Talk:Saruman

A few points

In the "Involvement in Themes" section, there's a strange part where it's written:

Saruman's actions, although evil in intent, in fact lead to his own downfall and that of Sauron: his orcs help split the Fellowship at Parth Galen, and in carrying off two of the hobbits initiate a series of incidents that lead to his defeat. In turn this frees the Rohirrim to intervene at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields and then together with the men of Gondor to assault Sauron's stronghold of Mordor and distract him from Frodo's final effort to destroy the Ring.

This doesn't make sense. Saruman's actions constricted the Rohirrim, more than "freeing" them, and the part of the carrying of the two hobbits initiating a series of events that leads to freeing the Rohirrim is certainly puzzling. The Rohirrim were free to intervene at Gondor because they won the battle of Helm's Deep, which had nothing to do with the hobbits capture or the Ents or the destruction of Isengard.

Saruman's actions does lead to his and Sauron's defeat, but certainly not in the manner which the article describes. The way his actions really backfired was something like this: Saruman's orcs, in carrying off the hobbits to Isengard against the will of Sauron' orcs, lead to the hobbits' escape due to the ambush of Eomer and his men. The crucial point here is that the hobbits might have otherwise been led to Mordor and interrogated, which would have ended all hopes of Frodo's secrecy.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

Also, the article does not say anything about Saruman's fate after his death in Middle-Earth. Does Tolkein say nothing of the fate of Saruman's spirit? Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The arrival of Merry and Pippin in Fangorn is the trigger that spurs the Ents to join the war, and without their help, the Rohirrim would certainly have been defeated at the Hornburg. So it is Saruman's action in kidnapping the hobbits that ultimately leads to his defeat, freeing the Rohirrim to come to the aid of Gondor. Tolkien speaks directly through Gandalf here (as elsewhere); he likens the advent of the hobbits to pebbles that begin a landslide. (Sorry, no reference -- I'm away from my books.)

I'm not aware of any discussion of Saruman's fate after the destruction of his manifest form. Tolkien might have addressed this in the Letters (and the second edition has a decent index, so it should be easy to check). The dissolution of the misty remnant that rises from the body suggests that his spirit disintegrated as well, but that's hardly a definitive account of his ultimate fate.

-- Elphion (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I recall the statement about hobbits and landslides, and I'll take your point about the Ents (or rather Huorns) playing a role at the Hornburg, although it wasn't a pivotal role by any means. Still, it's not a very important point, so I'll let it drop.

One more doubt: Why is the sentence "Colin Manlove adds that these are secondary characters who are killed before the end of the book" relevant? It's a bit incorrect too, since Saruman is not a secondary character by any means. It doesn't seem to add any information to the article. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Steed on this one. Any single event can be considered a 'trigger' for the rest of the events subsequent in these works. For instance, you can call Bilbo, or Gandalf, or Galadriel, or the Orcs and Uruks, or even the Valar and Eru himself the triggers for these events. Hell, you could probably even blame Feanor. This section seems a bit more of an argument in a few ways-- First, it claims that Saruman is evil in intention. Regardless of whether you liked his actions or not, I'm not sure calling him evil is encyclopedic.

Saying that his actions lead to his own downfall likewise seems more like an original argument than something you can source. For instance, there are a number of factors in play here -- Gandalf and Sauron's influences on Saruman, Treebeard and the Ents actually deciding to attack Isengard, and Frodo's ultimate success in destroying the ring are just a few. There are a lot of actors at play here, so it's hard to attribute any single thing to any individual actor.

Regarding the ultimate fate of sauruman, there are a few things. First, we know from The Silmarillion that when a maia dies, s/he is sent back to valinor (maybe to mandos, can't remember). The bodies the Istari are restricted to in M-e are physically limited, but there is specific mention in the early part of the Silmarillion of the idea that any of the Ainur can 'wear' a body, as it were raiment, but not a necessity (they can walk about unclad). I think Tom Shippy talks about this in one of his books, I will have to look into it. But, going off that, it would make sense that after the death of Saruman's body (like gandalf fighting the balrog), his spirit seeks to return to the west (it blows west and is 'rejected', or something like that). His spirit is not permitted to return west.

I'd also appreciate input on the comments i left on various other talk pages. I'm new to wikipedia so a bit hesitant to make major edits myself.74.109.214.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

(outdent)

Tolkien would not entirely disagree with you: all the actions of all the players contribute to the outcome, and any one might be "the" trigger. But Merry and Pippin several times observe that their part seems entirely irrelevant -- that they might as well stayed at home in the Shire for all the use they were to the Fellowship, that they were hindering rather than helping. Gandalf (and Tolkien) takes some pains to disabuse them (and us) of this notion; hence Gandalf's speech observing that without their influence on the Ents (and the Ents' influence on the Huorns, and the Huorns' annihilation of the orcs at the Hornburg), the Rohirrim would certainly have been defeated, and Gondor unaided would have failed, and Sauron would have won. This is not an unimportant point; it is one of Tolkien's primary messages (which underlies much of C. S. Lewis's writing as well): each of us has an important part to play. This is one of the reasons that the books struck such a responsive chord, not only in the 60s but even today.

The Huorns' role at the Hornburg was not only pivotal, it was completely decisive. The text makes quite clear that the Rohirrim were on the brink of being completely overwhelmed before the Huorns arrived; virtually everyone, from Theoden on down, expects final defeat in the morning. But with the dawn both the Rohirrim and the orcs alike are astounded by the Huorns, and the Rohirrim take no part in the final destruction of Saruman's orcs.

I don't recall Silmarillion saying that the Maiar would return to Mandos. Certainly Sauron didn't at the destruction of his body on two occasions earlier, nor did Gandalf on Zirak-zigil. The Letters say that Gandalf actually died -- he did not just lose his "raiment". It's impossible to tell from the narrative of Saruman's death what happened to him. Did he want to return west? Was he permitted to? Was he unmade? Did he, like Morgoth, diffuse into the fabric of Arda? Or leave Arda altogether? Tolkien simply doesn't say.

-- Elphion (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree with you about the importance of any number of events to the story as a whole (thus why they were included). But I don't think it's fair in an encyclopedia article to put forward arguments about which specific events were more or less important than others. Saruman's own actions assuredly played a role in his demise, and so did (as you say) many other actions and events. It just seems like an unfair portrayal to argue that it was Saruman's intentions alone that led to his demise, especially since it's likely that the audience for this article will read it uncritically and/or accept it as the primary if not sole factor leading up to his overthrow. There was a lot at play.

The primary reasons I disagree with the inclusion of this argument are as follows: 1) Each event that occurs can be seen as an essential catalyst for those subsequent, and without which the entire story may have played out differently; presenting only one event as definitive seems oversimplified; 2) Following on the previous point, I'm not convinced it's fair to posit that one event was utterly essential (thereby excluding others), especially without sources. I think a case can be made for its importance, but again I think it's only one case, and I don't think this argument finds explicit support in the text (or the scholarship I've read).

Also, I don't think it's fair to say what Tolkien would say himself, if he didn't actually say it.

Regarding the Maiar, there is an excerpt maybe in Lost Tales or some other work detailing their fate. The Two Towers assuredly claims that Gandalf died, but remember that the narrative perspective in this work is from the POV of a hobbit (who wouldn't have access or understand the event in any other way). In the telling of his death, Gandalf says: "Naked I was sent Back..." and carried by the Lord of the Eagles. Morgoth also didn't diffuse into M-e, he was cast out by the Valar into the void -- though he did bind up much of his power and influence in the world. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of the narrative perspective of TT: Tolkien himself in the Letters says that Gandalf died and was sent back into the world only through Eru's intervention. -- Elphion (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of electrons have been spilled over the passage above that Steed objected to, but it is not an "argument" -- it reflects a view that Tolkien himself expresses in the book. He took some pains to highlight it. I still don't understand why you feel it's inappropriate to discuss it in the article. -- Elphion (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a follow up -- Regarding fate. In The Silmarillion, Tolkien explicitly states that the Ainur that chose to enter into Middle-earth were bound to it (same language used to describe the elves). He discusses how the Ainur are free to move about in any form they wish, or they may walk unclad as spirit alone. For the Istari, they were sent specifically confined to the bodies of men. In one of The Histories (which one exactly escapes me right now), Tolkien explored how the spirit and the body functioned differently. Just as the spirits of the Elves, who are bound in fate to M-e, are sent to Valinor (Mandos) upon their physical death, so does the physical death of the Ainur render their spirits unclad.

Let's talk examples, then. The first instance we have of this is obviously Melkor. If he could be killed, why wasn't he? Why, instead, was he simply cast into the void? Probably because he can't actually 'die', except in body. Next, we have Sauron, who was killed in the drowning of Numenor. He was explicitly not received by the valar at that time, and it took him a good deal of effort and energy to form a new raiment for himself (which could never appear as fair as he had previously). As he tied his power into physical objects through what Tolkien calls in his essay On Faery Stories subcreation, this physical re-manifestation process became more difficult. Also keep in mind that he was the most powerful of the Maiar. When Melian died, her body was left abandoned and her spirit returned to Aman.

Now let's have a look at Gandalf. He says in The Two Towers: "I tarried there in the ageless time of that land where days bring healing not decay. Healing I found, and I was clothed in white." And also: "Naked I was sent back-for a brief time, until my task was done. And naked I lay upon the mountain-top." This is where controversy comes in. Because of the nature of the Istari's restriction to the form of a physical man, is it possible that their death resulted in their fea (spirit) leaving the circles of the earth? That will require a bit more research, and there are certainly instances wherein the Valar are able to offer a choice to an individual about whether to pursue the path of mortality or immortality -- but these are rare and reserved for those who are descended from both lineages. Gandalf made a pact with Eru upon entering Middle-earth (as did Saruman) that they would be bound to it until its end. Presumably, Manwe himself cannot void such an agreement. But remember from before that the ainur can move about 'unclad', or 'naked'? Gandalf says 'naked i was sent back' -- meaning without a body (raiment), and then 'naked I lay upon the mountaintup' -- meaning he was physically naked.

What does it all mean for Saruman? I'd say it means that his spirit remains in Middle-earth and perhaps someday he will find the power to construct for himself a new body. He didn't do much sub-creating, so probably retains the majority of his original power. What seems certain, however, is that Aman rejected the return of his spirit. Of course, none of this is really relevant to the article itself because it can't be included without a reputable source on the matter (and it is a controversial one, and perhaps a bit too in depth for this article.) 74.109.214.27 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding why I am pursuing the point: I don't think it's fair to say that any individual event in this case is responsible for any specific outcome. Each thing that happened played a part in the larger whole, and attributing Saruman's demise to his own actions minimizes the (extremely important) role of all the others involved. Again, while I think you can explain how his own actions contributed, but I don't think that's appropriate in this article (especially without citations). Undoubtedly Tolkien felt that Saruman had screwed himself, but that doesn't seem to me to be enough to claim that his own actions led inexorably to his own demise. There were other factors at play, as I said.

Regarding the letter, I'm curious about which one it is that you're referring to -- I'd like to have a gander at it myself 74.109.214.27 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's "not fair to say", but Tolkien did say it, and that's why it's in the article. Your observation that your discussion above is not appropriate for the article is right on target. I mean no offense, but this is OR: you are arguing from principles laid down by the author to conclusions that go well beyond what the author says. The premises are not very solid anyway, since Tolkien tweaked and finessed them throughout his adult life; and you make additional assumptions for which there is no textual warrant. E.g., does "bound to the world" necessarily mean there could be no exceptions? Tolkien makes exceptions for several "in-universe rules", and in this case he does make an exception for Gandalf; so one can only assume that he could make other exceptions if he wanted to. We simply don't know what happens to Saruman. You are welcome to form your own conclusions, but a discussion of the possibilities is not appropriate for the article.

For the Letter in question, see Gandalf, note 21.

