Talk:Nazgûl/Archive 1

Early remarks

There are some dates in this document that seem to be the result of vandalism. Have a look under the Third Age heading for dates like 1975 and 2000 that are wildly incorrect. I tried to find the original dates, but gave up.

Belay my comment about dates. I looked up the Witch-King and the dates are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.247.4.180 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.46.84 (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about some mention of the epic orkish black metal band of the same name who are way better than Lord of the Rings, as well as probably being very influenced by them considering their name and that they sing about elves and stuff in Latin.

---

In regards to the modern slang claim, I have my doubts about the accuracy of that. Since Nazgul has a negative connotation and the majority of Slashdot users are supporters of IBM in the IBM vs. SCO case, I doubt that's where the usage originated from. Perhaps they were trying to be facetious but I would imagine the origin of the slang as applied to IBM going back to their dates when they were less popular with the community and when they were using their lawyers to threaten other smaller companies. I would imagine it going back to the days when terms like "You can't go wrong with IBM" was common, when IBM used unfair tactics to choke on innovations and start-ups. As of now, however, the perception has changed. In the SCO case, IBM is the hero, not the villain of the community. Comatose51 03:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---

"At Bree in the Prancing Pony inn the Riders attacked the hobbit's rooms, but the Ranger Aragorn tricked the Riders."

Wouldn't it be more correct to say Strider here? Instead of Aragorn?

---

Why do you use  —  instead of normal dashes and spaces? I see these spaces as squares instead of spaces... Ausir 18:11, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ugh... horrible browser. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes on why I use the em dash to represent an em dash rather than the ugly ASCII dash. But I'll leave out the hair spaces. Question though, what browser are you using? Jor 18:23, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IE 5.0 Ausir 18:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That explains it then… thx. Jor 19:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is this listed under Ringwraith instead of Nazgûl? They are indeed called Ringwraiths often in LotR, Nazgûl is more often used by folks who know what they really are, and by Tolkien in his other writings. --Aranel 20:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Primarily because you need to be an admin to delete pages, and in order to move this page to its proper place the redirect must be deleted first. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 21:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So can we ask an Admin to delete the redirect (i.e. to accomplish the move for us), or would it be necessary to go through rfd? --Aranel 20:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The plural form of Nazgûl

I just removed the following insertion:

In Elvish (of which Black Speech derives), the plural form of the word would be Nazgûli (singular Nazgûl), but the unadorned plural Nazgûl is the most common usage in english.

Aside from not specifying which Elvish is meant (I assume Quenya, since Sindarin has a much more complex method for forming plurals), there is no reason to think that Black Speech would form plurals like Elvish. The major language sites do not mention this. (See for instance Ardalambion, "It is remarkable that the word Nazgûl is used both in a singular and a plural sense. Perhaps a simple noun is neither singular nor plural, but has a very general or generic sense".) Also, Tolkien generally used his own plurals in his writings (Dúnedain), yet he always used nazgûl as both singular or plural.

For the films, they used nazg as both singular and plural. [1] -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazgûl is not "Elvish", Quenya or Sindarin. Nor does the Black Speech derive from it: the Black Speech was Sauron's invention, possibly modelled on Morgoth's own language. As Sauron was a Maia, he would have spoken Valarin, which heavily influenced Quenya, and through Exilic Quenya also the form of Sindarin that was spoken from the end of the First Age onwards.

The Elvish (Quenya) name for the Ringwraiths was Úlairi. Its form in Sindarin would most likely be *Ulaer (from CE *úlgajré), but this is non-attested.

-- Jordi·✆ 22:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Black Speech was actually derived from the Valarin language, as both languages share some cognates, including the BS nazg and V naškad. Ausir 00:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Númenórean Nazgûl

I have removed the rather puzzling claim Angmar was specifically listed as NOT Númenórean in the books: if such a reference exists, I cannot recall or find it now. I think it was rather likely Angmar was a Númenórean actually, and in any case we only know Kamûl was NOT of Westernessean race, not which Nazgûl WERE. -- Jordi·✆ 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" it seems to be strongly implied that the Witch-King ruled Angmar before his transformation in a Nazgul. This would, if true, strongly suggest that Angmar is his native land, and would pretty much rule out a Numenorean origin for him. --User:210.55.39.225

That is not how I read the text, and it doesn't fit the timeline. Angmar was founded only around T.A. 1300, the Ringwraiths appeared around S.A. 2251 (2500 years earlier). No mention of individual Ringwraiths is made until the Witch-king is identified as ruler of Angmar. -- Jordi·✆ 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the article but i read over it online earlier and it said in one of tolkien's letters that he said The Witch King of Angmar was probably of Numenorean descent. Hopefully someone could help me reference it. But only Tolkien knows the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.11 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

10/1/08 - Here's a good question: Were all nine Nazgûl given their rings at the same time, or were they handed out, one at a time, over a period of years? Did Sauron already know which nine men he planned to give the rings to, or did he spend some time "researching" or seducing? Is there anything in Tolkien's writings, overt or subtle, that might hold some clues? Answering this could help to determine the identity of some of the Ringwraiths. - Myrddin Wyllt   —Preceding not-quite-signed comment added by 63.64.39.28 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't really know. There's nothing I know of that says when or over how long a period Sauron gave out the rings. When read without an axe to grind, LotR App B entry for SA 2251 indicates that all nine of the nazgûl were on the scene fairly early. The discussion in "The Rings of Power" (Silmarillion p. 289) says that the nine varied in their willpower to resist Sauron's domination (and that not all were originally necessarily evil); thus the time required to fully ensnare them varied from one to the next. Elphion (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merrys dagger weakened him?

if i remember correctly from the book (wich i have read) Merrys stab did not "unimmunize" him. somewhere in the book says that "no MAN could kill him",but Eowyn is a woman,this is also said in the movie and books,i think that merrys stab was powerful,yes,but only to bring him to his knees,so she could stab him in the face. Lord revan 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit hs unseen sinews to his will." -L.O.R. 826

I think it is pretty clear that Merry's dagger is what killed the Witch King.

It doesn't seem logical to me that Merry deals the fatal blow. Merry strikes first, his blade "...pierced the sinew behind his [Nazgul's] mighty knee". Then Eowyn "...drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang." If the Nazgul is already dead, there is no reason for Eowyn's sword to shatter, and the crown rolling away emphasizes that this is the moment that the Lord of the Nazgul dies. I read the "...unseen sinews" that Merry's blade slices as literally the sinews of his leg behind his knee, as explicitly described, and not a metaphor for the Nazgul's entire body. Moreover it is called a "bitter" wound, not a "fatal" wound. "...no living man may hinder me" suggests Eowyn as well, although Merry being a hobbit isn't strictly a man either. --Bealevideo 05:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merry's dagger was made by the Dunedain, for combat against the dark creatures of Sauron. The was I see it, Merry's attack weakened the Witch King, allowing Eowyns stroke to destroy him. Therefore, the Witch King was not killed by a man, but by a woman and a Hobbit. Both blades dissolved, if I remember correctly, therefore they both played a part in the Witch King's demise.Aragorn245 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The book seems to attribute the demise of the Witch-king (or rather the disembodying) to Éowyn with the help of Merry. This is (characteristically) hidden away in a footnote in an appendix (A II 'The House of Eorl' -- footnote regarding Éowyn to the tabular entry on Éomer Éadig), where it is said that 'thus the words of Glorfindel long before to King Eärnur were fulfilled, that the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man. For it is said in the songs of the Mark that in this deed Éowyn had the aid of Théoden's esquire, and that he also was not a Man but a Halfling.' Together with the quotations from 'The Hunt of the Ring' published in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Hammond & Scull, this certainly implies that Éowyn could not have 'killed' the Witch-king alone (but neither could Merry). Troelsfo (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Troelsfo. Everything suggests that Merry's stroke made the Witch-king vulnerable to Eowyn's death-blow.Bflood (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Note also, that if the Ring had not been cast into Mount Doom, than the Morgul Lord would have been able to take shape again in Middle Earth. Only when the Ring was unmade, to which their unlife was bound, did the Nazgul perish. Hypothetically speaking, had Frodo been able to master the Ring, instead of destroying it, the Nazgul would have bent knee to him. Furthermore, the blade Merry used was enchanted during the Wars of the North between Angmar and the Successor States of Arnor ( the Northern Kingdom, omitted in the Movies), it had been crafted by the Dunedain to target the servants of Darkness specifically ( just like, Glamdring and Sting glowing blue when Orcs are near).

What makes you think that the Mogul Lord would have been able to take shape again? The rings did not make the bearers immortal, nothing can do that; they mearly stopped the progress of aging. Sauron was immortal, the destruction of the one-ring destroyed enough of his being that he no longer had the power to take shape again - it did not kill him, but mortal man is different to an immortal angelic being. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Faramir and the Black Breath

Vouching for the statement that Faramir indeed was a victim of the Black Breath, to settle dispute of whether Faramir was or was not a victim:

(Imrahil) ' "It was, as I remember, just such a dart as the Southrons use. Yet I believe that it came from the shadows above, for else his fever and sickness were not to be understood; since the wound was neither deep or vital. How then do you read the matter?"

' "Weariness, grief for his father's mood, a wound, and over all the Black Breath," said Aragorn. "He is a man of staunch will, for already he had come close under the shadow before ever he rode to battle on the out-walls. Slowly the dark must have crept on him, even as he fought and strove to hold his outpost. Would that I could have been here sooner!" ' (The Return of the King, "The Houses of Healing")

It clearly states in the book that Faramir indeed was one of the victims of the Black Breath. There also many other Lord of the Rings informative/fansites that can also vouch for this. I can give the list, if more evidence is needed. —Mirlen 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Weapons - darts, and... breath?

I agree Faramir was a victim, but this is related to two issues I see. The article says "(The Witch-king) used a black dart against Snowmane, Théoden's horse... These black darts would cause death within a day...." I can find no evidence to support this. As cited above, Aragorn shows Imrahil that his guess about the dart that struck Faramir is wrong. The passage about Snowmane simply says "A black dart had pierced him" as he reared in terror - in the midst of the battle. That the dart came from the Nazgul is conjecture, and it's more likely a Southron dart like the one that struck Faramir. Theoden was attacking the Southrons when the Nazgul descended. With no support, I think the reference to Nazgul using 'black darts' should be stricken.

Also, the phrase "Black Breath" here is treated as a literal term. Since Faramir is affected by the Black Breath as the Nazgul ride above him and he is riding along on a horse, it seems plain he wasn't literally breathed on, and that 'the Black Breath' is a metaphor the characters use to describe the 'aura of terror' mentioned later in the article. Bflood (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you; in fact, I have always assumed the Black Breath was metaphorical. The dart may well have been from a Southron. But none of this has any place in the article: it is far too much detail and speculation to boot. Elphion (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rings of Power

Did the rings disappear when they transformed into Nazgul, or do they still have them? If so, can they use them anyhow? --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 11:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sauron took them from them, and controlled them with it, at least until he had the One Ring back. I don't recall a reference of them being returned. They certainly didn't need them any longer, being wraiths. -- Jordi·✆ 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter of considerable debate, and I've added a section to address it. Bflood (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are the Nazgûl really "undead"?

Wikipedia defines "undead" as "the collective name for all types of supernatural entities that are deceased yet behave as if alive." (italics mine.) The Ringwraiths were neither alive nor dead as wraiths, but they didn't die when they became wraiths. I'm removing the category Category:Fictional undead. Uthanc 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your changes have been made a bit too hastily. Tolkien himself considered the Ringwraiths to be undead (at least within the context of The Lord of the Rings).

For example, in confronting the Witch-king, Éowyn warns: "Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him." (emphasis mine)

More importantly, however, is the 3rd person narrator statement: "No other blade, though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will." (emphasis mine)

Perhaps Tolkien's definition of undead does not match Wikipedia's, to which I would suggest altering Wikipedia's definition. Another famous example of undead is from D&D -- the Lich, a high-level magic-user who did not "die" prior to becoming a Lich, but used his own magic to animate his flesh well beyond his mortal lifetime. LotR 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

- Eating my words - I forgot that line... Uthanc 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, glad to hear you agree. So will you go back and revert the changes or should I do that? (Probably would be easier for you since you know better which changes you made.) LotR 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just put Category: Fictional undead back, though I think we need to clarify that they aren't re-animated. How about defining the state of being undead as "having the outward appearance of life, but shouldn't be alive?" Tricky... Uthanc 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this may be the sticking point here, namely that I would consider an undead to be animated, but not necessarily re-animated. That's the reason I brought up the example of the Lich -- when you get down to it, a Lich is somewhat similar to a Ringwraith -- though they never formally expired (as in they were buried), it can be argued that they are "dead" in a sense. It seems that they are animated by their own souls (as opposed to another individual), but their souls are unnaturally bound to their bodies through the power of the Rings ("the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will"). I would suggest altering your definition to something along the lines of "...should be dead but are magically animated to behave as if alive." LotR 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they are not really undead. No one considers Gollum to be undead, and they are essentially the same. The quote referenced only mentions undead "flesh." Obviously their flesh has withered away, but undead means something that was once dead and is now no longer dead, i.e., reanimated. The Nazgul have continuously diminished in appearance since obtaining their rings, so there never was a revival or reanimation. I believe further research and discussion is needed.

Citation needed

I am wondering where the statement that three of the Nazgul were 'great lords of Numenor' comes from. Is that from someplace in 'History of Middle-earth' or perhaps 'Letters'? --Sephiroth9611 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's in The Two Towers, according to Faramir. Uthanc 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Akallabêth, "Yet Sauron was ever guileful, and it is said that among those whom he ensared with the Nine Rings three were great lords of Númenórean race." (p.267 The Silmarillion, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company) – Pedantic79 ^(talk) 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference. Elphion (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Riding on the back of a Nazgul

Shouldn't we mention, that Peter Jackson and a number of the other staff members misunderstood the term and believed (at least until the recording of the ROTK-Special Extended Edition DVD commentary) that the word Nazgul referred to the Fell Beasts. There is a relevant reference in that article. Iago4096 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"They are the Nazgul ..." - Aragorn to the hobbits in the FOTR film, when asked what the creatures in black are. Dhimwit 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well? What do you ,mean? Iago4096 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

athelas?

