Talk:Orc

Highlighting the WW1 connection first

Starting at the beginning (a very good place to start), orcs first appeared in the first story to be set in Middle-Earth, The Fall of Gondolin, which is accepted to be directly inspired by WW1 battles, making orcs immediately a stand-in for German soldiers. I think the discussion of race should start there as well. The relevant citations (especially Garth via Tally) are already in the article, just needing to be grouped together at the start of the section. That leads directly into Tolkien's comments on Germans specifically, then the observations on the abstract enemy or "other". It would then proceed to the associations with cardinal directions, and race mixing. Peter Jackson's depictions are their own affair that should be descibed on their own also. Sennalen (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sennalen: No, that is incorrect. Tolkien nowhere equates orcs or goblins with Germans; and nor does his WW1 biographer John Garth, who quite correctly writes the exact opposite: "Least of all does the tale dress up the English as Elves and the Germans as Goblins". Garth is thus directly denying the "orc=German" equation, as he quotes Tolkien as saying: "Tolkien later insisted there was no parallel between the Goblins he invented and the Germans he had fought, declaring, ‘I’ve never had those sort of feelings about the Germans. I’m very anti that kind of thing.’" Putting that false equation into Tolkien's mouth (or Garth's) is not just WP:OR, it's misuse of sources, and we must not have it anywhere near the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Modern uses of "Orc"

There is a dispute of whether the article should include a modern-day slang use of "Orc", as related to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

The section in question was called "Other uses" and it read: "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainians frequently called the soldiers of the invading Russian army "Orcs" in settings including social media[47][48] and anti-occupation street protests.[49]"

Can anyone comment on this? Whether to: Put the section back in, or remove/forget about the section?

TheYeetedMeme (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the topic is controversial. It has little to do with literature or fantasy, so it is a tangential aspect at best, not an essential part of the subject. We should not feel obliged to include it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I do not think it is the best to include it. Would it be able to be put into the disambiguation article, or would it be too controversial? TheYeetedMeme (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That's only for existing articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant as well as interesting to put it in the article. When I did so, it was removed, but I had missed that there already was a discussion about it here on the talk page. Sorry about that. Still, I feel it would fit very snugly under the "Debated Racism" paragraph, as it is a perfect example of how the word is used in modern wartime propaganda, in connection to how the Japanese were depicted in Western WW2 propaganda. There is no question about where the Ukrainians got the word (Tolkien), and the historic connection is clear. Planetariat (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There are very strong feelings on both sides about this at the moment, which is a good reason to defer its inclusion, at least. On the Tolkien link, JRRT himself was crystal clear that in a war there are elves, men, orcs, beasts on both sides, as the line between good and evil ran through every person's heart. For my money, it'd definitely be worth waiting for a reliable source to link that statement of Tolkien's to this particular matter, as that would set the thing in context; otherwise including it would have the definite and unfortunate effect of making it look as if Tolkien, and Wikipedia, thought that one could equate orcs with the enemy, when the opposite is the case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and reply. I am not sure facts should be suppressed on the grounds that they are hurtful, but I respect your noble motivation. I don't know if you read the article I used a a source (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-ukrainians-calling-russian-invaders-orcs) , but there was an interesting reference to the Russian novel 'The Last Ringbearer' where the tables are turned, pretty interesting! All the best to you Planetariat (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I wouldn't exactly accept your characterisation of my reasons, as they're bilateral. We might be able to work in a mention of Eskov and The Last Ringbearer somehow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Oddly enough the Spectator article was removed, but I'm glad you had a chance to see it. Planetariat (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Shippey on Boethian vs Manichaean

The discussion of the nature of evil in this article - necessarily heavily abbreviated - mentions two major philosophies, both of which are directly applied by Tom Shippey to Tolkien's approach. We do not have to agree with Shippey that Tolkien takes a somewhat Manichaean approach: but it is the case that Shippey said so, and it's certainly of interest that he did. I notice that an editor had assumed that Manichaean was defined by a phrase in the article, which it wasn't; but a quick definition is a good idea, so I've added one, along with a (repeated) direct attribution to Shippey. It may be worth saying that Shippey is one of the most distinguished of Tolkien scholars, and that his opinions are always taken seriously by his colleagues. I hope we now have his opinion accurately represented here. If not, I'm happy to discuss, using quotations from his books if need be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The capitalisation in this article is all over the place, even when it comes to describing orcs in the same franchises. I understand that Tolkien's orcs are usually capitalised but I don't know if we should necessarily follow that. We're talking about all types of orc here, not one specific race. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well when they're non-Tolkien there's no reason to do so; so let's use lower case throughout (except at the starts of sentences!). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In modern conflicts

