.
- On the subject of structure, I think the article has the right kind of structure: first some discussion, then the various inconsistencies in their classes (though the Eagles and maybe Sam's birth should be moved). You seem to see that as no structure at all, but I don't understand why. Are you saying that the only possible structure would be for it to read as an essay?
- I might change it a bit, though. Under "Character Mistakes" the article has two categories: statements of "fact" by characters that contradict each other or the narration, and inexplicable or disconnected statements such as "The peril of deep arts". The Eagles problem belongs in the latter, I think. Three others that aren't in the article are Pippin's conclusion that Lotho must be at the bottom of the problems in the Shire (I believe there are secondary sources on that one), Aragorn's conviction that he can marry Arwen if and only if there's a living White Tree, and maybe at the level of trivia, Gandalf's assumption that Éomer's comment "The murderous rogue!" must refer to Saruman.
- I hope some other people will join this discussion. Spearwielder 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Some policies are included in Category:Tolkien Gateway, some were formulated in Meetings and not written down; those policies are a mix of ones I've updated and ones I yet haven't.
- Unsourced "pure conjecture" has no place on Tolkien Gateway, and this can be stopped by simply removing the text (which is what I will do if someone else does not); over the years we have become increasingly firm on this and I also hope that other editors will wade in as I am confident they will agree. Whatever happens to this article, all unsourced conjecture will have to be removed.
- My issues with the mithril coat section is that it doesn't really say anything of any note whilst the "explanation" provides no confidence whatsoever (in any case, surely this is a classic example of whether this section belongs with the mithril article). Similarly with the "Tales of hobbits" couldn't that similarly be flattery on the part of Pippin? In which case it is neither a mistake nor an inconsistency. This is my issue with most of the ones that contrast a character's quote with author's narrative; characters can be using hyperbole or have other motives to say things which they themselves know not to be entirely true. I'm much more comfortable with the "factual mistakes" section in that sense.
- The lack of structure I refer to is that there is no connection between the individual sections, nor are they collated into any logical themes aside from the very broad groups. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to the policy pages. The policy at Tolkien_Gateway:Original_research, if that's the one you mean, leaves a lot of room for judgement. In my opinion, which might be quite different from others', the question about explanations for inconsistencies is whether Tolkien might have put the inconsistencies in on purpose. He wanted us to recognize that Bilbo was joking about the mithril coat or that it had strange properties? Maybe. Galadriel can read Sauron's mind but never tells anyone anything useful? No.
- Anyway, I think the discrepancy about the mithril coat is of note. That seems to be a matter of personal taste and interest. I'd be happy to have its strange behavior at the mithril article if people looking for inconsistencies can find it (sort of the way the Eagles thing is now handled, only maybe with less here, barely more than a link). As for the tales of hobbits, I don't think Pippin ever unmistakably flatters anyone insincerely, even Denethor. In fact, I don't recall that anyone but Saruman ever says anything insincere to flatter anybody. (Maybe I'm forgetting something.) Again, the explanations that would interest me, and that I'd consider closer to Tolkienology than to fanon, are the ones where we can see a reason for Tolkien to have the character say something that they know isn't true or just don't know to be true. One example now in the article is the possibility that when Gandalf says arts deeper than we possess are perilous, he's just blowing smoke to keep Pippin's curiosity under control. That would shed a new light on Gandalf's character—though not one I find very plausible.
- I don't see any way to connect the sections or the items more than they are now. In particular, the factual mistakes are just "this date doesn't agree with that one," "this end of the Blue Mountains isn't the same as that one." For some of the character mistakes, I think my comments about creating a sense of menace or wisdom would be far too controversial to have in an article here. Do you have anything in mind?
- However, I like having the inconsistencies together in one place. In fact, as far as I know, this is the only place where someone interested in Tolkien's inconsistencies can find them, and I think it's one of the best things about this wiki. Spearwielder 03:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Original research would be an example of a policy page that needs to be rewritten. I don't really have anything else to contribute to the discussion, but the article's uniqueness is not a justification for its immutability (as an admin I delete unique articles all the time), and one of the problems is that it is unique within the wiki in terms of its structure and tone and content; the time I've spent writing on this talk page I could have probably spent just correcting various things about the article I dislike. I hope someone else wades into this discussion. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 09:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's very unsatisfactory to have apparent policies that need to be rewritten and real policies than haven't been written down—not that I have any intention of helping to improve that situation.
- Whatever the policy is here on "being bold", I certainly wouldn't object if you started correcting things you dislike, and I or others discussed them. I've done that myself on this page. I also have the feeling I'd agree with a lot of your edits.
- As for getting others to wade in, we could start with the people who have contributed to this article or the Talk page. Spearwielder 14:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 Explanation for the lost or not lost heirlooms of Arnor
This explanation makes no sense, right?
'After the death of Arvedui, Elrond kept the Sceptre (and presumably the second Elendilmir, though it is not explicitly mentioned) and did not hand it over to any of the Chieftains until Aragorn II became King of the Reunited Kingdom, so these could have been considered "lost" to Isildur's heirs. Thus, there was a period after the death of Arvedui during which only the Shards of Narsil were in the direct possession of the Chieftains.'
The quotation saying the heirlooms weren't lost says they were all, including Narsil, kept together at Rivendell, so the above is not an explanation of why Elrond says Narsil was treasured by Isildur's heirs when all other heirlooms were lost. Spearwielder 04:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 Scare quotes
- Why do you say that? --SingingOrc 11:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)