Talk:Orc (Middle-earth)

Origin

δI changed the origin of the word. The article had 'orc' being a Latin word for creatures of the underworld, which is wrong in itself, and as well 'Orcus' has no connection to Tolkien's 'orcs.' The latter were derived from 'orc-neas' in Beowulf, as Tolkiens says in Letters. - September 14, 2004

Klaeber says "orc-neas" in Beowulf is derived from Orcus. The sense of the expression is corpses from the underworld that walk the earth. Tolkien derived the word "orc" from this expression, as you say, but the word "orc-" is borrowed from Latin-- not an Old English word itself (as "neas" is, for example). "Orc-neas" appears to be a kenning using a loanword.

The word "orc-neas" appears only in line 112 of Beowulf, and nowhere else in Anglo-Saxon literature, per Klaeber's glossary entry. It is one element in a list of monsters that sprang from Cain. Grendel is not specifically referred to as an "orc-neas," and Grendel's mother should not be mistaken for an example of a "female orc".

The modern term "orc" is better described as an invention on Tolkien's part, inspired by the term "orc-neas". He did not revive a previous use of the word. As used in Beowulf, it is a reference to the evil powers of the underworld unleashed by Cain's ancient crime, not to a specific type of creature or monster.

Silarius 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Orc-neas is not a kenning, but rather a simple compound term. It comes from 'Orcus' and 'neas' ('corpses'). 'Orcus', a straight borrowing from Latin, was defined in OE lexicons as a 'giant' or 'hell-devil', so the term 'orc-neas' can be taken to mean 'hell-corpses' (cf. Zombie). Tolkien may have also been exposed to 'Orke', which is a word appearing in an English publication in 1656, and used of something we might call an Ogre. The term 'Ogre' itself comes also from 'Orcus'. See main article Orc for expanded etymology. - black thorn of brethil 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't fight for the kenning, and sure, "orcneas" is a compound word. Google book searches for 'anglo saxon orcus' and 'old english orcus' do not support the use of "orcus" as a general term meaning "giant" or "hell devil"; "Orcus" seems to mean, well, Orcus-- death, hell, the personification of the underworld. There is "orcthyrs" [sorry, I don't see the 'eth' character to insert], defined as "hell devil". So the "orc-" element in these words appears to be related to the Latin word "Orcus," and to mean "hell," not "giant." Reference is "A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary by J R Clark Hall."

• Moved all short articles on individual orcs here, for easier reference (per WP:FICT). If this article gets too long, please separate into one background article, and one list of individual orcs. Radiant_* 10:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

What's missing -- linguistic info on Orkish language

Asides from two different interpretations of the same Orkish curse, no info exists other than the vague notion that it is "debased speech" (we must assume debased Westron is used, but it may also refer to debased Black Speech). The Orkish used in the movies was based on the same language patterns, but is not from the books. I believe David Salo wrote most of it. Jordi·✆ 18:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a section about the Orkish language using information found in Appendix F of The Lord of the Rings. Marksman45 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The little blue image in this section is next to useless. Far too small to even make out what it's a picture of.

Historical Notes

I added a little theoretical note regarding the overall allegiance of the orcs, especially in relation to the Last Alliance, where page 364 of the Silmarillion implies that at least some orcs were aligned against Sauron. Swiftbow 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Individual Orcs

Should this be its own article? Ydirbut 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Gorbag & Shagrat

This is a minor detail, but bear with me here.

The article states that in the book, Gorbag was an Uruk-Hai and Shagrat an orc, but that in the Peter Jackson film, Gorbag was portrayed as an orc.

However, in the film, the two characters that fight over the mithril shirt consist of an orc and an Uruk. The Uruk demands the "shiny shirt," and the orc insists that the shirt is going to Sauron.
Now, I don't know which name the filmmakers applied to which character, and it seems to me that there is a possibility that the identities were switched in the film, giving rise to the above statement from the article.
Does anyone know which it is?
Marksman45 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is rather confused. The word 'Uruk' is simply Sindarin for 'Orc'... just as 'Goblin' is an 'Anglic translation' for Orc. Uruk-hai means 'Orc folk' and is a plural of 'Uruk', apparently synonymous with the anglicization 'Uruks' (though some dispute this). The term 'Uruks' was reserved for the large soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard (presumably by the Uruks themselves) with the smaller breeds often being called 'snaga' ('slave'). So all this about how a particular individual is an Uruk rather than an Orc or Goblin has little meaning in terms of Tolkien's stories. In the Peter Jackson movies the different types of Orcs seem to have been given different names - leading to this increased confusion. All that said, it was Gorbag of Minas Morgul who wanted the shirt and Shagrat of Cirith Ungol who wanted it to go to Sauron. In the book they were both 'Uruks', but in the movie the 'Uruks / Uruk-hai' were apparently found only in Saruman's forces and Gorbag and Shagrat were both smaller Orcs. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I noticed that in the film, the brawl that breaks out due to the struggle over the shirt is depicted as Uruks/Saruman's orcs versus Mordor orcs. It would seem that the filmmakers intended to portray a rivalry between Mordor orcs ("old" orcs, so to speak) and Isengard orcs ("new orcs). Hm. I wonder if the filmmakers have said anything about such a rivalry, 'cause it seems to me that if otherwise any mention of such a supposed rivalry would be too much speculation for inclusion in the article.

Marksman45 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Peter Jackson version of the Two Towers there is further evidence of a rivalry between normal Orcs and Uruks when they have a fight over eatting the hobbits Merry and Pippin whilst they are on the run from the riders of Rohan. There seems to be some sort of runng rivalry between the larger Uruks with the hand mark on their face and the smaller orcs with sharper goblin like features. (To me I always considered the smaller orcs in Moria as goblins as well as any of the small orcs in Mordor's army while the middle sized orcs are just plain orcs and the larger ones with human like faces are Uruks. At least film wise)205.145.64.64 (talk)Serondal

As to the "Isengard vs. Mordor Orcs," in Peter Jackson's Return of the King (Extended DVD Edition) it is stated in the Appendices, Part V (not exactly sure where) it is stated that Jackson was trying to show the rivalry between the Orcs. (BTW, in the Extended Edition, "Shagrat" the Uruk-Hai is seen escaping with the Mithril shirt, although it is later seen with the Mouth of Sauron. Hope this helps.--68.13.189.119 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute:Some cross-bred with Men

Were has it been said that Sauron crossbred Orcs with Men? Are we totally sure that the Uruk-Hai are really the result of the Crossbreeding? The Tolkein encyclopedia lists the Ururk-Hai and Half-Orcs as different Orc groups, and make no hits that Uruk-hai are Half-men, although it has been speculated by many fans. I wish for a discussion and review of canon matiral to supportfacts or make edits. --143.200.225.101 10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sauron? It isn't and he probably didn't. However, if you meant Saruman;

"There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile." - MR, Myths Transformed - Text X

It is not specifically stated, but seems to me inescapable that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are Saruman's Uruk-hai and the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' Bill Ferny and his ilk. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's never been specificaly stated that the Urk-hai were Orc/Human hybirds. It's been speculated that Saruman's Urk-hai were the Men-orcs hybirds, but never stated specifically in LOTR. It's only been speculated or hinted at. Wait,I am also not familar with MR, Myths Transformed - Text X, which book was that from? --Eldarone 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

MR stands for 'Morgoth's Ring', the tenth book in the 'History of Middle-earth' series. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. thanks. I'm still somewhat bothered by the article claims Sauron had crossbredOrc/Human hybrids. It could have been, but the article priovides suggests it was from ancient lore. Is there anything suggesting Sauron doing anything like this?

As for Saruman's Half-Orc program, since it's never been stated the Urk-hai were the Men-ors, but the article seems to suggest that, I suggest this:

"Although never stated in the Lord of the Rings, the Uruk-hai are speculated to be one of the results of the crossbreding of men and orcs. One passage in Morgoth's Ring suggest that Saruman's program created both "Men-orcs" anmd "Orc-men", hinting to this. However, The Tolkein Encyclopedia and The Guide to Middle Earth, make no references to Urk-hai as the results of crossbreding, and have listed Half-Orcs for the Human-orcs." --Eldarone 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien Scholars?