-- Elphion (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my 'not fair to say' comment is in response to the OP's comment about the Saruman/evil intention line in the article (which is unsourced, and, as I said, still implies that Saruman was the primary cause in his own demise, which he was not). Also, the discussion above was not mine, and I did not mention the question to begin with. As I said, I am new to wikipedia and I was exploring possible answers to the question, on the talk page. Is that wrong? I'm glad you mean no offense, but it has been taken as a result of your accusatory tone on this issue. If, indeed, this page is not for discussing the Saruman-death argument, then why might I ask do you continue to propose a critique of the position I espoused? Also, I hadn't read that letter, so nice reference. I would appreciate courtesy and civility in the future. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a little time reading the guidelines on good faith and original research would be in order. These are the guidelines set down by the project. On a side not I have never known Elphion be anything but courteous and civil: even to those with less honourable intentions than yourself. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he is acting on good faith, but the original commentator asked about the inclusion of Saruman's death, which Elphion, the original user, and I, all discussed. Later, I was then chastised for trying to establish whether or not the OP's question of inclusion had an answer (no doubt relevant). Not to mention, a majority of my posting was in response to the inclusion of the line about Saruman bringing things on himself, which is both unsourced, unverified, and possibly not even useful to include here, and yet given no response other than the accusations of original research for discussing things in tolkien, here, on the talk page, in response to a discussion that was already going on. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(removed indent) I am quite sure it was not meant as a 'telling off' and shouldn't be taken in that way. Sometimes what is said in brief is misconstrued in the heat of debate. 06:43, Carl Sixsmith (talk) 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As the guy who wrote the words in question: this whole debate starts from a misconception. What the article actually says is: "[Paul] Kocher, Randall Helms and [Tom] Shippey write that Saruman's actions, although evil in intent, in fact lead to his own downfall..." My emphasis. The statement is referenced at the end of the para (it is emphatically not a requirement that each sentence be separately ref'd) and comes from Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-earth Chapter 5 'Interlacements and the Ring' pp.186–188, Paul Kocher's Master of Middle-earth Chapter III Cosmic Order pp.44–46 and Randall Helm's Tolkien's World Chapter V 'The structure and aesthetic of The Lord of the Rings pp.92–97. This is not original research, it's a summary of a point that three different commentators on the book have made. I'm very happy to have a conversation about whether I've mistated or overinterpreted their position, of course, but what is in the article represents (or tries to!) what reliable sources have said. 4u1e (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Grief, I never imagined one small question on my part would lead to such a huge debate. But it has solved one doubt: that Saruman's ultimate fate is not certain, nor was it mentioned clearly by Tolkien. We may leave it at that - we have to write facts in the article, not speculations or possibilities. So we may leave the question on Saruman's ultimate fate unanswered/unmentioned in the article, or we can add something like "Saruman's ultimate fate was never made clear by Tolkien" or something to that effect.

Now as for the above point made by 4u1e - I'd have to disagree. Three commentators are all very fine, but Tolkien himself specifically mentioned Saruman as an example of a "gray" character (as mentioned in the article itself). The inclusion of the word "evil" there seems to contradict Tolkien's own point of view, and his point of view must reign supreme. Do we seriously need every critic's opinion on everything? Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is some potentially useful information to help us deal with the use of 'evil'. All pulled from the Letters.

"...hobbits are not a Utopian vision, or recommended as an ideal in their own or any age. They, as all peoples and their situations, are an historical accident -- as the Elves point out to Frodo -- and an impermanent one in the long view. I am not a reformer nor an 'embalmer'! I am not a 'reformer (by exercise of power) since it seems doomed to Sarumanism..." (Letters, 154)

First suggestion that the flaw of Saruman is his attempt at exercising power was an ultimately flawed attempt at potentially genuine reform. Insufficient on its own.

Next we have:

"Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and all the bad just bad...in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir..." (Letters, 154)

Explicitly saying that Saruman is not clearly on one side or the other, and not necessarily good or evil.

Regarding Gandalf's death

"That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards,' as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned." (Letters, 156)

Framing Gandalf's sacrifice as a consequence of the failure (implying genuine attempt) of the wizards. Ref. to capital A Authority probably Valar/Eru, suggesting that the intentions of individual wizards may not be the driving agent here (so good/evil question doesn't apply?)

On the Istari good/evil debate

"His [Gandalf's] function as a 'wizard' is an angelos or messenger from teh Valar or Rulers: to assist the rational creatures of Middle-earth to resist Sauron, a power too great for them unaided. But since in the view of this tale & mythology Power -- when it dominates or seeks to dominate other wills and minds (except by the assent of their reason) -- is evil, these 'wizards' were incarnated in the life-forms of Middle-earth, and so suffered the pains both of mind and body. They were also, for the same reason, thus involved in the peril of the incarnate: the possibility of 'fall', of sin, if you will. The chief form this would take with them would be impatience, leading to the desire to force others to their own good ends, and so inevitably at last to mere desire to make their own wills effective by any means. To this evil, Saruman succumbed." (Letters, 181)

Here JRRT gives 'power' agency: it seeks to dominate other wills and minds. Then explains that, because they are in M-e life-form, that impatience and desire to use power to exercise well-intentioned action are the chief possibilities for corruption for the Istari. Note that Saruman succumbed to evil, not that he was evil.

Hope this helps 74.109.214.27 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I would say, "Exactly." The article does not claim that Saruman was purely evil, only that he fell to evil acts. Even Sauron is not "evil incarnate" -- he too succumbed to evil. (Tolkien indeed draws parallels between Saruman and Sauron in one of the letters.) Gandalf does not condemn Saruman, but offers him the opportunity to redress what he has done and to help in the effort against Sauron. But Saruman's pride gets in the way, and he refuses. He later indulges in vengeful actions against the Shire that it is hard not to describe as evil, and that certainly meet the description of evil that Tolkien gives us. Saruman is very much a gray character, as Tolkien points out, mixing good and evil. What Tolkien is at pains to point out is that the evil acts, even ones he thinks are in his own interest, don't work out very well for him -- indeed, end up thwarting his goals. -- Elphion (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(Post ec) I'm afraid Steed's view (which he is entitled to) does not accord well with Wikipedia's guidance on writing about fiction. We certainly do not want to build the article only on material from the book itself and from Tolkien's own commentary upon it, which seems to be the implication of "[Tolkien's] point of view must reign supreme. Do we seriously need every critic's opinion on everything?". The views of other reliable sources on the character are an essential part of building a complete and rounded article. And if the reliable sources say that they believe Saruman's actions (meaning his actions in Book III) are evil, then that's what we write. I will however check to make sure I've not misrepresented the sources (easily done!).

The article does not, by the way, make any blanket general statement that Saruman is evil - which appears to be the point both 74.109 and Steed are trying to refute. What it is trying to say (summarising the views of others) is that those 'evil' actions he does take in Book III (sending orcs to steal the ring, kidnapping Merry and Pippin and invading Rohan) rebound upon him with unexpectedly positive effects for his opponents. Gandalf also points this out in the book. Possibly, the point isn't coming across clearly - in which case I'm open to suggestions on how to make it clearer. 4u1e (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for making this longer, but see a few quotes from the sources used:

Helms: "these two necessary victories [Helm's Deep and Isengard] result from evil intentions upon innocent creatures; both stem from Saruman's greedy attempt to capture hobbits ... what gets them there, of course, is the reversed effects of the evil intent of Saruman" He uses the word 'evil' several more times in the next few pages in reference to various events.

Kocher follows his summary of the providential chain of events leading from Parth Galen to Saruman's defeat with "The irony of evil bringing forth good continues all through the epic"

Shippey does not talk of evil, although he does mention Saruman's "treachery".

On that basis, I'm inclined to change the reference to evil at the start of the para, since although valid it seems to be causing confusion, but leave the one at the end. 4u1e (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, and I don't have time to reread the whole thing right now, but my main concern is that it is a pretty central idea in Tolkien's work that people are not purely evil or good, rather that the systemic forces in motion alter the courses of action undertaken. I might suggest using one of the above mentioned letters to elaborate a bit if we want to go there. It can stay as-is and I'd be fine with it, I just don't think it captures the whole picture 74.109.214.27 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@4u1e - Fair enough (regarding your edit)

I am aware of Wikipeida's guidelines, but in this article, it generally seems to be that the excess of critic statements seems to be adding to the confusion of this article. That was what I was arguing against (and I presume 74.109 too). Anyway, your edit, I think, will satisfy everybody. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the use of critic's comments - seems to be to be the only way to legitimately include discussion of themes without lapsing into original research. Regarding the point that Saruman is not conceived as wholly evil - the article does already make this point, referencing Letters 154 and 181 as suggested above. It's hard to make the point more clearly since, while plainly intended to be a lapsed good character, there's little if anything in any of the source material to actually illustrate Saruman in his earlier, more positive role. Every time we see him, whether in Middle-earth or in Valinor, he shows signs of pride and wilfulness. About the best I can think of is that quote from Aragorn in Flotsam and jetsam: "Once he was as great as his fame made him...." 4u1e (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I am okay with this right now as it stands. The point about the lack of any real depiction of him being "good" is well taken. 74.109.214.27 (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's primarily because all of Saruman's "good" actions were before the events of the War of the Ring. And after all, not only Aragorn, but even Gandalf sings his praise half the time ("Saruman the White is the greatest of my order"; " A sneer from him, Meriadoc, is a compliment, if you feel honored by his concern" etc etc). Tolkien seemed intent on focusing on Saruman after he grew bad, so it's no surprise that we have very little material regarding Saruman before he lapsed. Nothing much one can do if an author doesn't like his character. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(<- indent) I remember reading that Tolkien was surprised by the character of Saruman, and that he didn't know what had held Gandalf back from his promised return to Bag End. This might explain the lack of "historical" information on the character. A real shame I think, Saruman is one of my favourite characters in the books, he's only in a couple of chapters but they are some of the best, 'The Voice of Saruman' and 'The Scouring of the Shire' are amongst my favourite parts. 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright

The fairuse rationale of the file [[1]] is invalid. This is a fictional character which of course means that an unlimited number of free equivalents could be created (and probably exist). The rationale contains no argument as to why this paricular picture by John Howe should be used. Also the ratoinale misuses the "suitable for illustrating the subject in question" - for a fairuse rationale to apply the topic would have to be This particular picture by John Howe, not the fictional character that it depicts. The image will have to be replaced by a free one, especially if the article is going to be reviewed for GA status.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very happy to remove it, and have done so before. There's a fair chance someone else will come along and add it again, but we'll deal with that as/when it happens. 4u1e (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the fairuse rationale for the other limit also isn't valid for this article, it is only licensed for the article on Christopher Lee. Some work should be put into finding a free image. I might even make one myself :). ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Howe pic removed. It would be nice if the people who insist on adding these made sure the licenses were valid... Neither Flickr nor Google Images is showing up anything with a suitable license. A suitable quality, non-derivative free image may not be all that easy to find, but I'll have a trawl around. 4u1e (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed the Lee image as well. Obviously others feel differently, but I don't see how fair use can be justified. It's not the primary means of identifying the character (the article is about the character as a whole, not Lee's portrayal of him) and what he looks like in the film is not discussed in the article. Nor would it be useful to do so. 4u1e (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saruman/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, complies sufficiently with key elements of the MoS

   The lead should mention the subject's appearance in other works, see WP:LEAD.

   "The character appears in almost all adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, having a particularly large part in the first two films of Peter Jackson's film trilogy (2001–2003) in which he was played by Christopher Lee." Is this not sufficient? This could be expanded to: "The character appears in almost all adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, including the BBC Radio's 1956 and 1981 radio adaptations of the book, as well as Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated motion picture. He has a particularly large part in the first two films of Peter Jackson's film trilogy (2001–2003) in which he was played by Christopher Lee."

   I meant his appearances in The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   Ah! Will add a brief mention. 4u1e (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #49[3] is a dead link.  Done

Updated with web cite template and a working wayback machine link. 4u1e (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   ON hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

   OK, good to go. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

   Ta very much. 4u1e (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

(Note. I don't have any issues whatsoever with the content (factually) of the article) I'm also not referring to boxquoted text from the literature - which may be a little excessive, but is just within reason.

I tagged the article as making too much use of quotations - sometimes uncharitably characterised as a "quotefarm" - the issue here is that too many sentences rely upon fragments of sentences pulled from the source - this is not the best way to write an encyclopaedia. I one case the article references a critic quoting the books, and then quotes the critic quoting the books... (see ref 31 Master of Middle-earth Chapter 4 p.79, Kocher quoting Frodo's speech of The Return of the King Book VI Chapter VIII p.362 - that's just a pathological example.)

Guidance is given in Wikipedia:QUOTE#Overusing_quotations - I'm specifically thinking of the case where "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose." - in other words the article needs to be "written in your own words" not constructed like a scrap book. The section relating to themes is particularly lax in this respect It really needs a proper cleanup.Imgaril (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saruman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313024703/http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/default.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glyphweb.com%2FARDA%2Fs%2Fsaruman.html to http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/default.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glyphweb.com%2FARDA%2Fs%2Fsaruman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Symbols?

Saruman in LOTR uses the symbols: the White Hand, the Letter S, and the Rainbow spectrum (Saruman of Many Colours). This shd be slotted in somewhere... Jack Upland (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)