An editor has objected to the phrase "[to describe] and demonize [Russian forces]". However, that is the plain intent of the use of the term "orcs" for Russian soldiers, as the cited source states. Wikipedia is here correctly and neutrally reporting the facts, not offering any sort of opinion on them. Actually, the use of the seemingly-neutral word "describe" is close to venturing an opinion, as it could be taken to mean that "orc" is a valid description; in fact I'd suggest we remove it for that reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: That's not what the source states at all though and the word "demonise" does not feature anywhere; it's a loaded term. The source only states "a term of casual abuse". Abcmaxx (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, we could go with "abuse" as one option. I've explained why "describe" is unsuitable. Other sources are quite hard to find, as most of the commentary is on unusable forums.

Ukraine Crisis, a partisan source, does mention "demonise" without quite saying that the word "orcs" does that. We could conceivably report what that source says, but only with a lot of caveats; not ideal.

The Catholic Times uses "dehumanize"; it is a reliable source. I suggest we cite that and use that word. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually this source uses both "dehumanize" and "demonize". Since it's a reliable source I've cited it for both of these terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, since the material is seen as problematic by different users, I'm removing it now as basically unnecessary to the article, wandering off-topic (nothing to do with Tolkien's writing, or even Jackson's film-making), and trivial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Weinstein Orc

This page claims a specific orc to be modeled on Weinstein, but the source never identifies the particular orc. The photo used in the source article seems to be an unrelated orc from the films' marketing. This orc from the extended editions seems to be a much closer match but there doesn't appear to be a citable source for the exact orc due to a case of citogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmaprasanth (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Undue war propaganda

This image does not belong on an orc page, period.

My delete was reversed This revert by user:Chiswick Chap but the user clearly doesn't seem to know the ropes around here.

It is consensus known to inveterate Wikipedians that we shouldn't be going around using an op/ed piece from a newspaper, or an article that is actually an opinion piece, and passing it off as an RS.

A truly reliable source would be an actual literary scholar or lexicographer familiar with orcs. A newspaper article that interviews or cites an expert is usable.

A journalist imagining that the orc prop in the movie versions look too Japanese for this sansei guy's comfort, is not useable. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You are not allowed to make personal remarks, per WP:NPA. Newspapers are reliable sources; the nature of the article's discussion of orcs was exactly in the context of racism, which is a political matter, one of published opinion, to which knowledge of etymology or lexicography would simply not be relevant. There is, unfortunately or not, no doubt that published opinions of race are relevant to this article. What is not relevant is your personal opinion as an editor, per your edit comment today:

"Deleting a Japanese sansei's journalist's WP:RSEDITORIAL as non-scholarly(non-expert) opinion. Besides, I'm Japanese and PJ's movie orcs didn't strike me as resembling my kindred, it is way over-the-top WP:UNDUE to insert wartime caricature of Japanese nationals".

Obviously nobody wishes to cause offence, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; when a matter is the subject of public debate, it is appropriate to discuss it, and inappropriate to attempt to silence it. The epithets "non-scholarly" and "non-expert" are, as I've just mentioned, not applicable here, as a journalist need not be a scholar to state a political opinion, nor would scholarship in lexicography, philology, or for that matter Tolkien studies assist in any way with the statement of political opinion. As for your being Japanese and not feeling that Jackson's orcs looked Japanese, that is a personal matter pertaining to an individual editor, and nothing to do with the article (and if you made it so, it would be WP:Original Research). Your claim that a single thumbnail image is undue, on the other hand, is simply wrong; it is one of many elements in the article, and it briefly covers a point that is as important as all the others. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I was criticizing Chiswick Chap bcz he "doesn't seem to know the ropes" regarding WP:RSEDITORIAL, which he quoted me on above, so he cant claim he didnt get that message.

