# Talk:Isildur

Chiswick Chap, I should have been doing spotchecks when I reviewed this for GA, so I went back and did several.  Most were OK, but I have one question.

FNs 4, 5, & 6 cite "Catholic scholars have noted that just as Jesus, in his role as king, is a descendant of King David, Aragorn is a descendant of Isildur."  I see related discussions in these sources, but no explicit mention of Isildur.  Am I missing something?
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I think those sources were covering a closely related point about Aragorn, not this one. Replaced with a definite ref. This Aragorn/Isildur...Jesus/David thing is actually a commonplace among Catholic sources, but many of them like this are probably too opinionated for Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the parallels aren't hard to see.  Thanks for the fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The first portion of the page mentions that Isildur was corrupted by the Ring's power. This is a half-truth at most, and it suggests an understanding of LotR influenced more by the Peter Jackson films than the books.
Isildur took the One Ring from Sauron's hand, but he wasn't really corrupted by it. Not as substantially as the article's wording implies anyway. Isildur claimed the One Ring as weregild (lit. "man gold"), a reference to a real world Germanic practice wherein a person who killed someone had to pay a certain amount of gold in recompense to the victim's family. This was a way of preventing blood feuds. It was a kind of justice. Sauron had killed Isildur's father and brother. Isildur was certainly staking a claim on the Ring, but he wasn't lying like the relatively uncorrupted Bilbo.
Moreover, Isildur eventually had a change of heart regarding his possession of the One and left to give it up to Elrond in Rivendell. This is why he was in the Gladden Fields when he was ambushed and killed by orcs. This is not the behavior of a corrupted person. 2600:1700:7790:1FB0:4CC2:19F3:2693:D4D8 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your view. However, you are reasoning entirely from first principles, i.e. your personal interpretation of the text. This is forbidden on Wikipedia, where that is called Original Research. It's forbidden because there is then no verifiable source to trace to, so the claim would effectively be uncited. If you can find a Tolkien scholar who has that opinion, then of course you can cite their book. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Couldn't something similar be said about the current wording of the article as well? Whether Isildur was corrupted or not is at least somewhat up to interpretation, and that claim isn't cited in the passage I'm referring to. More neutral language might be in order? Influenced, say?
My main concern is that the current wording leans into movie-only ideas of Isildur as a somewhat dark figure. That doesn't really line up with the books, and afaict this article is primarily about Isildur as he appears in the books. 2600:1700:7790:1FB0:4CC2:19F3:2693:D4D8 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree -- "corrupted" is too strong a word, and not supported by the article or its references. -- Elphion (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, let's say influenced. Looking at it again, there's plainly scope to add more sources here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)