Talk:Orc (Middle-earth)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historical Notes 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gorbag & Shagrat 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: New article for individual orcs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Orcish Diet

message: 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)
thread_title:  Physical appearance (2007) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spearhead 

message: 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)
replies: text: should be used for that, at the top of this page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old deletion discussions 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Orccannibalism.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Orkish=Orkhun 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sharku 2.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The pigmentation issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Types of Orcs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Non-canon removed 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tolkien and racism 

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

message: 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: . De728631 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physical appearance (2011) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Undue, duplicated, original research

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a duplicate of  Sidevar (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability?