Ereinion Gil-galad was the son of Fingon (vide. Quenta Silmarillion - after the fall of Turgon, Ereinion Gil-Galad sone of Fingon was named High King Of The Noldor in Middle Earth.
- I'm afraid this is a question of Canon. But most Tolkienists agree that this was a mistake on the part of Christopher Tolkien, as almost all of Tolkien's later works say he is Orodreth's son. It is not his only marked mistake in the Silmarillion, though the Silmarillion is largely dependable. --Narfil Palùrfalas 09:54, 1 September 2006 (EDT)
I undid the changes made by an anonymous user showing preference to the version of the published Silmarillion. We have consciously preferred the "later" version for some time; such a pro-Silmarillion revision should not be done ad hoc, but require some discussion and agreement first, as we did with Celeborn. Sage 09:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Other than that, I tend to express a preference on the "later notes". Sage 10:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for changing it without warning, but as it was simply a rearrangement of the text, I thought it wouldn't be so important, since all the alternate versions are still referenced and everybody can choose whatever s/he prefers. I guess that most people who stumble in this article do it because they have read the Silm or LOTR, not "The Shibboleth of Fëanor", so it's really confusing placing the less-known version first. Moreover, that revised version of the story was never included in the Silmarillion, and C.Tolkien had doubts wether it was definitive or not, or if his father would have included it in the narratives after all.—Unsigned comment by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
- My preference would be: if Tolkien wrote about a certain concept in any of the works published during his life-time, we use that as the "main" version in an article (no matter if a later note contradicts the concept as originally published). When different posthumously published writings disagree about a concept, we have at least two choices: (1) to use the most well-known version (often = The Silm) or (2) the latest version (final intent). Here, I'm not sure which is best, taking into account the readers of the encyclopedia. The first choice would perhaps be more "encyclopedic", while the second would be more "Tolkienologistic". Perhaps we will have to decide from case to case, unless we want the same standard applied on each and every article.--Morgan 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. Though I admit that I have a preference for the most polished works and the main narratives over the essays or notes (late or not). This is mainly because the essays are derived from the narratives, more concerned with linguistic/philosophical matters than the legends themselves, and many times incomplete. I think it's also very difficult to discern what is a true "final intent" and what it's just a fleeting idea, specially when new ideas appear in some notes, but never again reappear in other writings.—Unsigned comment by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs).