Talk:Gandalf/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gandalf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gandalf Confirmed a Maia?

According to the "Complete Guide to Middle earth" Tolkien did not confirm that the Istari were Maia, instead he refered to them as "Valar of sorts" I just wondered why this artical so assertively assumes that, though suspected, Gandalf was a Maia and would like some conformation of this or a source. However, as it stands, there is no conformation on the fact he is a Maia. Sorry if this is wrong, this is my first time posting i felt the need to illistrate this point as the current artical is 100 percent certain that he was a Maia and does not confay that there was no confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gontak (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The clearest statement is in "Valaquenta" (in The Silmarillion), as mentioned in the article, under "Valinor". "Valaquenta" speaks of Olórin, not Gandalf, so you have to know they are the same. I've added a couple of references to make it clearer. That all the Istari were Valar (Valar in the broad sense, including the Maiar) is stated in the essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales, p. 389: "For with the consent of Eru they [the Valar] sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies as of Men ...". Elphion (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Born again or resurrected?

Born again or resurrected?I know Tolkien wasn`t writing allegory,but given he was Roman Catholic don`t you think there are conscious or unconscious similarities between him and Christ? andyc

PS.By the way RESPECT to all you Tolkien scholars.No offence intended.

Well, he was a Maia, so his fea was immortal. He was just given a new hroa. He couldn't really die in a human sense (human fea leaves Arda until the end of times). Ausir 08:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnated and enhanced. Gandalf the White was not the same as Gandalf the Grey: he had become more powerful, and more wise. He was directly reincarnated by Eru Ilúvatar, after the plan of the Valar had failed with Gandalf's death, Saruman's betrayal and the failure of Radagast and the Ithryn Luin. Had Gandalf not been brought back by Ilúvatar, he would have had to return to Valinor and there slowly recover from his hurts before he could become Olorin the Maia again. But Eru Ilúvatar seems to have elevated Gandalf almost to the status of Sauron or other great Maiar: compare the relatively simple Grey Pilgrim with the millitary commander Gandalf the White in Minas Tirith. — Jor (Talk) 15:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How do you know all this?

yeah, WP:CITE. There are connections to Christ. In Tolkien's terms, "applicability", not "allegory"; the distinction is rather fine. The role of Christ is rather distributed over several characters: Gandalf (divine emissary, death and resurrection), Frodo (passion / self-sacrifice, carrying the 'sin of the world' uphill (Mount Doom / Golgatha), assorted wounds by 'fang, tooth and blade') and Aragorn (Christ triumphant, the returned King) dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

When Eru sent him back Gandalf was 'resurrected' in the sense that his spirit returned to his original body - which was still injured. There was no new body. --CBDunkerson 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

the same happened to Jesus. He spent three days in the underworld and returned to his worn-out body after that. dab (ᛏ) 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

quote: "Had Gandalf not been brought back by Ilúvatar, he would have had to return to Valinor and there slowly recover from his hurts before he could become Olorin the Maia again." excuse me, but as for what I know that applies only to elves's feas, that after a slow recovery could be allowed to reincarnate, because they are bound to Arda until the very end of Arda itself unlike the fea of men. But for Ainur beings (Vala or Maia) corporal form are like clothes, as stated in the Silmarillion and an Aiunur could build his corporal form as desired and as made possible by their spiritual power and status. Example of Aiunr's phisica death and return that may help in understand this may be: Sauron after the destruction of Numenor was able to rebuild a physical form by itself, and the limits of not being able to make it pleasant to mortal's eyes may be linked by his raged spiritual status and not to lack of power; only the destruction of the Ring, that seriously hampered his spiritual powers, made him incapable of furter gather his powers to build a dangerous material form. Likewise, the death of Saruman and his subsequent vanishing as a grey cloud (after revealing long years of death on his corpse) his not linked by the physical wound inflicted by Wormthongue but his rather due to the spiritual death subsequent to the submission to Sauron and/or finally to the ban casted by Gandalf that definitely depleted Saruman of his residual spiritual powers symbolized by the staff. After the battle on the peak, so, Gandalf may be returned by the phisical death experience rebuilding a corporal form with his own spiritual powers (increased by the cathartic experience and by the new consciuosness of his role), or with the support of the Valar, or even with the support of Eru as you suggest. We cannot know because all those solutions are possible, maybe this was intended as a puzzle for the readers like other unsoluted things. quote: "compare the relatively simple Grey Pilgrim with the millitary commander Gandalf the White in Minas Tirith." IMHO Gandalf seem more self-conscious after the reincarnation, rather than more powerful; notably the "new" Gandalf broke the staff of Saruman and challange the King of Nazghuls but don't forget that the "old" Gandalf fought and killed the Balrog a thing probably even beyond the powers of the Nazghuls and of Saruman himself wose power was more in convincing rather than in fighting. And many of the powers of Gandalf may come from the Ring of the Fire, that he even held before the "reincarnation". Maybe the more remissive behaviour of the "old" Gandalf should be seen more likely to be respect for the role of Saruman and for the people that trusted him electing him as the White rather than lack of spiritual power.

Quote: "...notably the "new" Gandalf broke the staff of Saruman and challange the King of Nazghuls but don't forget that the "old" Gandalf fought and killed the Balrog..." Yes, "old" Gandalf killed the Balrog, this due to both he being a Maia (in power roughly equal to it) and as he says on the bridge, "...wielder of the Flame of Anor", referring to his Red Ring, Narya, which apparently granted him extra power. However--being still second in the order of the Istari, it would have been impossible for him to break Saruman's staff until he became Gandalf the White. It has even been suggested that he could not have been killed in his new form; he definitely underwent a major change and "upgrade" if you will to make up for what the other four Istari could not do, and complete the mission he was sent for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.126.231 (talk • contribs)

Der Berggeist. at auction

Der Berggeist is the painting from which Galdalf was inspired. It is for Auction at Christies of London:

http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?&lot_id=4GHDR (NOTE: registration required to access! Bill W. Smith, Jr.)

Does anyone think this should be mentioned.

The spirit that *was* called Gandalf by some folk of Middle Earth was "sent back" to Middle Earth after the destruction of his original mortal form, and was provided a new form, similar to his old one. This is probably not the same as reincarnation because the spirit that was given mortal form, the spirit of Gandalf, was never truly human and never truly mortal.

Also, as to the picture of "Gandalf" from the film. Shouldn't there be a seperate photo, one for a film section of the entry, and one for the entry of the character in the books. If we're being snazzy about it, perhaps the earliest possible drawing of Gandalf should be used for the literary Gandalf illustration.

is there a drawing by Tolkien of Gandalf? dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Artist & Illustrator images 89, 91, 100, and possibly 104. --CBDunkerson 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It says it was auctioned off for "84,000." Can someone please put in correct monitary units (dollars, pounds, euros, etc)? - JustinWick 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the Madlener painting

I suspect that the postcard Tolkien had was only in black and white (so that the orange cloak was not visible to him). Does anyone know for sure? dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Eagles at the battle of 5 armies

In the article it says that Gandalf brings the army of eagles. When I read the book I was under the impression that the eagles themselves had sensed trouble brewing, and gathered their army. Am I just confused? --Sebbyj

You are correct. --CBDunkerson 10:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bilbo going to the Undying lands

I thought Bilbo died at Rivendale? Lucifer(sc) 14:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, see the last few pages of Lord of the Rings. He goes on the 'last ship' with Frodo, Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel, et cetera. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 15:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To be technical about it they all set sail to Tol Eressea not Valinor so I'm not sure if that qualifies as the undying lands. --Darkling235 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly copyright violation?

An anonymous user at 70.181.69.136 recently added some text to this article that appears to be taken from this site. This may be a violation of the site's copyright, unless the anon is the copyright holder. I've reverted it for now, and if the anon is the copyright holder he or she can restore the text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gandalfr [sic]

I believe placing [sic] after Gandalfr in the main article is the correct convention. [Sic] is used to demonstrate that an apparent typo is in fact correct. User:Dbachmann argues in his edit summary that the html warning written in the article's source should suffice, but I think

[Sic] is the standard convention.
Passersby may see the spelling and just assume the article is flawed, hurting Wikipedia's image.
Seeing the [sic] will save some work for both editors and Wikipedia's servers as well-intentioned users (like myself) constantly click "edit this page," realize the truth, and hit "back" or some such.

This is a relatively small point; thanks for the attention to detail Dbachmann, let's just try to get the best solution. Draeco 18:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty insignificant point, but I think that "[sic]" is helpful in this case — most casual readers won't recognize the nominative form of an Old Norse name, and will assume "Gandalfr" to be a typo. They shouldn't have to click on "edit this page" to realize that it's supposed to be that way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

granted, it's a small point. Saying [sic] when quoting actual other people's typos is one thing. Saying [sic] when quoting correct Old Norse is telling your reader you think they are morons. At least I would feel treated as a moron if an author sicced me with something as trivial as an Old Norse nominative. The html comment is there because there are always, empirically, people on the internet with no clue about Old Norse who decide they have to edit Old Norse words regardless. The premise on WP should be, "only edit existing pages if you know what you are doing". If you don't know, sit back and learn. If people do click edit and see the comment, hey, they'll have learned something. dab (ᛏ) 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Sic (Latin) says:

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus" or "so", used inside brackets [sic] to indicate that an unusual (or incorrect) spelling, phrase, or other preceding quoted material is intended to be read or printed exactly as shown, and is not a transcription error.

This may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully (for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution, "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker...") or to highlight an error, often for purposes of ridicule or irony (for instance, "Dan Quayle famously miscorrected a student's spelling to 'potatoe' [sic]").

I think this would be a perfectly valid example of the "unusual spelling" or "uncommon usage ... reported faithfully". I also think that Old Norse nominatives are obscure enough that pointing them out with "[sic]" isn't an insult to the reader. I think that we should either say " Gandalfr [sic] appears in the list of Dwarves..." or spell out that it's an Old Norse name ("The Old Norse name Gandalfr appears..."). You might think that should be obvious from the mention of the Elder Edda, but it's better to be explicit than invite misunderstanding. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since we say the name is Old Norse, the 'sic' seems to indicate that Gandalfr is somehow uncommon in Old Norse which is not the case. Otherwise, we seem to say that Old Norse itself is somehow uncommon, which is rather povvy. -- Ah, sorry; that's whay you are saying. You mean it is less than obvious that "Elder Edda" implies "Old Norse". In that case, I'd certainly prefer to say "The Old Norse name Gandalfr is taken from the blah blah". I'd be happy with that. dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, good suggestion Josiah Rowe. - Draeco 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

~~Right, I'll change the page to that.~~ Never mind, Draeco's done it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of power

Here's a thought about Gandalf's use of power in The Lord of the Rings books. Whereas Sauron, also a Maia, directly puts forth all his will and might in the Second and Third Ages in his attempt to conquer Middle-earth, Gandalf uses his power as an Istari sparingly and only at great need, instead using his position of authority to rally the Men of Gondor and Rohan against Sauron.

