Talk:Wizard (Middle-earth)

Black Wizard

I seem to recall in one of the LOTR books that Gandalf (or perhaps someone else) mentioned a Black Wizard, of which there was only one, the most powerful level a wizard could become.

There is no Istari that is colour-coded black. The only colours attributed to these guys are White, Grey, Brown and Blue, and Saruman's self-styled "of Many Colours". Perhaps you confused it with the Witch-king, the Necromancer, or something. 217.95.245.238 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are refering to a conversation where Gandalf says something along the lines of (will get my book later to get exact quote) "I am Gandalf the White, but Black is mighter still", in it he is telling Pippin he won't meet a mightier person unless he goes to see Sauron. Carl Sixsmith 07:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Saruman turned towards the end of the War of the Ring, but I am not sure at all.

Michael IX the White 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wizards aren't a separate race

They're Ainur in human bodies. I'm removing the category. Uthanc 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Movie Interpretation

Concerning the view that the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff in the movie would be opposed to Gandalf being a maia, recall that balrogs were explicitly slain by elves (Ecthelion and Glorfindel for certain, more if you include the non-canon Fall of Gondolin). While the scene is pure media and does not reflect Tolkien's work, the incorrect scene is not necessarily impossible.

I added some further information on the issue; it is explicitly stated by Gandalf in the final book that he might not be stronger than the King of Angmar, so the scene isn't really all that "anti-Tolkien," if you get my drift. Great scene in the movie, btw; I'm amazed Jackson cut it from the theatrical version, quite frankly. Ours18 07:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to say that people thinking the breaking of the staff to be non-canon is rather strange. Non-canon according to which canon? The movie is only part of its OWN canon. Its pretty obvious no one would ever think that a scene in a movie based on a book is more credible than the actual book, so I dont see the point in that "non-canon" remark. I want to ask about what the person above Ours18 said....why is the fall of Gondolin non-canon? Gondolin fell in the Silmarillion didn't it? Mailrobot 04:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Canon would be The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. The History of Middle Earth series contains much non-canon work by JRRT that remained unpublished as of his death, which supplements the canon but also contradicts it (and itself) in places. The canon story, Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin, is presented as a summary in The Silmarillion, while the non-canon version appearing in the History is longer but unfinished. That version includes a more detailed account but with some details that conflict with the previously-published version and other stories. Harry.vincent (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As our article on Middle-earth canon points out, the Tolkien "canon" is usually taken to be the totality of his work, or of his writing on Middle-earth. The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion form only a subset, and even that restricted subset is not entirely internally consistent. -- Elphion (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I we were only to include work published with Tolkien's approval, we could only use The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Christopher Tolkien edited and published The Silmarillion, and indeed has since said he made some assumptions and mistakes. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also possible that breaking a staff does not directly affect a Wizard's strength, but rather limits the abilities that the Wizard can use. This is consistent with Gandalf defeating the balrog with only Glamdring at his side. It should be pointed out that in the movie adaption of the Fellowship Of the Ring Gandalf has his staff taken from him by Saurman and is forced to escape without it. Yet later on in the film, it has somehow returned. This could be an error, Gandalf could have stolen it back off screen or perhaps he created a new staff for himself when he had the time.

Steward

At one point in the book Gandalf remarks to Denethor that he too is a "Steward". Is this expanded anywhere else?--Counsel 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A good discussion of this is at The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum. -- Jordi·✆ 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf is indeed a steward, not of a lord of Middle-earth but of the Vala Manwë of Valinor.Cyanid (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Power

Does any one care about the power that was thrust upon Frodo because I do, I do....The ring took a lot of power out of poor little Frodo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heybnn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Heybnn 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

   I find it funny that your talking about something that doesn't even have to do with this article. Gaaryn (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Socerers

You said that the Witch King was human, and a sorcerer. Does that mean that humans can use magic in LOTR, and they're called sorcerers? Because I haven't found that anywhere here. Jack Sparra 12:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Realm of Angmar is known for its Fell Magic and its sorcerers of Black Numenorean descent. Angmar also has a Palantir, which justifies that. now, the Witch-King was a sorcerer, he cast spells and called spirits to aid him. The Ring of Power given to him amplified his powers and abilities.

Michael IX the White 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yourstaffisbroken.jpg

Image:Yourstaffisbroken.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) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mithrandir

Why is not mentioned "Mithrandir", one of the names given to Gandalf? 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Because, as the article states, "There are various other names in Sindarin, Khuzdul, and other languages of Arda for each of the wizards listed in their individual articles.". Mentioned in the header are the names they are (for the reader) mostly known by (the Westron ones for the three that appear in the narrative), as well as the names they had in Aman, which for all intents and purposes, are the earliest/most original names we have of them. ~ Winterwater (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

§ 1.2 Purpose

Though in the section just above it states "Eru Ilúvatar himself intervened to send Gandalf back.", the 'Purpose' section says that Gandalf 'followed the directive' to not fight the darker powers on his own behalf, and that Saruman failed in his purpose. However presenting such reasoning as the reason to why Gandalf was brought back from death and received the distinctions that he did over Saruman are original research as they are written now, unsourced.

Technically did not Gandalf break with his directive (as it is described on the page) when he fought the Balrog, a Maiar, and his death resulting from such could very well be seen as his folly for not imparting wisdom to overcome the monster and rather directly encounter, hinder (e.g. the spell blocking it which failed) then pursue and fight it to their presumed mutual destruction? Why should Gandalf then be given clemency more than Saruman, Gandalf more directly transgressing the spirit of his purpose being on middle-earth in the fight that slew him, than anything Saruman did.. 4.242.174.133 (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The Wizards' charge was to counter evil, but to do so not by forcing the Children of Eru to their will. Fighting Maiar directly, or even wargs and orcs, and I suspect even nazgûl, was well within their charge. Gandalf was sent back not to honor him, but so that he could finish the job. The "distinctions" (like "Gandalf the White") are not accolades, but simple results of his purification through sacrifice and death -- by doing those things that had to be done, for the cause, not his own glory. Saruman, by contrast, dabbled directly in evil, and sought to order entire armies of the Children of Eru against one another, and to set himself up as a ruler of the world in his own right. The difference is profound. (Most of this is at least adumbrated in Letters.) Elphion (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Which raises the interesting question whether Gandalf ever directly fights against, e. g., Haradrim (I don't think he does), and whether that may have been intentional...--131.159.76.234 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Article quality

Under Arrival: "They were stripped of much of their powers". Much of their power? Many of their powers? Not meaning to meddle...--Rfsmit (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Story of their choosing

This is from the Unfinished Tales:

Manwë summoned the Valar for a council [Maybe he had asked Eru for counsel] at which it was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-Earth and he asked who would go. They would have to lose might and clothe themselves in flesh to win the trust of Elves and Men but this would also imperil them, diminish their wisdom and knowledge and bring upon them fear, the care and weariness of the flesh. Only two came forward; Curumo [Saruman] and Alatar. Curumo was chosen by Aulë among "his" Maiar and Alatar was send by Oromë. Manwë asked where Olórin [Gandalf] was and Olórin just returned from a journey and coming to the meeting asked what he wanted from him and Manwë told that he wished him to go as the third to Middle-Earth. Olórin answered that he meant himself too weak for such a task and that he feared Sauron. Then Manwë said that that was all the more reason why he should go and he commanded him to go as the third. There Varda broke in and said "Not as the third". and Curunír remembered that.

The tale ends with the statement that Curumo was obliged to take Aiwendil [Radagast] with him to please Yavanna, Aulë's wife and that Alatar took Pallando as a friend.

It is typical of Tolkien' story telling and a bit elegant. I included it in the blue wizards article because it is a rare entry on them but it describes the choosing of all 5 so it should probably fit in here well. Alatari (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief description of the choosing is appropriate. The long blockquote is not, either here or at Blue Wizards. Elphion (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. An example of Tolkiens prose is important and even if not the paraphrased description was flawed. There is no Wikipedia editing rules against a block quote especially when the quote goes to the heart of the authors intent and improves the look and feel of the article. Alatari (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo in "Later Events" section

There is a sentence in this section that starts, "Riding with Gandalf to Minas Tirith at the end of Book III, Gandalf ponders..." The first "Gandalf" in that sentence is clearly a typo. As one of those newbies who prefer the films to the books, I don't feel qualified to fix it, but perhaps someone else could? Briankharvey (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. -- Elphion (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

No sources are listed for most of the information in this article, and some of this information doesn't match the silmarillion exactly. Text sources from the books including page numbers should be listed in citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.113.215 (talk • contribs)

The information you've requested citations from do not require individual citations, they are in the primary sources. The wording does need to reflect which text the work refers to if it differs in publications, but individual page numbers for primary sources are not required on every statement. Indeed more citations need adding from secondary or tertiary sources rather than The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It is useful to source material even in primary sources, especially when it so scattered about, and when it comes from Unfinished Tales, which is not as widely known as The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. There is too much detail in the lede of this article anyway. It should be moved "below the fold" and (at least for the more obscure items) given references. -- Elphion (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than relying on primary source references it would be better to re-arrange the article and avoid the scattergun approach. Primary references to plot details are discouraged, regardless as to how well known the text is. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the scattergun approach. Disagree about referencing. How else is the random reader to know where the information comes from -- especially given the contradictory information coming from the films? It is indistinguishable from unref'ed material. If someone feels moved to add a {{cn}} tag, there's at least a hint that a source would be helpful. Literally hundreds of Tolkien articles reference the odd detail, and it would be a serious mistake to remove those references. Secondary sources are not nearly as helpful here. The question is: where does *Tolkien* say that. (And in most cases what we're talking about are not plot details that one could reasonably pick up by reading the story, but rather background information that is buried in notes, appendices, and auxiliary texts.) -- Elphion (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm yes, I keep forgetting a lot of this stuff comes from parts of the book casual readers would ignore. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The into needs a date

The into needs a date! The Istari came in III 1000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Resurrection of Gandalf

Although immortal, their physical bodies could be destroyed by violence – thus Gandalf truly died in the fight with Durin's Bane, beyond the power of the Valar to resurrect him; Eru Ilúvatar intervened to send Gandalf back.

This is clearly original research and a bit of guesswork as well.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I'd say it's a fair reading of the letter in question. -- Elphion (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this discussion as no longer relevant, as the merge target was itself redirected into Middle-earth peoples#Istari_(Wizards). A new merge proposal has been opened here. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose that Radagast be merged here. Radagast is a minor character. He is mentioned briefly in The Hobbit. He is mentioned in The Lord of the Rings at the time of the Council of Elrond, and is never mentioned again. He is left out of the films of LOTR, though he has an expanded role in the films of The Hobbit. There is no need for him to have a separate article. The Blue Wizards are even less notable. They don't appear in the major works at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.