Talk:Mithril

Wikipedia - Recent changes [en] - Wednesday, April 15, 2026

archiving

← Previous revision Revision as of 18:44, 15 April 2026 Line 6: Line 6: {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} {{Translated page|de|Mithril|version=71087766|insertversion=346604706}} {{Translated page|de|Mithril|version=71087766|insertversion=346604706}}
== Khuzdul ==
Is there a Khuzdul name for truesilver? "Mithril" is an Elvish word and I doubt that Dwarves would want to call it that. I don't have a copy of LOTR handy to check, however. If there is info about this, the article should mention it. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D|2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:DA2D|talk]]) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) : LOTR (book 2, ch. 4 "A Journey in the Dark") says only that the Dwarves kept their name for it secret. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 08:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ::Thanks, I added a mention. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:5FED|2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:5FED]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8581:75B0:0:0:0:5FED|talk]]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Dwarven sex fiends? ==
My removal of {{tq|The scholar Paul Kocher interprets the Dwarves' intense secrecy around mithril as an expression of sexual frustration, given that they have very few dwarf-women}} was reverted by Chiswick Chap with the edit summary of "Rvv, deletion of reliably-cited content cited to major Tolkien scholar." Not wanting to turn this into an edit war, I'm taking it here, because I think the reversion is foolish in the extreme. Whether or not Kocher has written a number of JRRT-themed works is not at issue; that this is a bizarre and wholly speculative notion that violates [[WP:FRINGE]] is. Nothing in any of Tolkien's works even ''hints'' at this "interpretation," and it doesn't belong in the article, let alone in the lead. We are not required to give credence to fringe theories, no matter whether there's an accurate citation or not. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 17:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you for discussing. Paul Kocher is an extremely well-known and highly-respected Tolkien scholar, so he is unquestionably a Reliable Source. It may help to understand that the fact being reported is not "xyz is a certainty" but the far less bold claim "Kocher said xyz". On all your comments above about fringeness, hints, belonging, etc, the reply is simple: you are, I'm sorry to have to say, here doing some [[WP:EDITORIAL]], where the article is strictly complying with policy. To be clear, there is nothing fringy about reporting what leading scholars have written. On whether it needs to be in the lead, there is room for compromise; we don't have to mention everything up there, obviously. All the best, [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 18:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::{{tq| If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.}} That is hardly editorializing; can you find ''any'' other scholar who agrees with Kocher? It's not even that Kocher has any textual basis for his statement: he seems to have just made it up out of wholecloth. Having it out of the lead is good. Having it out of the article would be better, and I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on the subject.Similarly on the suggestion that Tolkien was influenced by South African mines, when he left South African at the age of three. That's likewise a "fact" I'd challenge. I'm sure that was reverted inadvertently, and that you're not just [[WP:OWN|gatekeeping]] on the article. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 00:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::Of course it's not "gatekeeping". Once again, that too is reliably cited, and what is being reported us the scholar's view: and the scholar was well aware of Tolkien's age and history, and that he was told about the mines in England, whether by parents or in school. Your lengthy talk page postings are not adding anything material to the discussion, by the way. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 02:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::::"Scholar?" That was written by a mining executive, posted to an industry journal. If the author is indeed a "scholar," what reliable sources say so? I'm seeing an utter lack of cites to the work. It's troublesome that an editor of your longevity and edit count is unaware of [[WP:FRINGE]]: if a citation being drawn to a published source is all the guideline required, that greenlights pseudoscience from von Daniken to Blavatsky to Lysenko.Yes, of course this is gatekeeping, and it's doubly troubling that you're happy with these bits of speculative nonsense, pushed by single authors alone and supported by no one else, and which add no canonical fact to the article. [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]] 04:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

== Mithril in other works subsection? == == Mithril in other works subsection? ==