My question is: is this discussion relevant to Wikipedia, and if so, where is the proper place for it? What does everyone think? I'm interested in input. Cheers. !mAtt ™ 18:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the mandate of the Istari in general, wasn't it? I can't remember if it was in Unfinished Tales or in Appendix B of LotR, but IIRC the Istari were positively forbidden to oppose Sauron by force, but were supposed to be organizers, advisors, and inspirers; nor were they supposed to cow men into obedience by overawing them with power, which is one reason they were sent in humble shapes. Possibly Gandalf the White had a freer hand as well as more power at his disposal, but I don't think his basic mission changed. It certainly would not be out of place to mention it here, I think, as it's basic to what Gandalf was supposed to be doing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Character development

While all that information in the Character development section is INTERESTING, I don't think it's necessarily important enough to have its own section. (I am talking about the content, not the quanity or quality). Personally, I think it could be shortened and cut a whole lot more and go under a section called 'Trivia'. —Mirlen 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. More description of Gandalf's personality is needed (see the LOTR wiki for example), rather than Tolkien's convoluted etymologies. The flow of the article has been improved by your rearrangements. - Papeschr 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). I'll look onto the LotR wiki article as I cut and reformat the whole section under Trivia later, depending on how much time I have. I will get to it, though. —Mirlen 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I might do the same if inspiration hits ~ Papeschr 08:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

um, what? the actual development of the character goes under "trivia" while the Jackson movie portrait goes to the top, and Gandalf "was a pre-eminent, ancient mage". I'm sorry, but where in any of Tolkien's writings is Gandalf referred to a "mage", or even an "ancient mage"? It seems like the article was butchered on March 18, so we'll just have to revert to before that date. Don't do that please. dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

the actual development of the character goes under "trivia"

yes, this is an Encylopedic article about Gandalf, not a fanboy's dissertation on Tolkien minutiae.

where in any of Tolkien's writings is Gandalf referred to a "mage" or even an "ancient mage"?

Who cares? A mage uses magic. You reverted (vandalised) a lot of work in your righteous fury. Why not just change the word 'mage' if you don't like it. If he's several thousand years old I'd call that ancient.

Reverting to last version by Mirlen Papeschr 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a magician uses magic. A mage, properly speaking, is a Persian religious functionary. He was, in fact, far more like an angelic power than he was either a mage or a magician. "Wizard" was carefully chosen for its association with wisdom, not magic, which Gandalf uses very sparingly anyway. And sorry, but character development is obviously relevant in an article about a fictional character. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fictional wizards or Fictional magicians?

Where does Gandalf fit in better? Category:Fictional wizards is a subset of Category:Fictional magicians, and currently is populated by male Harry Potter characters, whereas the parent category has Elric, Thulsa Doom, and Tim the Enchanter, among others... 202.81.183.37 03:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien made an intentional distinction between wizards and magicians, sorcerers, enchanters, et cetera. Gandalf was a "wizard". Specifically, that term was used because of its etymological relationship to the word 'wise'... making it a closer translation for 'Istari' than the other terms. --CBDunkerson 11:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

the image

I emphatically reject this edit whether Jackson's adaptation is "wonderful" is a matter of taste. Whether Tolkien's books are "wonderful" likewise. There can be no debate about that. However to imply that Jackson's adaptation is justified in 'monopolizing' treatment of Tolkien topics on Wikipedia just because much of these articles were originally written during the Jackson hype is quite another matter. Any image, unless drawn by JRRT himself, can of course be discussed for pertinence. Sure, we can have some Jackson stills. But in general, the images shown at the top should be selected so that a fair distribution of notable artists is acheived. In this case, this means that we should select the Howe image precisely because we have far too many Jackson images already. dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

since that is a "suggested guideline", it appears the present discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth, then. I sound a bit over-zealous above, it's not a big deal either way, it's just that the Jackson stills get on my nerves by now, but there are of course also extremely cheesy book illustrations. If at all possible, we should pick illustrations by Tolkien, or approved of by Tolkien (Baynes?); I don't know if this is possible in the case of Gandalf, beyond the Berggeist. I realize that "Jackson's Gandalf" is really directly based on "Howe's Gandalf", so that there is arguably not that much of a difference in this case. dab (ᛏ) 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Baynes drew the fellowship for the 1973 calendar, [1]; the characters are facing away from the spectator (this is obviously intentional, I suppose not to deprive the readers of the chance to imagine the faces themselves, happy times...); I agree of course that a Gandalf seen from behind would be strange in an infobox, but maybe the image can be used on Fellowship of the Ring. dab (ᛏ) 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf's staff

I erred somewhat in the edit summary to my recent revision on this subject. It was wrong of me to say there was no evidence. It's more fair to say that the preponderance of the evidence seems to support a tertium quid and neither of the alternatives that had been present. It is at least equally likely that it is more akin to a staff of office, and that he is required by "the rules" to use it whenever he is acting in his capacity as an "angelic" emissary. That he might appear to channel his power through it at times would, in this view, be a mere convenience for him. One support for this is that Saruman's power was effectively removed when Gandalf broke his staff, in a way that Gandalf's was not when his first staff broke. (He killed the Balrog without it.) Gandalf was able to take up a new staff afterward. If it were a magical tool then Saruman could simply have taken up a new one as well, but his staff was broken as an "official" act by Gandalf that deprived him of his authority to act in that way. That the movie chose to treat the staff as if it were a magical tool is neither here nor there as far as the book is concerned.

We cannot, of course, include this argument in the article without references that say essentially the same thing, but I don't know of any. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that in the movie adaptation of the Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf has his staff taken from him after battling Saruman. Yet after he escaped it somehow returns. How did that happen? Did he steal his staff back offscreen, did he create a new one or was it a simple error? It seems plausible that Gandalf could recreate his staff, but if he chose to do so why didn't Saruman?

It's a plot hole introduced from monkeying too much with the story. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Saruman simply didn't have the time to recreate his staff since he was killed moments later.

That's for the film version... I believe promotional material for the films say G. the Grey uses two staffs in FotR. In the book no mention is made of him losing his staff until the battle with the Balrog, where it broke. Of course G. the White has a new, different staff in both book and trilogy. Uthanc 04:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gandalf the Ghey?

I was just searching for the word 'ghey' to see if I could find some vandalism to fix, and noticed that the page Gandalf the Ghey exists(And redirects to Gandalf). Is there a reason for this OTHER than vandalism? (Also, could somebody explain how they would go around fixing that?) elnerdo 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

New threads on the bottom, please. Place a {{prod}} template on the page and it should get deleted soon. It's a relic of a vandal's page move of this article a while back. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspicions of Saruman

It was also at about this time that he first began to be suspicious of Saruman, especially after Saruman went into Isengard.

That statement is in the main article, but I think it is confusing, Saruman had taken over Isengard 200 years before Bilbo found the ring. I'm not sure how to phrase this or if it is agreed that we should edit it.

What does everyone else think?

Carl Sixsmith 06:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very misleading, bordering on false; I've removed the reference to Isengard. Tolkien states in one of the discussions of the Istari that Saruman's occupation of Isengard showed in the beginning a genuine desire to help shore up the defenses of Gondor and Rohan. It was only after he looked in the palantir of Orthanc that he was snared by Sauron's desire for the Ring. Elphion (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mckellenthewhite.jpg

Image:Mckellenthewhite.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) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf and Vainomoinen

While Tolkien was greatly influenced by the Finnish language and the Kalevala, it's not Gandalf that resembles Vainomoinen so much as Tom Bombadil. Vainomoinen is a bard and masters his environment by knowing the names of things and the right song to sing. He's also a lusty hero, trying to chase down a beautiful nymph-like wife (the daughter of the witch of the north)-- hence Goldberry, an animistic forest spirit that Tom takes to wife (having better luck than Vainomoinen, by the way). There are some similarities with Gandalf, but beyond a doubt the inspiration for Tom Bombadil--and perhaps Tolkien's stubborn loyalty to this 'early' character that he wouldn't give up despite acknowledging that he didn't quite fit in--was Tolkien's knowledge of and liking for Vainomoinen. If you are interested in a short recap of the influence of Finnish and the Kalevala on Tolkien, google the article I wrote in 2006 in AGENDA magazine. 169.253.4.21 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)David Allen Schlaefer

Gandalf and Jentillak

Was Tolkien aware of the application of the norse "gandr / staff" connection to the basque "jentilliak"? and is there any evidence that he applied anything of their nature to Gandalf? --Davémon (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How old is Gandalf?

I missed it when I last read the book, but in the second movie, Gandalf just claimed to have lived for 3000 generations of men. What does that put him, 90,000 years old or so? Llamabr (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He arrived in middle earth around 1000 years into the first age, he left in the year 3021, so he spent around 2020 years in in the guise of Gandalf. He was actually a Maia though, and existed before the creation of the universe as we know it. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to infobox

See discussion here. It started as a debate on whether the infobox should be removed from Saruman after a recent GA fail, but has moved on to proposed changes to the M-e character infoboxes to make them less in-universe, as required by Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fiction. All comments welcome. 4u1e (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The fawn

Does anyone know why the entry says that the fawn in the painting is "white" when it looks like a perfectly normal pale brown fawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.59.41 (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fawn seems to be lighter colored than most. If you feel that the color needs to be changed, be bold and fix it. Mario777Zelda (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gandalf etymology

Just a thought, and I can't find an adequate reference so I'm sticking the thought in here and not on the main article page, but from Old English Gandalf translates as something approaching the wandering miner. This seems to fit Thorin's character very well so I can see why JRRT chose it initially. Tolkien would seem to be more in tune with Anglo-Saxon than Norse idioms, so the reassignment story as presented smells of justification post hoc. Again, I can't find a ref so this is speculation, but someone with a more scholarly bent might be able to find something? Pyrop e 20:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The dwarf names (including Gandalf) are all attested in Old Norse, coming straight from the Elder Edda -- which Tolkien was certainly very familiar with. Since the literal meaning of Gandalf is "magic-staff-elf", transferring that one to the wizard looks like a straight-forward development, especially since that name was meant to represent a name in the same linguistic tradition as the dwarves' names, which are all Old Norse. (This was the sort of detail Tolkien was very careful about.) By contrast, neither gan- nor -dalf has the correct Anglo-Saxon form to combine as you would like them to do. Do you have any supporting evidence? Elphion (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it was just a hunch. Hence my reference to the more learned amongst us. Pyrop e 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Biography (Middle-earth)