A scholar (in the sense used in this article) is a person who has completed advanced study in specific field or discipline. That is, s/he is someone who has undergone rigorous training and formal education under the eye of persons or systems recognized as authorities in the field. One might accept self-education, or informal communal co-education, but only if the products of that education result in academic scrutiny. As it deals with a literary artefact, Tolkien scholarship must also involve a measure of formal training and/or recognition in literary criticism and theory. If Messrs. Jensen and Martinez have obtained such credentials, please announce them. If not, then the paragraphs in question are highly suspicious. While fan essays and 'books' aren't by definition worthless, it is important to remember that anyone can publish anything anytime nowadays, and it is not necessarily the same as 'getting published' in the scholarly sense. A better word for contemporary indie publishing, or fannish self-publication, might be 'free-printing' (or some such). - black thorn of brethil 16:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Steuard and Michael are both well known in the internet Tolkien community. Neither has a formal background in literature (Steuard is a physicist and Michael a programmer), but they have both written a great deal on the subject and are often considered 'experts' based on their experience with the topic, however informal it is. That said, when the anon added the material I thought it could have been better worded to just include the relevant details about Orcs without reference to who discussed what when. If references are needed the primary source texts are still available. I've seen a few other scattered mentions of each in similar vein that I think could similarly be adjusted. I haven't done so myself because I've known them both for many years and thus think it should be left to uninvolved parties. --CBDunkerson 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were formal criteria that had to be satisfied to be called a "scholar" of some topic. I'm sure that nobody has tried to suggest that I (or Michael) has an accredited degree in this subject. But is the term "scholar" in this context really synonymous with "literary degree", or even "literary criticism and theory"? (That's not at all how I would describe the story-internal discussions that I have specialized in: such "logic games" seem to be quite rare in formal literature scholarship, though I have seem similar things in published articles on Chaucer.) Still, I make no strong claims to the label, and I won't argue with others if common usage here means it shouldn't apply to hobbyists like me.

In any case, though, I too would like to see this article cleaned up a bit. I'm glad to see some of my arguments included here (and happy for the attribution), but it certainly feels a bit odd to see such substantial quotes. It doesn't really feel right for Wikipedia to me. However, I probably shouldn't be the one to do the editing! (Not only am I one of its subjects, but I've had a somewhat touchy relationship with Michael for many years: I don't want to open the article to claims of bias by editing material regarding his and my views myself.)--Steuard (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Orcs and Goblins

I am not an expert but it seems to me that there is a major problem with the article. They are saying goblins and orcs are the same. Goblins are the evil imitation of dwarves, orcs the evil imitation of elves. I have not read Tolkein in decades, but I remember clearly that with exception of hobbits all races had their evil form or imitation.

Orcs often used bows the favorite weapon of the elves, I do not remember them using a battle ax the favorite weapon of the dwarves.

The goblins in The Hobbit live underground like dwarves, not in the forest like elves.

Perhaps Tolkein was not consistent on this, but I do remember that he wrote something about it. If he was inconsistent perhaps the article needs to deal with the topic.

The above was contributed by Richard Bruce

No, Tolkien said specifically on many occasions that Orcs and Goblins were two different terms for the same thing. If you recall the sword 'Orcrist' from The Hobbit and it's meaning 'Goblin-cleaver' the 'Orc' = 'Goblin' translation is clear. The orcs/goblins were in some texts said to be corrupted elves (though Tolkien considered other origins for them as well)... and Treebeard said that 'trolls were bred in mockery of Ents', but not from Ents. You are probably remembering those as the basis of your idea that there was an 'evil form' of all the races, but that isn't really born out by the texts. There is certainly nothing about there being an 'evil form' of Dwarves. --CBD 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While there is little to no differences in the books, (a group of uruks was called goblins at one point for example), many games (Battle for Middle Earth, War of the Ring, etc.), the Jackson movies, and fanstories seem to make goblins as the smaller cave-dwelling creatures such as in moria, orcs as the more common variety, whom are bigger than goblins but smaller than Uruk-Hai, and Uruk-hai being the large kind, as was used by saruman. This isn't to say that this interpretation is canonical; rather, it's just an explanation of why people might mistake it in such a way.

As for evil dwarves, there were dwarves who chose to fight for Morgoth/Sauron, but the texts didn't say they were deformed in any way. --Melissia 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading, re-reading & God knows re-re-reading enough times, I am of the opinion that both arguments are at least partially correct. This seems strongly conveyed by his literature. How is that possible? Think - a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square. Thus, it seems to me that Orcs are always Goblins, but Goblins aren't always Orcs. In other words, the term 'Goblin' is more inclusive, Orc more exclusive. Feedback encouraged--Snideology 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From "The Hobbit" (page 87 of 'Riddles in the Dark'): "'A bit low for goblins, at least the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed...". I believe this indicates the wide use of the term 'goblin'. --Snideology 02:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In my 2006 paperback of "The Hobbit" Tolkied writes that "Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kidns). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind" (page1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.45.39 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 June 2009

New article for individual orcs

How do you guys think making a new article for the orc individuals would be? Dhawk1964 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is so little information about individual orcs that there is no need for each to have his own article.
—Asatruer 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be more infomation of the orcs in this article than the hobbits in List of Hobbits.Dhawk1964 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Orcish Diet

We know Orcs eat flesh, but do they also eat the bread (or whatever) that was cultivated by Sauron's slaves? Or was that food only to provide for Sauron's human armies? The movies mention "maggoty bread," but I don't know about the original books.

When Pippin is captured in TTT, he is given both flesh and bread: "An Orc stooped over him, and flung him some bread and a strip of raw dried flesh. He ate the stale grey bread hungrily, but not the meat." ("The Uruk-Hai") Vortexwoman (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They ate the bread with raspberry jam on it, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.89.155 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Physical appearance (2007)

This section kind of goes off on a tangent. I suggest we cut out all the racism stuff that doesn't have to do with the orcs. --Imp88 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Better picture

We need a better picture for the top of the article; possibly some Howe or Lee artwork. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Spearhead

According to this site (Spearhead magazine) Tolkien subscribed to Candour, a right-wing magazine, and highlighted, not wrote the quotes below in copies now owned by the article writer. Information from it, incorrectly attributing them to Tolkien himself, had been added to the Orc (Middle-earth) article, but it's been removed with VandalProof.

The dissolution of the British Empire was viewed by Tolkien as a tragedy, which would have permanent negative consequences for its indigenous populations:

‘Africa is not peopled by Black Europeans, but it is a continent full of tribes mentally and morally at the dawn of history.

‘Self-government does not mean democracy - Liberia and Abyssinia are two warning lights. African hegemony would lead to the suicide of the White community in East and Central Africa and to the ruin of African hopes of sustained progress.’ (3/10 August 1956, page 44)

I (Uthanc 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)) brought this up to User:Csernica and he replied:

He was concerned not about racial issues there, but about political issues and monetary policy. In terms of the politics, that view was largely borne out anyway if one is to be perfectly honest. "At the dawn of history" in context is talking about the continent's political institutions, not their status as human beings.

The first version of the article containing these quotes accuse him of "denigrating blacks". But as Csernica says, the original Candour quotes were not about race per se, so the Wikipedia editor who added them put them out of context.

I also brought this up to User:CBDunkerson and he replied:

I agree that the text is clearly dealing with political and social issues rather than racial, and attributing anything to Tolkien based on lines is clearly a stretch. Even assuming he made the underlinings in question we have no idea what he was thinking in doing so... these could have been passages he meant to challenge the veracity of as easily as ones which he agreed with. --CBD 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So I removed it again, just now. Repeat: He _didn't write that himself_. The original editor messed that up. He only _underlined_ it. We have _no idea_ what he thought of it - agreeing or disagreeing. And it's taken _out of context._ Uthanc 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Old deletion discussions

I've been tidying up the talk pages of Middle-earth orcs that redirect here, and I'm leaving links to two old deletion discussions here:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lagduf (March 2005)
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Muzgash (March 2005)

Just for the record. Carcharoth 05:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} should be used for that, at the top of this page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Orccannibalism.jpg

Image:Orccannibalism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Orkish=Orkhun

Resolved

 – Not acceptable per WP:NOR.

in the physical app. part of the page tolkien wanted to say something. search about Old Turkic script, and you can see something clearly.--Orkh (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly? Physical appearance - the Orcs (Orks) look like European stereotypes of (i.e. demonized) Mongols/Huns (being archetypal raiders/pillagers, etc. in the European psyche) but even uglier-to-European-eyes (than the stereotypes). Possible "true representatives" of Mongols/Huns are the Easterling humans. As for the word "Orc", the author said it's Old English for "demon". What little we know of Orkish points to Hittite/Hurrian influence. Not a game of "sound-alike". Uthanc (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sharku 2.jpg

Image:Sharku 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The pigmentation issue

Resolved

 – Not acceptable per WP:NOR. The legit issues in this section are re-raised below at #Tolkien and racism.

The uruks are described in the LOTR as "black uruks of Mordor" at one point, this wording implies that some orcs were not 'black.' The uruks of Saruman call the Misty Mountain orcs "maggots," to me this implies two things - that they live underground and are pale-skinned - I have never seen a black maggot.

This being the case the orcs have a range of skin colour and Tolkien is not being racist at all. In fact the elite of the orcish world are black while the lesser 'maggot-folk' are paler-skinned.

On a related topic Tolkien states (in the prologue to LOTR) that the Harfoots, by far the most numerous type of Hobbit, are "brown-skinned" (nut-brown if memory serves). An aspect of Tolkien's creation which is not often commented on. The majority of Tolkien's "hero-folk par-excellence" the Hobbits are therefore dark skinned not pale.

PS There is a failure of logic in Tolkien's description of the pigmentation of orcs, they are given black blood and red tongues. These are mutually incompatible, people (and cows and doggies etc etc) have pink tongues because they have red blood. Orcs with black blood should have grey tongues!

Urselius (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except, maggots don't live underground. I think you are thinking of grubs. Cf. WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Many dogs do not have pink tongues at all. I have seen numerous of them with dark brown tongues, and even mottled ones, due to melanin pigment. I.e., you can't just make suppositions like this and insert them into the encyclopedia. There is no real-world animal with black blood, so what color orc tongues would necessarily be is simply your opinion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Types of Orcs

Resolved

 – Vandalism deleted.

I suggest this quote should be deleted from the article:

'Tolkien came up of the idea for orcs when he saw a black and brown guy who had leoprocy.'

This seems more like an urban myth someone has heard and added to the wiki. Not only does the quote have little relevance to the section, but it also lacks citation and 'leprosy' is spelt incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.64 (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; this has already been removed as obvious nonsense/vandalism. In the future is perfectly OK (indeed, it is encouraged) for you to be bold and make such changes yourself. CIreland (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-canon removed

I removed the passage "In the non-canonical animated adaption of The Return of the King, released in 1980 by Rankin-Bass, the scene where the disguised Samwise and Frodo are accidentally swept up in a passing platoon of Orcs is expanded so that it first focuses on the platoon singing a song. This song, "Where There's A Whip, There's A Way", heavily suggests that these Orcs, at least, do not want to fight, but are being mercilessly forced to go to battle by Sauron and his whip-wielding taskmasters." in the "Orcs and evil" section, as it is non-canon, and therefore bears no importance to the questions posed. Jalwikip (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be restored, at least in some form. This is not Canonopedia, and the film itself is its own sources for its scenes. The opinion expressed that this song implies something about the orcish motivation in the cartoon would need a source, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Tolkien's orcs, not about derivative works. Any work not sanctioned by Tolkien can not be used to demonstrate something about Tolkien's orcs, only about other people's perceptions about them, which I find not very interesting. Jalwikip (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It could go into the adaptations, but as it isn't cited, the whole section looks like an opinion of an editor, so it's probably best to just leave it out. --Davémon (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien and racism

That entire discussion should clearly be broken out into a separate article, as it is a very important critical topic, and much of the material on it here has nothing to do with orcs. Even maybe just move it all to a new stub article and use {{main}} to link to it. There is certainly enough pro and con critical/analytical material on the subject to write a proper article, not only from the literary side but also the filmic. E.g., I've seen quite a number of reviews critical of the Jackson film productions because of the depictions of all of Sauron's human fighters as quasi Indic, African and Central Asian. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I seriously question the reliability of the self-published sources being used in this article. There is some cited discussion of racism, Tolkiens work and the adaptation by Jackson in [Lord_of_the_Rings#Reception]. The sources provided there aren't really enough to start a new article. It would be a highly controversial article and there would be great dangers of it losing sight of wp:npov very quickly. --Davémon (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Although it doen't entirely fit and goes off on a tangent, as far as I'm aware it's required to in order to cover all of the bases and be balanced and fair in relation to his comments regarding the Orcs of Middle-earth. Tolkien's views on race and racism are quite well documented for someone not racist, though I don't see why the subject requires it's own page; this, and moreso the Tolkien page, should be used for such documentation.