There is a discrepancy here. If my memory serves me, in the Fellowship of the Ring novel Strider makes it known (to the elf princes who arrive to spirit away Frodo I believe) that athelas does nothing at all but he wanted to give the hobbits something to occupy them. In the movie the opposite is true. VanTucky 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That can't be right. I'm pretty sure that he says something like that the athelas slowed the poisoning but that it would eventually be overcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.46.228 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in the book that athelas are used to cure those affected by the Black Breath. Therefore they must have some power over the Nazgul's magic. That was before Aragorn was king though. Maybe that has something to do with it...Aragorn245 (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Athelas was indeed a wonderously powerful cure, but it could do little to slow the effects of the wound. Whereas it was commonly used to counter the effects of the Black Breath, Frodo was wounded by a Morgul-blade, which is a far deadlier weapon, having more profound and immediate effects. (The Black Breath merely kills, whereas the stab would have enslaved Frodo had it struck his heart.) Also, a portion of the blade remained in the wound, and even the greatest of cures could not heal the wound whilst the fragment endured. LordShonus (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Nazgûl" or similar-sounding names as real names in the real world: relevant?

I believe we don't have any evidence that Tolkien ever studied Turkic (not Turkish) or Persian. For what it's worth, al-ghūl means "the ghoul" in Arabic (hence Batman's "Ra's al Ghul", also see Algol). But Tolkien didn't ever study Arabic either, didn't he? Northern and northwestern European languages were his field of interest... Uthanc 06:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish Gaelic word nasg can mean (among other things) ring - http://www2.smo.uhi.ac.uk/gaidhlig/faclair/sbg/lorg.php?faclair=sbg&seorsa=Gaidhlig&facal=nasg&eis_saor=on&tairg=Lorg - Duncan Sneddon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.84.66 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

dwimmerlaik

Please explain the word "dwimmerlaik" used by Éowyn in her guise as Dernhelm to insult the Lord of the Nazgûl: ("Begone, foul dwimmerlaik [...]!" she shouts to him in the chapter "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields".) Since "dwimmerlaik" is written with a lower-case "d" I thought it to be a (rare) word of the English language. Which apparently it isn't really, as Tolkien seems to have made it up. Puzzling to a non-native speaker. (fm4a@yahoo.com) --213.39.147.239 12:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Fell_beast#Dwimmerlaik 222.127.122.27 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Info on "dwimmerlaik" is now incorporated into Nazgûl. -- Elphion (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Black horses

The article says the horses were specially bred and trained in Mordor but I am sure that the book refers to horses being stolen from Rohan, but only ever black ones, for the service of the dark lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.186.33 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I though those horses were given to Mordor by Rohan as a gift. Wasn't that when Theoden was being controlled by Wormtongue? Aragorn245 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The books strongly suggest that the horses came from Rohan, though Éomer vehemently denies they were gifts and points to active rustling from Mordor (as mentioned by anon IP above). But the "truth" is not stated explicitly in the books. Since ordinary horses are consistently portrayed as fearing the Nazgûl, clearly Mordor made some alteration through breeding or training. I've toned down the article a bit. Elphion (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

sauron gave rings to elves

The article says Sauron gave rings to the elves.

Technically, I didn't think Sauron gave rings to the elves, though he participated in the Elven procurement of ring-lore. This is why the elven rings could still be used for good, as long as the One Ring remained out of Sauron's hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.199.3 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This was fixed back in April, 2008 Elphion (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The term "Morgoth"

This article (like others that mention Morgomir as a non-canonical term for one of the Ringwraiths) says that the term Morgoth is Sindarin. In the Silmarillion (Chapter 9, p. 79 of 1977 American Edition) it is clearly stated that Feanor named Melkor "Morgoth, the Black Foe of the World" when he was still in Valinor, therefore not speaking Sindarin. I think that this should be changed, unless anyone has conflicting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.33.86 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien may not have been entirely consistent about this. "Morgoth" is indeed the Sindarin form of Fëanor's epithet, though likely not, as you point out, the form he would have used at the time. This is a detail we needn't get bogged down in, and I've changed the wording to avoid the issue. Elphion (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The IBM Nazgûl

This article states that "IBM's lawyers are sometimes jokingly referred to as "the Nazgûl".". I personally have never heard this, and I there is no citation. I have added a citation needed to this statement, and if anyone knows it to be true, could they please add a citation. --Sauronjim (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference has since been removed as unverified. Elphion (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1053701&cid=26016729 and http://lotrgames.wikia.com/wiki/Nazgul#Behind_the_Scenes for the text it quotes. Google also turns up several hits for this usage now. JonathanWakely (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

comment pages and user forums are not WP:RS GimliDotNet (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I just finished reading the article on the "Fell beast" and I was struck with two things:

1. It's clear that this is an inappropriate name for an article on the topic. The term is used throughout the article as if it were the proper name of the winged mounts of the Nazgûl, when in fact the creatures were never named as far as I know. It is my belief that whoever created the article is simply unaware that the word "fell" when used in this context is an adjective. Thus the title is as ridiculous as if it were named "monstrous winged fell beast" or simply "beast." What's next, an article on "black horses?" I have been trying to think of a good name for the article, but I don't think there is one. This leads me to my second observation.
   
2. The "Fell beast" article is short, not very well-written, and contains little of substance beside a comparison of the physical depictions of the creature in various non-canon sources. I think it's clear that if this material should be presented in any form on wikipedia that it belongs as a subsection of this article. I doubt it would take up more than a paragraph, and it would probably benefit this article which is also quite short, although somewhat less devoid of meaningful content.
   

Any thoughts on merger or at the very least renaming "fell beast"? -Thibbs (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Elphion (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A merge would be good here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or merge to List of Middle-earth animals? Uthanc (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, List of Middle-earth animals probably works better, and most of the info is already there. Elphion (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Although, if you're going to pull all the movie stuff and the images over as well, it should probably not go into the list article. My vote would be to ditch most of that and leave the info in the list article; but I recognize the movies have fans too :-) Elphion (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as renaming is concerned, what other name would you use? Granted, "fell beast" was never intended as a name, but there is no other name in sight -- and "fell beast" is what people looking for it will type in. Elphion (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So there's Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms ("words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities") but there's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name... How about putting the "steed" (lol) images in the Nazgul article, then linking to external images for the creature? If I recall correctly, the Howe art (and all nonfree Tolkien art) can't be under fair use unless the image itself is discussed... that's what I was told a long time ago. Uthanc (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest merging it into the article on the Nazgûl - maybe under a section called "steeds" or some such? I absolutely agree that the article should not be called "fell beast", in almost all the references in the books it is "the fell beast" rather than "fell beast", implying that it could as well be called evil beast - in which case nobody would have named an article after it. In other words, because Tolkien has used a word not so often used in modern english, people have leaped on it as a "name" of it. However, I think putting it on the list of animals of Middle-earth should be just a redirect to sections "steeds" on the article Nazgûl - it makes a lot more sense that way (the redirect from fell beast should be to section "steeds" as well). Darth Newdar (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The "fell beast" has only one role and that is as a steed for the Nazgûl. Farmercarlos (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, shall I merge "fell beast" with this article then? Darth Newdar (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now merged "fell beast" into this article, under section called "steeds". Darth Newdar (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! I think this is much better. -Thibbs (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Headings

While adding some information on the disposition of the Nazgul's rings, I also added/changed some headings. I changed the 'Literature' heading, as that seemed rather broad, as if the characters popped up in various writings. Really, it's only Tolkien that's being discussed. I broke some of the other content under that into sections for ease of reading. Others might be devised, but I think these advance the current entry. Bflood (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearance

The article currently states "The red reflection in their eyes could be plainly distinguished even in daylight, and in a rage they appeared in a hellish fire." I can't find anything to substantiate this, especially the second part. (There are mentions of gleam from their eyes, but it is not red, and 'hellish fire' seems completely unverified.) I would improve this with some actual impressions and descriptions from the POV of Frodo on Weathertop, and from the assault on Minas Tirith. Bflood (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Khamul lotrsbg.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Khamul lotrsbg.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not wraiths

The ring wraiths are not wraiths. Wraiths do not have "near-immortality", as they are dead! If the word wraith must be used, it must always be accompanied by ring.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Wraith" is the term Tolkien chose. Aragorn, clearly associates it with the Ringwraiths. -- Elphion (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content: In popular culture

Unsourced trivia and original research. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusing

"gûl, "wraith, spirit", possibly related to gul, "sorcery" or a wordplay on "ghoul""

So, what language is the word gul in? Ghoul is in English, so that would be an external wordplay, but is gul internal or external? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.41.16 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

gûl is Sindarin for sorcery, as in Dol Guldur. nazg, on the other hand, is Black Speech, as in the inscription on the Ring. So the in-universe etymology is unclear. A fair case can be made that Tolkien imported English ghoul as Sindarin gûl, as many of the early words in his fictional languages were directly inspired by English and Latin. -- Elphion (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Which King" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Which King. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Carn Dûm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carn Dûm. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Carn dum" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carn dum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Carn Dum" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Carn Dum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"NAzGuL" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NAzGuL. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Angmar" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Angmar. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tense, names, sources