The section begins, "In "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" (in The Silmarillion) and "The Istari" (in Unfinished Tales), Tolkien fleshes out . . ." while in fact both of those books were written after J.R.R. Tolkien's death, so I'm going to rephrase the opening of the section so as not to cause confusion.--otherl left 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

They were collected after his death, but the texts are essentially Tolkien's. Elphion (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have injected this confusion into Sauron as well. The place to discuss the authorship of Sil and UT is in the articles for those books, not scattered piecemeal throughout these other articles. The charge that CRT forged material under his father's name is pretty serious, and I would say that is what requires citation, not the reverse. CRT has always represented the texts as JRRT's (with minor emendations in Sil), and no evidence to the contrary (or serious concerns about its truth) has ever been published, to my knowledge. Elphion (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an accusation at all, it's a request for a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Sources are needed unless something is generally accepted as fact, and since the only source I can find about where Christopher Tolkien gets his information is himself, I think a better source is needed. I have not actually injected confusion; there's simply no clear evidence either way. The assertion that the elder Tolkien wrote all the works published in his name after his death is unverifiable no matter how many times Christopher Tolkien (a primary source) says otherwise. Nothing wrong with asking for Wikipedia-worthy sources on Wikipedia, is there?--otherl left 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is, in effect, an accusation: you're saying that you don't trust the evidence of the publisher of the book itself. You might as well ask for citation that Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, or that Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness. WP:V includes "books published by respected publishing houses" as "usually reliable". WP:RS states that the notion of what's reliable depends on context, and that primary sources are often reliable. So CRT's testimony in Sil, UT, and HoME is certainly a priori a candidate for being a reliable source.

How do you evaluate the reliability? By looking for reliable evidence that it is not reliable. And in this case there is none -- zilch. No scholarly account I have ever seen casts any doubt on CRT's essential veracity; and his care with his father's text shines through the later books and their critical machinery. None of the ideas in Sil comes from anywhere other than some version of Tolkien's own writing (though in a very few cases CRT indicates in retrospect that he focused on the wrong version). Aside from connective text and occasional alteration of words like "thou" to "you", the text is presented as Tolkien's -- and no reliable source has suggested otherwise.

There are several accounts (in Shippey, Carpenter, or Hammond & Scull, e.g.) that give more or less the same information. They depend on CRT's account, and serve mainly to indicate that someone believes him. But you already have that in the fact that Houghton Mifflen, etc., published the book in the first place.

Elphion (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tolkien's papers, the ones CRT worked from, are held by a university archive in the SS, Marquette University IIRC, and are available to scholars, if anyone seriously questioned the statements that JRRT was the author of the essays and works collected and published by CRT after JRRT's death, the papers could be examined and the handwriting verified or other tests applied. Despite this being a fertile field of study, no one, to my knowledge, has elt there to be a reason to do so. The claim is thus verifiable, even if not currently verified, and the consensus of multiple published experts in the field to treat all such works as by JRRT constitutes reliable sourcing IMO. Note that there has been published discussion of exactly what edits CRT made to the Silmarillion before it was published, and for this at least Guy Gavrial Kay, who assisted CRT, is an available confirming source. The scholarly consensus seems to be that in UT and the MoME works where CRT indicated exactly what manuscripts of his father's he found, and what they contained, he is to be considered an accurate source. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Information on possible Gothic sources of the name

I've removed the following passage until it can be properly explained and suitably referenced (not to mention formatted and punctuated). In its current form it adds nothing of value to the article, as the ordinary reader will not understand what it is trying to say.

Gandalf's name is in accordance with old gothic names as the Ostrogoth Castel Gandolfo "Gandùlfr" and "Gandstav"(Gothstaff),the magic staff of the wandering Gauti,and to the original ring that inspired them all to Tolkien,his Draupnir. <ref> Caroline Brady,"Legends of Ermanric in Widsith,The synonyms of Sea in Beowulf" Berkeley,U.of California Press,1957.</ref>

Elphion (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gandalf and Utopia

This content was recently added without a source. If someone can source it, so that it becomes more than speculation, it could be used in the page:

It is interesting to note that "Mithras" was the name attributed to the supreme being which was common to all the many religions practiced in the fictional society of Sir Thomas More's Utopia. Whether or not Utopia influenced Tolkien in the Sindarin naming of his most famous wizard is unknown.

Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add that it's not worth including unless the source shows that Tolkien was influenced by this. Random similarity of words is not influence. -- Elphion (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's totally farfetched, as a) Mithras is not the same as Mithrandir, b) Utopia is hardly the most notable occurence of the name Mithras at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Gandalf'