The statement that you have now repeated here can definitely be interpreted as a personal insult, and I'd have thought almost any editor or admin would read it the same way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This rule reads:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Which cannot apply to statements of political opinion by that author, which is what is involved here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What journalist David Ibata's feels about orc costumery in movies is not considered expert material that WP:DUEly belong in an encyclopedia about the "orc".

Once again, it is both due as I've explained above, and appropriate as it's a journalist's published opinion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Tolkien's gaffe on "Mongol-types" is already given sufficient attention drawing from scholarly sources, so you don't need to further belabor the point with an op/ed and propaganda image. Please abide by WP:UNDUE policy.

That's your personal opinion, which you have already expressed. However, the image reasonably, duly, and appropriately illustrates the points made by the reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Also stop going on a rampage and deleting the etymology section. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was a part of the etymology that moved beyond what is needed here, as Tolkien used the Old English, but no matter. What does matter is your personal attacks, which you have now repeated: those are not allowed and you have included them both here and in edit comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Chiswick Chap. This discussion and associated edit summaries do constitute personal attacks and bring wikipedia into disrepute. It harms the argument when Kiyoweap accuses an editor of good standing with > 250,000 edits (including bringing a huge quantity of articles to Good-article status) of "not knowing the ropes". Make your arguments about policy and content, and not the motives of editors. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well it is just a common tact for dodging the core issue by trying to change it to an ad hominem attack issue.

The core issue is that material from a journalist's opinion piece is not WP:RS as per WP:RSEDITORIAL, and adding it on the coattail of scholarly opinion not well-justified. And this is then used as hook to insert a gross caricature of a Japanese, which is gratuitous.

A person saying Obviously nobody wishes to cause offence obviously realizes it is offensive to someone.
The argument that the poorly cited WP:POV material, with offensive pic added in, should be kept on grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED, is patently ridiculous.

I don't see Orc (Dungeons & Dragons)#Controversy and Ferengi being tolerated with grotesque black and Jewish caricatures slapped onto them, so what is your argument for insisting the anti-Japanese image should be kept especially in this one ? --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:NOTTHERE are not arguments against the inclusion. Opinion pieces are WP:RS when establishing facts *about opinion*. You are misapplying WP:RSEDITORIAL (as explained above) just repeating your mistake is not helping the discussion. Your WP:NPAs are the only ad hominem examples in the discussion, which is why two editors have asked you to stop. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Focus of article

I'm sorry but this article has started to become seriously defocused with the addition of a large amount of etymology which is not even about orcs as currently understood, but branches off into dictionary definitions (contrary to WP:NOTDICT) etymological attestations, and the development of words possibly related to "orc" in other European languages. All of that would be right and proper in an etymological dictionary, or in a scholarly research article on philology, but which is plainly WP:OOS (Out of Scope) in an article about the monsters devised by Tolkien and taken up in modern wargaming and fantasy novels. Wikipedia articles are required to be focused on a single subject. This article is specifically about the modern orc as monster, basically as devised by Tolkien: anything else is outside its scope, causing defocusing, confusing readers, and basically wandering about off-topic. I do hope everyone is clear about that, and happy with the refocusing that I have now attempted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite what Chiswick Chap asserted, the scope of the article was left vague and open, because the lede had stated "orc, in general, is a hideous creature such as an ogre, a sea monster, or a giant in literature". I have now removed it.

The thing is, Tolkien was himself a "philologist" of sort the contributor to the "Oxford English Dictionary", so I hardly think scholarship regarding the OED definitions of orc by a professor of philology deserves so casually to be discounted as out of scope, and I don't see why you needed to remove, for example the cited paper for:

The term "orc" as monster was kept current in popular culture owing to Tolkien (and Disney), and kept from becoming obsolete like the third sense of the word, according to philologist Roberta Frank.

--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, but with respect Tolkien's status as a philologist has little to do with this article, and is certainly no justification for excessive weight per WP:UNDUE being placed on any one section. If you really think that Etymology of orc is a worthwile topic, you are of course free to write that article, in which case we can place a brief summary and "main" link here; but your personal interest in the topic does not justify a WP:COATRACK which grossly unbalances this article. The topic of the article, to repeat, is orcs as monsters; the possible origin of the name is already a side issue, and in an encyclopedia which is avowedly "not a dictionary" (let alone a specialised etymological dictionary), discussion of the word must be brief or it rapidly takes the article off topic, destroying its focus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are calling it WP:UNDUE to add back a one sentence citing a philologist's paper, you're being ridiculous.

I am however, compromising towards your inclination in the overall bulk, and plan to leave the etymologies regarding orc monsters in general, e.g. Orlando Furioso, etc. for some other page. So you should be mostly content.

Still, your accusing me of WP:COATRACKing this material is hardly warranted. I will reiterate that orc was not clearly not written like it was strictly Tolkienist focus. The old revision (your edit, ver. 30 January 2023) actually read:

"Mythological monsters with names similar to "orc" can be found.. in Early Modern poetry, and in Northern European folk tales and fairy tales. The orc appears on lists of imaginary creatures in two of Charles Kingsley's mid-1860s novels.

So I, acting reasonably, delved deeper into a topic (Early Modern Poetry, i.e. Orlando) that the lede had broached. If you didn't want this happening, you should have modified the lede then. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The UNDUEness and COATRACKness were or are about the large volume of material that I deleted, and which certainly should not reappear here. On the "one sentence", I actually made no remark whatsoever, but I'll be happy to consider it for you if you wish. Coatracks often (perhaps usually) begin reasonably, but develop unreasonably. It is not appropriate for a tirade on etymology to overtake an article on a monster. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it is exceedingly discourteous of you to make remarks about me or any other editor in an edit comment, as such things are very hard to remove or retract. Your comments about "diligence" are extremely close to a personal attack, something I will remind you is forbidden everywhere on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Games coverage

The amount of material on games containing orcs is I suppose a tribute to Tolkien, but it is rapidly becoming WP:UNDUE. I suggest we move the material to Orcs in games, leaving a WP:Main link and a brief summary here in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree with Chiswick Chap's suggestion.

The orc, in the modern sense, is not just orc strictly as according to Tolkien.

And not just an icon/fixture in games, it populates post-Tolkien fantasy fiction, and various TV&film&anime productions.

It is perfectly legitimate for a user to inquire why an action figure's or graphic novel's orc should look "pig-faced" as often does, and expect to find the answer on this page:

D&D game (1970s) made that embellishment off of Tolkien (as per scholarly WP:RS source Ilan Mitchell-Smith). --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you're intent on disagreeing with any mention of undue coverage, there's little that can be said, but as to whether this is a Tolkien article: it certainly is. If you want to create Orcs before Tolkien or whatever, that's your right, but this article is about the monsters that Tolkien certainly did invent, and which have beyond reasonable doubt been taken up widely as a consequence of his success, and of Jackson's. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sticking to the subject, your suggestion of moving content on post-Tolkien iconography of orcs (which was notably begun by the D&D game, but later spread to other media), into this Orcs in games article is a patently bad idea.

Obviously, people editing non-game articles (fantasy novels and anime titles) that happen to mention orc should not be force to look beyond "orc" to attach a link, from a practical standpoint.

Certainly shouldnt have to make a dogged search and learn that the target <modern, non-Tolkien generic orc> article has been (mis-)filed under "Orcs in games".--Kiyoweap (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No one has suggested putting generic non Tolkien orcs under Orcs in games. That was a suggestion for the content that is about Orcs in games. Stop your WP:NPA immediately start discussing changes rationally. GimliDotNet (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split off orc (Tolkien)

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.

Closed as no consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

---

I am proposing a retroactive WP:SIZESPLIT:

• The current edit now reduced to strictly Tolkien context be moved to "orc (Tolkien)" article (à la "elf (Tolkien)".
  
• The orc article be rolled back to a this version with "pre-Tolkien" restored but reduced bulk on Tolkien material.

There is divided consensus on whether the "orc" article could include pre-Tolkien material; editor Chiswick Chap disagrees and deletes them.

The said editor stated (#Games coverage) he is okay with his deletion being resurrected as another Orcs before Tolkien article, but I prefer this proposal which is a little more than that.

--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC) modified 00:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC); added oldid 00:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose

• WP:SIZESPLIT is not applicable here. You’d be better putting it under WP:CONTENTSPLIT which would be more correct.
• More care is needed with the target pages. The request is currently asking for badly named articles. Please adjust the request to include correctly formatted page names.
• WP:PRIMARY will come into play which should decide if this, or the non Tolkien specific article should sit in the main Orc article namespace. If neither have precedence then the Orc page should become a dissambiguation page that can redirect the reader as required. GimliDotNet (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse reasons given concisely by User:GimliDotNet. The previous move discussion rightly endorsed Tolkien Orcs as WP:PRIMARY and it seems quite unnecessary to challenge that consensus; Tolkien invented the modern conception of Orc and both public perception and makers of films, games, and merchandise have happily followed Tolkien. Before him there was just a vague Ogre/monster idea (so vague it even got attached to sea-monsters like the Orca/Killer whale). There may be room for subsidiary articles on games or whatever (if there is sufficient reliably-sourced material for a subsidiary) but that does not offer any justification for this proposal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Quit with the empty arguments, the two of you.

My WP:SIZESPLIT being viewed rather as WP:CONTENTSPLIT is predictable, because this is the essence of the POV difference between my "keep" and Chiswick's "delete".

However, GimliDotNet bringing this up is beside the point.

Even if your reason differed, if you can agree to a split, then we can go forward (if you were honestly minded towards a solution).

This proposal is not substantively different from Chiswick instructing me to go salvage the material he deleted.

Chiswick wants a 3-way split offshooting "Orcs before Tolkien" article and "Orcs and games" articles.

Instead, I am offering an alternative of splitting two ways into orc and orc (Tolkien), as per "elf".--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose / Comment Firstly, the comparison with Elf and Elves in Middle-earth is possibly instructive here as to why a split is a bad idea. Elves have a substantial place in mythology, literature, and popular culture entirely independent of Tolkien, e.g there would have been Elf (film) if Tolkien had never existed. With orcs, that isn't really the case; twentieth and twenty-first century usage mostly or entirely ultimately derives from Tolkien. Secondly, this is a discussion about a Wikipedia article on orcs. Maybe tone down the invective? It doesn't help your case when third parties are reading your comments to see these kind of personal attacks. CAVincent (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CONTENTSPLIT are two entirely different justifications for splitting an article, and both require different arguments to be applied.

You also have not addressed the split request to fix the badly named target articles, nor have you addressed the argument that Tolkien’s orcs are WP:PRIMARY.

Again, as I have asked you several times over the last

number of months, do not make personal attacks and start assuming good faith about your fellow editors. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong Support

• I think separating Tolkien's works from the traditional fantasy creature is necessary. Keeping them the same would be like if the page for Hobbits was deleted and redirected to Halflings.Nosecone33 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• But there wasn't "a traditional fantasy creature" called "orc" before Tolkien, just giant "ogres" in fairytales, as in Jack and the Beanstalk and suchlike tales. Conflating orca sea-monsters (killer whales), beanstalk ogres and modern fantasy orcs is just a complete muddle: all they have in common is that the words for them are somewhat related, in the same way that the words for canvas, cannabis, and hemp (= hanap) are somewhat related, but are now totally distinct topics. It's muddled and unencyclopedic thinking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• There seems to be enough coverage of Tolkien's orcs to justify a separate article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• That's the wrong way around. Even if a split were agreed, Tolkien's orcs would be the primary topic (named Orc), and should have the various adaptations into fantasy literature and wargames as subsections, possibly (as I already said, I believe) with subsidiary WP:SPINOFF articles such as Orcs in wargames or whatever as "main" links in those subsections, if there is sufficient material for any of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Orcs are a Tolkien invention. Offshoot articles might cover games or the infiltration of “orcs” into modern fantasy, but the article Orc needs to be about Tolkien’s orcs. Strebe (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The concept of ‘Orc’ does not begin nor end with Tolkien. And he would have been the first to acknowledge this. Tolkien’s Orcs are a subset of the literary and mythological concept ‘Orc’ and should be explained to be as much.

