From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 2 June by IvarTheBoneless in topic Essay on Origins of the Nazgûl


What's the purpose of the Trivia section? It's ripped straight from Wikipedia, and not very relevant. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 --Morgan 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Horses

"[...] their black horses (stolen from Rohan)[...]". But in Rivendell, Gandalf said to Frodo, that the horses of the Nazgûl were creatures born in Mordor. --Sigismond 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A probable cause for this slip-up is that somewhere (don't know exactly where anymore) it is said that the Black Horses of Rohan were coveted by Sauron, and that he sent out thieves for them. I think it's incorrect as currently worded. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our article on the Rohirrim (and Wikipedia's on Rohan) says the horses were stolen. See this. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article on ("see this") was really interesting. The reasoning (supported by quotes from the books), which is convincing to me, suggests that the black horses stolen by Sauron's orcs could actually be the steed of the Nazgûl, or at least the origin of the breed. But we should put a "perhaps" or "likely", IMHO. Sigismond, do you have a quote from the Rivendell chapter (read quickly, but it slipped my attention...)? --Morgan 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tribute rumour is irrelevant to the actual question - were they born in Rohan and then stolen, or were they born in Mordor, bred from horses previously stolen? The latter is most likely, considering Sigismond's quote, though evidence for both is circumstantial.-- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm quite sure, that there is somewhere a note, considering, that the horses were (maybe at first) stolen from Rohan, but I cannot remember if it was in the Unfinished Tales or maybe the Letters. Gandalf's comment in the chapter "Many Meetings": "Because these horses are born and bred to the service of the Dark Lord in Mordor." OK, maybe I misinterpreted it, but the fact is, that the horses, "used" by the Nazgûl at the beginning of the War of the Ring were not stolen from Rohan, so that the note in brackets become in this context irrelevant. Maybe it should be discussed in a seperate article about the Black Horses? --Sigismond 08:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We state both here and in our article on Khamûl that he was a "king" or "lord" of the Easterlings. Where can this statement be found? --Morgan 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was certainly an Easterling. He was probably some kind of leader, be it king or lord, but to state this would be speculation.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  22:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essay on Origins of the Nazgûl

I didn't want to just remove an edit with discussing if it is valid. The essay above was added to the external links section because it has 'sources' but it still seems to make some big leaps and claims in my opinion. A lot of the important parts actually requiring evidence don't have sources and are just the opinion of the author because we really don't know the origins of most of them. It seems to be forcing an answer to origins based on Tolkien saying that three of the Ringwraiths were "great lords of Númenórean race". That doesn't even have to mean they were Men literally on the island of Númenor itself. Are essays rooted in filling in gaps and of conjecture valid? Especially when the Identities section of the page already tells us what we really know:

"Only a few of the Nazgûl are named or identified individually. Their leader was the Witch-king of Angmar, and his second in command was named Khamûl. Khamûl was a lord of Easterlings, and was the only Nazgûl known by his name. Three of them were Númenóreans." Steven Gibb (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The essay is on a different website, it is not content on the Tolkien Gateway website. The essay is phrased in such a way, that facts can be distinguished from the opinion or theories of the author of the essay. The essay does not "force" an answer. In addition, the essay uses many footnotes with references, which are detailed and do not just contain of the name of a book, they also include the chapter and sometimes even a section of a chapter or a footnote of a chapter or a year from a Tale of Years of an appendix. The essay is in a written format, it is not a youtube video. Readers can read the essay at their own pace and verify the references at their own pace. Furthermore, the essay is on a webpage, which is free from advertisements where the author does not receive money from a company that provides the functionality that hosts the content. Moreover, the link to the essay was not added by the author of the essay. Some pages on Tolkien Gateway link to pages with written content with references on Michael Martinez's middle-earth website. I am somewhat surprised that this edit on this discussion page came from a user called TheRedBook and that edit is signed with the name Steven Gibb, which is the same name as the person who runs The Red Book video channel on youtube. --Akhôrahil (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Steven brings up a great point, it can be tricky finding the balance when it comes to external links. There are so many articles out there about Nazgûl, if a visitor sees only a couple linked from TG, they are going to hold those to a very high standard and we need to do the same. I haven't read the article fully yet, so let's see if we can get some additional opinions from other editors to see what they think.
Let's all remember that we're working together as a team to try to help other fans. When communicating on the Internet it's easy for the tone of our messages to come across as more aggressive than we intend, so let's try to keep the discussion friendly. :) Hyarion (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would it be surprising that I would start this discussion? I was writing and reading Tolkien essays years before I ever made a channel but I still don't get what that comment is implying, with all due respect.
I think the comparison to Michael Martinez is not a valid one. His Nazgûl link lists the facts we know about them and doesn't posit fan theories about their mysterious origin - jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence in my own opinion. His is the kind of external link that makes sense to me which is why I started a discussion about this new one. The fact the essay I am questioning is not a YouTube video is irrelevant to me, in fact, if essays like this can be shared on TG, why not links to YouTube videos offering fan theories? Something being written doesn't automatically make it more worthy of a place if essays like this are valid. A YouTube video can be paused to "verify the references at their own pace". I also think it's irrelevant that it wasn't the author who added the essay. It's the content of the essay and its "fan theory" style I am asking questions about. I am simply asking if fan theories are relevant to a factual page. Steven Gibb (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comparion with Michael Martinez is a valid one. Michael Martinez also writes in a way, that makes it clear when he is stating a fact and when he is writing about possibilities or a theory. In my opinion, your critiscim of the essay by Alcuin is not in-depth. Let us see what other editors of Tolkien Gateway think when they have read the essay and compared it to some pages of Michael Martinez that include possibilities and theories. Your statement "in fact, if essays like this can be shared on TG, why not links to YouTube videos offering fan theories?" does not surprise me. --Akhôrahil (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why doesn't it surprise you? Can you stop being so vague with your references to me having a YouTube channel. I apologise if you are not used to your edits being questioned on here but your hostility over this is what should surprise people. Steven Gibb (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, the essay link doesn't work for me for some reason, so I can't speak on its validity.
However, I had to comment on your 'Youtube video' remark which is really petty and out of context: if you read Steven's comment that you responded to, you'll notice that he wasn't proselytizing (which was your insinuation).
What you left out was the rest of the comment: The fact the essay I am questioning is not a YouTube video is irrelevant to me, in fact, if essays like this can be shared on TG, why not links to YouTube videos offering fan theories? Something being written doesn't automatically make it more worthy of a place if essays like this are valid.
This was clearly a critique of the essay in question, and not an attempt to justify adding 'YouTube fan theories' to articles.
Also, this is the second time you are needlessly antagonizing and pushing away a potential quality editor. IvarTheBoneless (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks to me like the essay does a good job of separating fact from speculation, and its conclusions are at least plausible. I don't have enough expertise in the history of the Second Age to say much more than that. I think there is a broader conversation to be had about what the standards for external links should be. Tolkien Gateway shouldn't endorse any conclusion that goes beyond the sources, and linking to an essay might look like an endorsement unless there's an explicit disclaimer otherwise.
Also, the fact that someone runs a YouTube channel has no bearing on the validity of their contributions here. Some of the comments above are uncalled for. --Pachyderminator 04:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]