On April 9 I added an IPA pronunciation guide to this article representing how I believe 'Gandalf' should be pronounced based on the section on the pronunciation of vowels in Appendix E: 'a' should be pronounced as in 'father.' I am aware that the movies pronounced 'Gandalf' slightly differently, with the first 'a' being pronounced as in 'castle,' and on April 28 somebody changed the IPA pronunciation guide to reflect how the movies pronounced 'Gandalf.' I believe that the article should adhere to the pronunciation from the books over the pronunciation from the movies, so I am being bold and changing it back. However, if a consensus is reached to use the movie's pronunciation, that pronunciation can be used. Caleb Jon^talk 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The pronunciation of vowels in Appendix E applies to Sindarin and Quenya, it probably has no bearing on other languages. Listening to the recordings of Tolkien he pronounces rhyming with 'pan'. Thu (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is a good point. I have never listened to a recording of Tolkien, but if he pronounces it that way then that is the way it should be. (Are there any recordings of him online?) I just went back and re-read the beginning of Appendix E, and I still believe it describes Common Speech (which is more obvious if you start reading from the very beginning of Appendix E), at least in the first paragraph of the section on the pronunciation of vowels in names. But only the first paragraph applies to Common, with the rest of the section describing Sindarin and Quenya (as you rightly pointed out). Caleb Jon^talk 06:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The recordings are still in copyright, but you'll probably find them on BitTorrent. My copies are on vinyl. Thu (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Str1977 has reverted the common pronunciation of Gandalf, saying "the pronunciation of Tolkienesque names is clearly defined, any other pronunciation is simply a mistake." As the discussion above indicates, the pronunciation of non-Elvish names is not quite so clearly defined, and everybody (including Tolkien) uses the short broad /æ/ in the first syllable of "Gandalf" (not to mention a voiceless /f/ at the end, also deviating from App E). You may think of it as a "mistake", but there's no point in ignoring the universal pronunciation. Moreover, I would like to see a clear reference that App E applies to northern Mannish names -- i.e., not Elvish, not Common Speech. Otherwise I think the pronunciation currently given should be removed. -- Elphion (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum -- The Note at the end of Part I of App E does say that the same general rules are intended for names from non-Eldarin languages. But this again is not clear: the rules obviously do not apply to names transformed into English, as Gandalf arguably is. (It has certainly lost some of the original Old Norse spelling.) -- Elphion (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gandalf is a fictional character invented by Tolkien. The nature of Tolkien's work has it, that everything has a clear name and every name a clear pronunciation. To say "Gændalf" is just as wrong as to call another character "Seleborn". There is no room for interpretation in this. What counts is the way Tolkien thought this up. Recordings of anyone are irrelevant.

However, if non-Elvish names are not that clearly defined, then we have no basis for adding a pronunciation at all nor do we have a reason. We do not give a pronunciation of the name "Edward", do we?

Either way (and most importantly), there is no reason to clutter up the first line with a list of "alternative" pronunciations. If we state one, I don't mind putting the others into a footnote, with a clear designation that they do not conform to Tolkien's pronunciation rules. If we can't do that, we should do without the whole thing.

Add. What's the basis for exempting the name Gandalf from non-Eldarin names? I don't see how it is a Westron-turned-English name e.g. like Samwise Gamgee.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Str1977 that there is only one correct pronunciation of Gandalf, and that pronunciation should be the only one that appears in the article. If another pronunciation does appear, it should come with a note explaining that it is incorrect and is not the original, intended pronunciation. We are currently discussing which pronunciation was the one that Tolkien intended. Currently the evidence is heavily leaning toward /ɡændɑːlf/, as Thu has said that he has a recording of Tolkien using that pronunciation, and if Tolkien used it, it must be correct. In every language there are exceptions to the standard rules, and Gandalf may be one of them. (I believe that going by the guide in appendix E it should be /ɡɑːndɑːlv/, thank you Elphion for point out the f-to-v rule, but the rules are meaningless if exceptions occur, as could be the case here.) But before we change the article could either Thu go listen to your recording one more time to verify exactly how he says it, or someone else with access to a recording do that? Caleb Jon^talk 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that there are three pronunciations here: the one Tolkien used, the one he intended, and the one everyone else uses. Pronunciations are how things are pronounced. We are not prescriptive at WP, but descriptive: if people say "Gændawlf", then the (or a) correct pronunciation is "Gændawlf". If we have recordings of Tolkien saying something different, then we should list both, perhaps in a footnote to avoid clutter in the lede. As far as App. E, that's WP:OR, esp. if Tolkien himself disagrees! I can understand using App. E when we have nothing else to go on, but not when we have recordings, and not to trump pronunciations which have entered common usage, and acquired the legitimacy of having entered common usage. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The proper pronunciation is the one Tolkien intendend, not the one he or anyone else used. Recordings, even of Tolkien himself, are irrelevant. What counts is the rules given by Tolkien for non-Elvish names. And "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" is not an issue, as the creator of the character and languages is the who one defines the pronunciation, not some idiots on the street. "If Tolkien himself disagrees" would only be valid if he set up other rules for G. or stated that he disagreed. A mere sloppy recording is not enough. If we can't make out the proper pronunciation, then everything is OR and we should give nothing at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call to remove the pronunciation guide while we sort this out! And I fully agree that if we have a pronunciation we should have only the one that Tolkien intended, but the question is what he intended (too bad he is dead so we cannot ask him): The rules do give one way of saying the name, but Tolkien himself said something different (according to a recording that Thu has). That means that either the rules are wrong, Tolkien was wrong, or the correct pronunciation of Gandalf contains an exception to some of the rules. The rules being wrong is extremely unlikely considering the amount of effort Tolkien took to create them, meaning that either Tolkien pronounced the name wrong in that recording, or Gandalf is an exception to some of those rules. I see either of those as being possible but the latter is slightly more likely at this point, but it would be nice if someone with a different recording to check to see if Tolkien consistently used that pronunciation. Caleb Jon^talk 07:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We are no more here to promote "correct" pronunciations than "correct" religion or "correct" politics. We are not prescriptive, but descriptive. If a pronunciation is used, as in the movies, then as far as we are concerned, it's "correct". If Tolkien used it, that's also "correct". We can also mention where each is found. Our interpretation of the rules is OR, and can always be deleted, though it will often be accepted if there's nothing better. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

When Tolkien wrote the books he meant for Gandalf to be pronounced a certain way. If we include a pronunciation guide we should include the way that he meant for Gandalf to be pronounced (which presumably is also the way that he pronounced it himself). I do not believe that transcribing something into IPA constitutes original research, so as long as we source where we got the pronunciation from it should be fine (I think). Now that I have thought about it, I see no problem with including the pronunciation from the movies (assuming that it is different from what Tolkien intended, which I am no longer entirely convinced of due to the aforementioned recording), as long as it is noted as "but also pronounced xyz in the movies" or something like that. Caleb Jon^talk 12:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gandalf" is an Old Norse name which in Tolkien's scenario "replaces" the actual name in the language of Dale, just like Old English replaces the actual language of the Rohirrim. Its pronunciation is thus exactly as prescribed by Old Norse phonology. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to explain this.[2] There is a significant difference between the Gandalf of The Hobbit (1937) and the Gandalf of The Lord of the Rings as he emerged in the writing process of 1942. In The Hobbit, Gandalf is Gandalf, more or less a plot device to get Bilbo on the road. From 1942, Gandalf was just the translation of the (unidentified) Dalish-Westron translation of the Khuzdul name Tharkun given to Olorin, an "angel incarnate". --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to remember that this is an out of universe article. Regardless of what Tolkien intended, if the name is commonly enough used to have a normal pronunciation in the real world - and it is - then the article needs to recognise it. Van Gogh and Caesar's names are invariably incorrectly pronounced, but I don't expect an article to give only the correct (but almost unrecognisable) Dutch and Latin pronunciations. If common use conflicts with Tolkien's general guidance on pronunciation, then that is of interest and could be noted, but only if it is unambiguous that the rules apply to the name Gandalf. My (OR) suspicion is that dab and others are correct in saying that since 'Gandalf' is not a name in Westron or any other of the languages of Middle Earth, but only a substitute for the 'translation' into English, the pronunciation rules don't apply. 4u1e (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So to sum it up, we don't really know how the name is supposed to be pronounced in-universe but there is this reference from Encyclopedia of Arda that makes it ga'ndalf, with two ah sounds instead of æ (cf. Galadriel) and a hard f at the end. We might also want to ask User:Michael Martinez who's got quite a reputation when it comes to Tolkien. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In line with this discussion, I am removing the "correct pronunciation" paragraph from "Concept and creation". -- Elphion (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about Section: The Quest of Erebor

In the first paragraph of The Quest of Erebor, Thorin Oakenshield is named and linked, and his name is linked a second time towards the end of the paragraph, however the second link redirects to the disambiguation page for Thorin. Should the second link to the name in the paragraph be removed entirely as redundant? Evening Scribe (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- Elphion (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Done and done! Evening Scribe (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

Someone keeps adding the following information into this article

According to the legend of the Spirit of Mountains he had Krkonoše all in it dominion.

This has nothing to do with Gandalf, has nothing to do with the link between Gandalf and the picture. Please stop introducing these irrelevancies. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronounce

I've changed the phonetic transcription of the name. Tolkien says, in his phonetic guides, that final "f" sounds "v". Also, despite of regionalisms, "a" should be pronounced as in "father", not as in "man". The letter "n" in the first silable ("Gan") also indicates that the "a" is a long vowel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.69.189 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine for the Quenya or whatever pronunciation, if you want to add it, but not for the English. People don't pronounce it that way, apparently not even Tolkien himself. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's put both forms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.17.202.6 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, we've had that before. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the 2nd pronunciation. First, it's not "g-an-dalf" with three syllables, but just two: gan-dalf. Second, there is dispute whether the f is pronounced /f/ or /v/. (The websites I've seen that address this claim that the elvish rules do not apply to this name.) Third, I haven't seen any citation that the vowels are long (unless it was supposed to be the English pronunciation, in which case it would be okay). I think we need to settle those things before restoring it. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Names and Titles