"The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain."
- John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

--Kurtle (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

East Elves

The Silmarillion contains a suggestion that Orcs are descended from East Elves captured by Melkor ....

The term East Elves (which recently replaced "Avari") is new to me. Source? —Tamfang (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The Silmarillion etc actually say that the Orcs are a result of experimentation and perversion of the Eldar. This is a complex issue that Tolkien hashes out in one of the HME texts in his discussion about fea and hrondor if I remember correctly. I don't think it'd be fair to call them descendants of the elves, especially without a source. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, we're talking about two independent issues here. —Tamfang (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

On the East Elves question, then, the Silmarillion contains no mention of the term east elf or east elves or eastern elf or eastern elves. The "Avari" were simply elves that chose not to answer the summons of Orome (Silmarillion 47). Incidentally, the process of capturing elves to pervert into Orcs began before the summons was issued from the Valar (Silmarillion 44), so to even claim that the Avari are the ancestors of the Orcs seems a little inaccurate. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Physical appearance (2011)

An IP keeps removing the term "scholars" from the last sentence on Tolkien's alleged racism with nonsensical arguments like "There is not reason people who read fantasy writing should be called scholars" or "don't try to say that this book is discussed by english professors and some book they would study". The sentence as such is referenced though by a book by Michael D. C. Drout, .R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. Drout himself happens to be a scholar and his publication includes just that, scholarly analyses of Tolkien's works. And while another editor has suggested the neutral term "people" I think there is nothing wrong with using the most appropriate word in this matter: "scholar". What is wrong though is calling me biased just because I happen to work for the relevant WikiProject: [1]. De728631 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I still support 'people', but maybe because the source author is infact a scholar, we should call it that. I think this has nothing to do with bias to LoTR, since this source is a book about LoTR not LoTR itself. Bluefist ^talk 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It might also be relevant to know that this all was started with the addition of "nerds". De728631 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I've also started a discussion on ANI regarding this incident. De728631 (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from totally ignorant(of this material) person. Does the "scholar" hold degrees and is he involved in academics, ect? That info would probably influence my decision on how to "label" him. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)ps, nevermind, just clicked on the author's article and he does appear "scholary(?)". I would just be careful about making sweeping statements that all scholars share or agree with whatever claim analysis is being made...anyways...--Threeafterthree (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not only "the scholar" Drout any more but I've added a number of other academics with references. And so far there has nothing been said about a general agreement among them, only that the topic has been debated back and forth. In fact there are two sides here, the one who see a racist background in the image of T's orcs and his work in general and the ones that don't. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How about compromising on Scholars, readers, people, nerds and/or wankers? Or, slightly more seriously, making the sentence passive? —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to read Orcs have debated at length the extent and meaning of the supposedly racist imagery in Bilbo's writings. In all seriousness though, I agree that it should read scholars, but is the "at length" part accurate? This is the first I've heard of it. It may be accurate, I'm honestly not sure. - SudoGhost™ 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Versions of creation

I removed the line under the "Creation from men" section, that said that Tolkien didn't live long enough to change the texts and use this version. This assumes that the "men" theory is the correct and definitive one, and that the only reason Tolkien didn't implement it was because "he died too soon". This version was written around 1959 and Tolkien died in 1973; that's more than 10 years of life. And there's at least one other late text ("Mixed origin from Elves and Men") that could very well be later. So one shouldn't assume that one version is more correct than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.22.52.196 (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The following paragraph in the East Elves subsection has been challenged:

"Since this version of the origin of Orcs explicitly appears in the published Silmarillion, many have accepted it at face value as Tolkien's final views on the matter. However, as can be seen, Tolkien wrote later differing accounts, which may reflect his final intentions (see Middle-earth canon). Nevertheless, this version is the most consistent with Tolkien's published works because of the stated longevity of the Orcs."

Odoital25 thinks it is some editor's opinion rather than facts. I think though that this is actually a summary of quite obvious facts (which is explicitely encouraged by WP policy). Odoital25, can you please explain what exactly is not encyclopedic in the following statements?

• Since this version of the origin of Orcs explicitly appears in the published Silmarillion, many have accepted it at face value as Tolkien's final views on the matter. This is the only weak spot here, who are those "many" people? On they other hand one might argue that readers in general take the published version of their favourite fiction for granted and don't care about unpublished manuscripts that may be different.
• Tolkien wrote later differing accounts, which may reflect his final intentions (see Middle-earth canon). This points at another article where one can read a referenced quote from Christopher Tolkien, "a complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father's) is not to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost".
• Nevertheless, this version is the most consistent with Tolkien's published works because of the stated longevity of the Orcs. Not an opinion but an observation of facts.

De728631 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, this version is the most consistent with Tolkien's published works because of the stated longevity of the Orcs. Not an opinion but an observation of facts."-That is an opinion statement. You just said an observation of facts, which wiki isn't about its about sourced facts, not a person's observation of facts. Further, their longevity could explained by numerous other factors (being crosss bred with men, there are men who have long life spans) or numerous others. Therefore, their longevity does not necessarily give credence to their elvish origins, considering there are other explanations for their origins. So claiming that the elvish origins as the most consistent because of this longevity is dubious. Further, the other origins are highlighted in the article no special attention is really needed here. Further, "However, as can be seen, Tolkien wrote later differing accounts, which may reflect his final intentions (see Middle-earth canon)." This is an opinion based statement. There are differing accounts. So? This could reflect any number of things. An editor isn't suppose to jump to conclusions but say the facts. The facts are the origins changed and conflicting. There are a million hypothetical reasons why this might be so. However, we aren't suppose to put them. Its an opinon section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, please do not write directly into my statements but post your reply below my signature. Then please sign your text by using four tildes ~~~~ (as you have been asked on your user talk page). That said, please have a look at WP:NOTOR, especially the section on "Compiling facts and information". It says that Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. Those sources are given in a related article which is completely valid. And it says explicitely that "neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources". So we have to present the fact that the published Silmarillion is not the entirety of Tolkien's orcish universe. De728631 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I did not mean to comment in yours. It was an accident. Secondly yes posting that it is not the entirety is fine. Compiling and contrasting facts ofcourse. But, "may reflect his final intentions" is drawing a conclusion based on the facts which is conjectural. The contrast could be for a number of reasons without some overacrhing final intent. Odoital25 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as fussy as O25, but I don't like drawing inferences from longevity; various Men and Dwarves outlived their fathers by 140 years or more, and while there are hints from which greater longevity can be inferred there's no direct statement of it. Do hypotheses generated by fans count as "significant viewpoints"? I've seen them shot down elsewhere.

I'd write "Tolkien was uncomfortable with the concept of a race incapable of goodness (Letters), and wrote multiple tentative and conflicting accounts of their origin," list them, and leave it at that without trying to pick one (or more) as more 'definitive' than others. —Tamfang (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue, duplicated, original research

Well, not discussed since 2011 .. says it all, really: Fancruft. Far too much primary sourcing; far too many minor Tolkien quotations - basically this is WP:OR by synthesis of his writings, accompanied by plenty of uncited material. The other thing is the amount of overlap with Orc. It seems quite bizarre to have two articles on the same thing (WP:FORK). Tolkien invented orcs, other writers took them up, and film- and game-makers adapted them: and that's the tale of both articles. I'll cut the undue and uncited materials and probably boldly merge, as the current situation is quite unjustifiable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability?

I've noticed that in 2022 @Chiswick Chap merged this to Orc#Tolkien. That section looks pretty good. Are we sure this should be moved back here? I.e. don't orcs from Tolkien works have stand-alone notabilty? We have articles on Dwarves in Middle-earth and Elves in Middle-earth, and of course the hobbits, but the Orcs, arguably as important as those other races, seem, well, discriminated against. I'd strongly support recreating this as a stand-alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of [2] Sidevar (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)