This is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but the project page seems moribund. The original idea was that events in the books' past would be described in past tense, events in the present narrative of the books in present tense. This has been widely misunderstood, and the Middle-earth articles are now all over the tense map. This article is currently quite inconsistent in its use of tenses. -- Elphion (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, grammar is one of many immediately obvious problems with the article. We're in the process of switching the entire corpus of articles from fan-oriented (all primary, barely sourced, intricate detail, many dates) to encyclopedic (reliable secondary sources, simple summary of fictional history, scholarly analysis). We now have over 30 Good Articles, and dozens of others have vanished or become redirects, so it's a great deal better, but is still work in progress, as this specimen demonstrates. I'll look out some JRRT sources and scholars, and will condense the multiple histories into one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care about the secondary sources or "scholarly analysis" -- there's a whole industry of the English profs analyzing Tolkien to death, mostly people Tolkien himself regarded as the primary culprits contributing to the demise of English departments around the world. There a few "reliable secondary sources" (Shippey, e.g., or Hammond and Scull), and they have valuable insight to contribute. I certainly don't care about the fancruft (in which I include the movies). I do care that the facts of the narrative are reported correctly, and that the prose is at least moderately legible. The whole tense flap is a constant annoyance -- any change of tense in either direction tends to get reverted, with meaningless remarks like "that's the way it is" -- leaving the article itself in a shambles. -- Elphion (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are what the encyclopedia is built on: there's nothing else. Shippey is one of the best of the scholars. I have found around a dozen of the others useful; some of the minor scholars visibly can't do Old English and are utterly unusable (indeed, demonstrably wrong). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"There's nothing else": I agree, with one big caveat: the text itself is the most reliable source. -- Elphion (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The text is 100% reliable for telling us what JRRT wrote, but 0% useful for notability, unfortunately; this second detail was not appreciated by the 2004-era editors, and it's that that especially "needs fixed", as they say in Scotland. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I agree: the plot synopses, e.g., grew completely out of hand. But there are other considerations. In this article, for example, the "Names" section points out that only two of the Nazgûl are named in Tolkien (or more like one and a half -- "Witch-king" is arguably a title rather than a name). I don't recall seeing that discussed in any reliable source (though I wouldn't be surprised to find it in Hammond and Scull), but it's an important point of the article: it's something people want to know -- and serves as a bracing counter-weight to all of the subsequent developments in the after-market. Likewise, while I have no interest in the after-market, I freely admit that that is my bias; the appearance of these characters in, say, computer games is of legitimate interest to a large audience. It makes sense to mention them here, even though there is little secondary coverage, but -- as for the books -- not to go into a blow-by-blow analysis, or even to name them all individually. -- Elphion (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

As previously discussed, Appendix A says that the Lord of the Nazgul was "known as" the "Witch-king" when he was ruling Angmar. It was not his original identity, and he is not called that in the main narrative. Calling him the "Witch-king" generally is really fancruft - like "fell beast". With regard to the tense, the general manual of style says that present tense should be used in fiction. I know that it was decided that Tolkien's fiction should use past tense, but that seems to have a "in the universe" effect.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that folks like to have plenty of computer games in the Adaptations section, but it is very difficult to find usable sources for these. It's more than likely we'll have to cut it down somewhat. Any help locating decent sources would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

His identity as the Witch-king is hardly fan-cruft -- it's an essential point of the plot. It was of the Witch-king that Glorfindel's prophecy was uttered, and Tolkien adumbrates this in the text proper by calling attention to his crown. More generally, I certainly don't agree that material from Appendices is necessarily "fan-cruft". Yes, a list of all the Nứmenórean kings is overkill; but there is much in the Appendices that illuminates the action of the books; it's definitely fair game. -- Elphion (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Appendices are part of the canonical Tolkien text; they are normal primary sources. But I agree that "Witch-king" is a description, not a name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to using the Appendices as a primary source. I'm objecting to using the term "Witch-king" generally. For example, saying that Eowyn killed the Witch-king. He wasn't known as the Witch-king at that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it, but these are equivalent descriptions of the unnamed character. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

As for "fell beast": like it or not, that is now their generally accepted name, for want of a better. You really can hardly ignore them, and the explanation of how they have come to be called that definitely belongs here. -- Elphion (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

In the early hours the Witch-king breaks the Gates of the City. Denethor burns himself on a pyre. The horns of the Rohirrim are heard at cockcrow. Battle of the Pelennor. Théoden is slain. Aragorn raises the standard of Arwen. Frodo and Samwise escape and begin their journey north along the Morgai. Battle under the trees in Mirkwood; Thranduil repels the forces of Dol Guldur. Second assault on Lórien.

In Tolkien’s conceit of just being a translator, the appendixes were written by or added to by Frodo and Bilbo. And they refer to him as the Witch-king at the time of his death. Lava Lamps (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, there are clues throughout the text, starting in the Prologue ("the Witch-lord of Angmar"). And Gandalf identifies him as the King of Angmar in "The Siege of Gondor". So we *do* know. -- Elphion (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Gandalf gave 7 descriptions in that short paragraph: "the most fell of all his captains ... King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair." Take your pick. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt he was "Witch-king of Angmar" "long ago". We don't need "clues". That is a straw-man argument, Elphion. My point was that he is not called "Witch-king" in the main narrative of the novel (as far as I can see). And I don't think he is referred to as the King "of Angmar" except when referring to the period when he was, in fact, King of Angmar. It is interesting that he is referred to as the "Witch-king" in "Appendix B: The Tale of Years". He is introduced as the "chief" of the Nazgul. He then becomes "Witch-king of Angmar" and then just the "Witch-king". Perhaps Tolkien did this for convenience. I thank he who must not be named for bringing this to my attention, though I don't understand the reference to Bilbo and Frodo. However, this is just one reference in the time of the main narrative (which is outside the main narrative). Put that against all the times he is called the "Lord of the Nazgul" in the text. He is essentially nameless. We are told his original name was lost. And we shouldn't artificially create a name for him, as the fans have done.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Fans did not create the name, Tolkien did. It is clear that Tolkien had several ways to refer to him, all presumably known at the time of the narrative. I see no reason for not using it, especially since that is now how he is most often known. "Witch-king" has the advantage of brevity, and even Hammond and Scull use that as their primary name for him. -- Elphion (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's another straw-man. Of course, Tolkien called him the "Witch-king" in the Appendices, but he didn't call him that in the main narrative of the novel. The artificiality is saying that is his primary name (which it clearly isn't) or that his primary role was King of Angmar (which it clearly wasn't). Brevity doesn't matter in a short article like this. It sounds like Tolkien started using the term "Witch-king" after he had finished writing the main narrative, but didn't go back and change the text. And, if I understand correctly, he used the term in subsequently writings? In any case, we have to accept the text as it is. We should just reflect what Tolkien wrote, not improve on the text, not make it more consistent. To imply that Tolkien used a consistent primary name for the character is wrong. It is in fact noteworthy that Tolkien used so many names.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Tolkien used no names but many descriptions, rather more problematic for an encyclopedia which inherently prefers names for everything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The appendixes are part of the novel though, they're meant to be part of the story, they're not Tolkien's appendixes - they're the fictional authors. Some of which pre-date the novel, and some where written at the same time. To claim they were written afterwards is wrong. Lava Lamps (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No, he who must not be named, I was saying that Tolkien pretty obviously wrote Appendix B after he wrote the main narrative. So he pretty much consistently uses "Witch-king" in Appendix B, but he doesn't use it all in the main narrative. And in the Prologue he says "Witch-lord". I am not one of those who thinks that Ronald really translated the Red Book of Westmarch. No, I think Ronnie pulled a swifty.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You throw the term "straw-man" around a lot. You should avoid that; it does not apply to the opinions above. You point out that "Witch-king" does not appear in the text before the Appendices. Fine, no one is arguing that. You argue that somehow the appearance of the name in the Appendices doesn't count, but have not supplied a cogent reason for that. You argue on no evidence that the material summarized in the Appendices was a mere afterthought, when that is not the case, as scholarly analysis and Tolkien's own account make clear. He worked out the timeline in great detail to keep the narrative on track. And this is not really relevant in any event: the Appendices are part of the published work, and many readers are very much aware of them. That material is not hidden, it is widely read, and as I remarked above, it contributes materially to the understanding and appreciation of Tolkien's construction.

The fact remains that Tolkien used many terms to refer to the chief Nazgûl, "Witch-king" among them. No one, despite what you have written above, is arguing that we must choose one term in this article to refer to him: you are free to use any of them, and so are other editors. I expect "Witch-king" will appear often for two reasons, both mentioned above: (1) it's brief; (2) it is commonly used. But in no sense am I arguing that that means, ipso facto, that we must use it in preference to all others.

-- Elphion (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but the reason I use the term "straw-man" is that you are arguing against things I never said. I never said the timeline was a "mere afterthought". I just surmised that it was completed after the main narrative. Anyway, it appears that we agree that the "Witch-king" is just one of the names that the dude is given, so I don't understand what this argument is about.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Tolkien worked, in order, from early linguistic experiments, early poems and stories, maps, and then more or less simultaneous storytelling and timelines to try to make everything fit together linguistically, geographically and chronologically. The timings of the overhead flights of the Nazgûl and their arrival at places like Isengard are instances where he didn't quite succeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the timeline, I wasn't talking about the chronology as such but "The Tale of Years" in the final form that it appears in Appendix B. I would expect Tolkien polished his timeline to make it fit for publication, but perhaps I am wrong. It is interesting that Tolkien consistently uses "the Witch-king" there, but nowhere else in LOTR. And, by the way, in the Silmarillion he calls him "the Morgul-lord". Unless I am mistaken, the Peter Jackson films call him "the Witch-king of Angmar" or just "the Witch-king". I understand that fans have called him "the Witch-king" or even "Angmar". This multitude of names titles is due to the fact that in Tolkien's depiction his original name and identity had been forgotten. I think it would be worthwhile noting this, but I guess we need a source which mentions it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Tolkien says the name of 'the Mouth of Sauron' has been forgotten but I think it's only implied about his, er, colleague. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Having no physical bodies

We still have a slight problem. The section "Second Age" says that they have no physical bodies, while "Invisible but corporeal" argues otherwise. Is there a reference in Tolkien for "no physical bodies"? In "Many meetings" Gandalf speaks of their "nothingness", so that they need cloaks to be visible, but I'm not aware of a stronger statement.