Whilst this section does need some expansion, it is included in the Middle-earth project guidelines for characters so I have restored it for now. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't just blindly follow guidelines. Look, they're mostly trivial and have absolutely no notability real-world wise (IMO). Truth be told, I've always found WP:MIDDLEEARTH a bit dated, as far as Wikipedia standards go. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For the major characters, there is usually something out of universe to be said about the process Tolkien went through in coming up with the names and what they meant to him and about the character. Iirc one of the things he found frustrating in other people's writing was the tendency to give absolutely random, meaningless names to things ("I am F'ark from the Planet Oodleflop...."). I agree that the section as currently written is inappropriately in-universe, but there are some elements there that could be expanded upon (the use of Stormcrow by some of the other characters, perhaps). I'm pretty sure that I remember a source to the effect that Tolkien saw the name Gandalf in the list of dwarves in Voluspa and (in typical fashion) thought he'd better find out what a staff-elf was doing in such a list! Refs required, obviously. 4u1e (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If we do that, I think it might be nice to make into a paragraph or so under "Concept and creation". As it is, however, they're fine just being in the Infobox. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why something is trivia in the article but not in the info box? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, in that case, we should remove it from the infobox, not keep it. Generally, in the infobox you can use information that is more trivial (however, not completely utterly trivial like hair or eye colour, of course), however devoting an entire section to it in the article generally requires stuff that isn't trivial at all. If you can perhaps make into a paragraph (in prose) and fit it somewhere else, maybe, but it doesn't deserve its own section, if it deserves a place in the article at all. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether it deserves its own section depends entirely on how much there is to say, what there is to say and how it relates the rest of what is in the article. Which needs one of us to go away and do the work. I'm not especially impressed with the current name section for this article, but rather than remove it from one article, Carl is correct to suggest that it should be discussed at the project. My personal suggestion would be that we list names in the infobox (because it may be useful if researching the character - some of them do appear under different names in different books), and that a 'Names and Titles' section may be appropriate where there is significant out of universe content and it does not fit easily into more important sections like Concept and creation or the plot summary. 4u1e (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the project's talk page. It's probably for the best we move discussion over to there now. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it seems that there's moreorless a consensus for not having them. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, you do realise that once the Hobbit films are released, thousands of drive-by editors will descend on Wikipedia and recreate all the trivial stuff that's been weeded out over the last few years, don't you? ;) 4u1e (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

At which moment, I will have no choice but to cry... <:( Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We're going to have to fight the newbs who insist on having pictures from the films in the info boxes. One of the main reasons I stay away from the Harry Potter articles. :-( Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with having film images in the infobox if there's no other alternative. Though a drawing by Tolkien would be preferable, for fairly obvious reasons. That's just my opinion, though. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lathspell/Láthspell

In the book, Grima Wormtongue said "Lathspell", but in the movie Grima said "Láthspell" (in the subtitles in the Two Towers). Is there any possible errors in the book or the movie?

By 24.24.187.165 (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the books to hand, but if as you say there is a difference in the film version the the novels take precedent: being the originating source. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Later editions of the books (e.g., the 50th Anniversary edition) have Láthspell, a late correction. -- Elphion (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mithrandir?

Is anyone aware of any connection between the name 'Mithrandir' and Old Norse? As I understand it, 'randir' (or 'strandir') in Old Norse means 'shore' or 'beaches'. See Náströnd (plural Nástrandir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.250.50 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mithrandir is Sindarin which is rather based on Welsh. And the Norse word you are thinking of would be strandir with an "st" (cf. modern German or Scandinavian Strand (beach)). Mithrandir is composed of Sindarin mith (grey) and randir (wanderer). So there's no connection at all. Anything else would be original research. De728631 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the infobox have an image?

I noticed recently that none of the articles about LOTR characters have images or illustrations of those characters in the infobox at the top of the article. Most other articles about literary characters have that. The infobox at the top of the Sherlock Holmes and James Bond articles both have illustrations of those characters, and the infobox in the Albus Dumbledore article has an image of him as he appears in the Harry Potter movies. Is there a reason there aren't images like this for Lord of the Rings characters? I would try changing it myself, but I noticed that all of the articles on LOTR characters don't have images, so I figured I should ask if there's a reason it's this way. Zeromus1 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The general consensus is that they should not have infobox images, especially not images from Peter Jackson's adaptations. If you're interested you'll get more traction at WP:me GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

McKellen's Gandalf impersonates Tolkien

(cross-posted at Talk:Ian McKellen)

We say here that McKellen "based his accent on Tolkien.[citation needed]"

I doubt that accent is the right word. At best, its common meaning is too narrow. Probably impersonate is too strong outside the quoted context.

Anyway, this quotation is from today's interview with Peter Jackson published at Huffington Post (emphasis mine).

... [When] Ian came on board for the first time, we were having conversations about Gandalf and the voice and the mannerisms and everything that you talk about with an actor at the beginning. We listened to audio recordings of Tolkien reading excerpts from "Lord of the Rings." We watched some BBC interviews with him -- there's a few interviews with Tolkien -- and Ian based his performance on an impersonation of Tolkien. He's literally basing Gandalf on Tolkien. He sounds the same, he uses the speech patterns and his mannerisms are born out of the same roughness from the footage of Tolkien. So, Tolkien would recognize himself in Ian's performance.

Good luck with it. --P64 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Gray/White

What is the significance in the change of colour that Gandalf underwent? Ankh.Morpork 14:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It can be read in at least two ways: Gandalf becomes "the White", replacing Saruman as head of the order; but more metaphorically, he is transformed and purified by his death and resurrection. -- Elphion (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What belies the traditional symbolism of white representing chastity and the forces of good, is that Saruman is presented as a white wizard despite his malevolent role. The Galadriel article also offers a hierarchical explanation stating that it "signall[ed] his new status as head of the Istari"; however, I am still uncertain how Saruman's continued white status conforms with this. Ankh.Morpork 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But Tolkien portrays Saruman as changing over time, and eventually leaving white behind as too plain and simple for him -- voluntarily becoming "Saruman of many colors". Gandalf says he "liked white better", and when he becomes white says that he has become "as Saruman should have been". As for good vs evil, Tolkien is quite obvious (and explicit) about setting "the White Rider" in opposition to the Black Riders. -- Elphion (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge significance as to the colour change. As others have said, when Gandalf becomes "The White", he is essentially taking over Saruman's role (who was previously "The White"). ★Thorentis★ 09:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)