To state ‘Tolkien invented the Orc’ does harm to both his work and the rich cultural history it was built upon. That this version of the concept ‘Orc’ has subsequently been built upon and has become extremely popular in pop- and literary culture, does not mean it simply popped into being.

The word orc in English has two distinct sources. Orc in reference to a vaguely cetacean sea monster is borrowed from one or more Romance words, such as the French orque or the Italian orca, all ultimately descended from the Latin orca, which probably denoted a small cetacean such as the killer whale. In Ludovico Ariosto’s epic Orlando furioso, the heroine Angelica is set out as a victim for a man-eating orca, in a literary recasting of the Andromeda myth.

A different word orc, alluding to a demonor ogre, appears in Old English glosses of about AD 800 and in the compound word orcnēas (“monsters”) in the poem Beowulf. As with the Italian orco (“ogre”) and the word ogre itself, it ultimately derives from the Latin Orcus, a god of the underworld.

literary example:

An interpretation of ‘Orc’ as a fallen, non-rational, corrupted being, features heavily in William Blake’s mythology, for which he was seemingly heavily inspired by Milton’s Paradise Lost.

In Tokien’s correspondence, proof can be found he most certainly read Blake, not just because he was recommended Blake’s poems (around 1919) but also because he later commented on disliking his work - which would fit because Blake’s work is very much a poetic allegory (he was plagued by visions), whereas Tolkien prided himself on creating a coherent universe that - even though built

on mythology and imagination - could not just be thrown together at will. There are multiple other authors, dating back further, who - even though always in slight variation - interpret and use the figure in their work.

The Old English creatures were most likely the inspiration for the orcs that appear in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, but ascribing ‘orc’ to be a Tolkien invention, is denouncing it’s rich origin.

‘Orc’ should be a generalized concept (as it is in the Encyclopedia Brittanica for example) with subcategories/chapters for influential interpretations of the figure. Laick87 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems weird. Is someone now using AI to comment on talk pages? CAVincent (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting you find this a weird reply. But coming back to the discussion: as much a fan as we might be of what Tolkien created, and as much our current popular culture has built upon that particular variation (thinking of forms like Warhammer, 40k, Warcraft and so on), it is simply fact that the word and creature 'orc' did not start with Tolkien. His use of the term is one variation of many more in history before him - which he acknowledged, since it was existing mythology and linguistics that he built upon. Some of those variations are historically just as important as Tolkien's, if not more. To summarize: if done correctly it should either be 'Orc' (general term) with Tolkien as a chapter within, or 'Orc' and 'Orc'(Tolkien).

On a sidenote: the description of Warhammer/40ks Orcs is way too short. Laick87 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Strebe: So if, say, I write a bestselling fantasy novel in which "djillfin" play a major role, does Djillfin then have to deal exclusively with my djillfin, even if they become common creatures in fantasy novels and roleplaying games? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been open for months now. I do not see any consensus to proceed. Could someone please close it now. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Coming here late. While I appreciate the point that Tolkien effectively invented modern Orcs, I do think it would be ok to have separate article (subarticle?) on Orc (Middle-earth), as we had in the past. Much of the current article is about that, but these days, the concept of orc exists well beyond Tolkien. Tolkien's orcs can, IMHO, have a subarticle and would meet GNG, while their section here could be shortened. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been open for over three months, with no activity in a month and no consensus for a split. How many more months would you leave it open? Also, the point has already been made that Tolkien's orcs are the primary subject, so anything else would have to be the subarticle. CAVincent (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please could someone close this now, should have been closed months ago. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2023 (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.

User:Chiswick Chap - I think you are right (no consensus) but I think it's not best practice for an involved party to close it. May I suggest asking for a second closer endorsement at WP:Requests for closure? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that it is best to have an external party do it, which is why I asked above and waited long. However in this case Edward-Woodrow immediately wrapped this up after me, so it has already been double-closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I just noted that you used the wrong template, so I fixed that. I don't have too much of an opinion, but no consensus does look like the right close. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  • • I see. Well we all seem to agree on it, so I don't think any further action is needed, but if anybody still thinks we need to ask for a 4th opinion, they're welcome to post it at Requests for closure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)