Well spotted, and that sort of thing is part of the reason why 'Characteristics' sections are no good: homes to speculation and invention. Far better, as they say, to show rather than to tell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, we speak of Glorfindel's prophecy, but not its occasion, and how that ties into the Witch-king's success in bringing the line of Kings to an end in Gondor, to supplement his destruction of Arnor.

-- Elphion (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, added a brief mention in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That spurs me to ask: do we know anything about Tolkien's creation of the Nazgul? For example, did he write the story about Glorfindel first, or did he write the scene of the Lord of the Nazgul's death and then later explain how the prophecy came about?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

JRRT created Glorfindel's prophecy first, and toyed with multiple versions of Éowyn's battle, leading in several to her death, then to the simultaneous death of the fell beast and the Nazgûl when she cuts off the beast's head (Merry's services not required), and finally to the version in Return of the King. I'm not convinced we need to say any of this in this article; some of it would imaginably work at Éowyn though I don't feel it necessary over there either. The Christopher Tolkien question "what was the actual course of composition" is of course fascinating to some people and might fill, er, volumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. I was just wondering if Tolkien started with the end of the Black Riders chasing Frodo and then came up with the back story of Angmar, or vice versa etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

He had already decided that the hobbits were being chased across the Shire in 1938, calling it "an unpremeditated turn" of the story, so in a way this was how it began; but a Glorfindel appears in the 1916/17 Fall of Gondolin, and Tolkien eventually (1938, 1972) said there was only one Glorfindel... In short, it grew top-down, bottom-up, and middle-out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the Nazgul aren't in the Fall of Gondolin.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed not, nor of course was Glorfindel present in the 1938 draft of the hobbits evading Black Riders in the Shire, and Tolkien hadn't arrived at the place (the ford of Bruinen) where he needed Glorfindel. The elements came together in stages every which way, as I said. And I don't think any of this should go in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's what's in the article is too "in-universe", organised by Second Age and Third Age. I think the story of composition of the Nazgul is valid here. You seem to have missed the point of my question again and again.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, organising the 'Fictional history' by the fictional Ages is logical and given the large difference in theme between the two chunks, at least sensible if not practically inevitable. Providing a 'Fictional history' is not just normal, it's essential; and it's not unduly long, either in words or as a percentage of the article. As for missing points, that is both rude and inaccurate: I have repeatedly and demonstrably considered the course of actual composition and its possible relevance, and have repeatedly found (and it appears you agreed at least once) that the details really wouldn't help the general reader.

However, the progressive in-story disclosure, development in a different sense, of the nature of the "Black Riders" is worth a mention, as Tolkien does not at once reveal more than what the hobbits can immediately tell, inviting the reader into the mystery. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude. I obviously haven't communicated well what I'm talking about. I think the current "Fictional history" could give the impression that that's the way the story unfolds in LOTR which is obviously not true. I think we should avoid this kind of in-universe synthesis which draws on many writings, including drafts. Describing the in-story disclosure would be a step in the right direction.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You've talked about many things. I've added direct in-text attributions to JRRT's books and where it seemed appropriate also to sections or appendices, so it's clear when the main LoTR narrative begins without requiring anyone to hover over the inline refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your last comment, Jack -- I see now what your objections stem from. That argument would have more force in an account specifically about the narrative arc of the books, say the plot synopses in the articles on the books themselves. Here it's less germane: this is an article about the Nazgûl, not about the plot. It makes sense here to bring relevant points together, to unfold things is a more logical order -- as we do in most articles about characters in long-running series. Presenting things in plot order (as though we are following along "in universe") takes longer to get the relevant points out and make the connections. -- Elphion (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Returning to the original point, it seems hard to believe that a spirit would not be able to see, but would be able to smell. The olfactory sense is very material...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Gothmog

I think the current reference to Gothmog is confusing. The article says that only two Nazgul are identified, but then adds Gothmog. Of course, we don't know if Gothmog was a Nazgul, but we don't say this. I would edit it myself, but I'm not sure how to, and I don't have a secondary source that mentions this.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The passage used to say "Gothmog, the "lieutenant of Morgul", whose race is not identified". I think we should restore that. -- Elphion (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

But that still leaves the number of Nazgul identified as unclear.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is unclear -- we don't know whether Gothmog was intended to be one of them. -- Elphion (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

So how do we word the text? Two - or possibly three?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. The only speculation that Gothmog is a Nazgûl comes from fans; there's no RS (except maybe Hammond & Scull, who say that the only speculation that Gothmog is a Nazgûl comes from fans ... ). We said something like this earlier, but it was removed "as speculation". I agree that the reader here is left sort of up in the air. -- Elphion (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Some readers have speculated that Gothmog may have been a Nazgûl, but Tolkien's text does not say.[ref Hammond & Scull]" -- Elphion (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Or better: "Tolkien's text does not indicate whether Gothmog was a Nazgûl.[ref Hammond & Scull]" -- Elphion (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We can certainly quote and cite H&S here, as they're a reliable source; I'll add it as a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)