Talk:Éowyn/Archive 1
old comments
Thanks to Uriyan for adding to this article. My daughter's nickname is Éowyn. Ed Poor 08:26 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
Where it says how Éowyn and Merry killed the Nazgul it doesnt say that merry used the blade he found in the barrow-downs that was forged to kill the whitchking. If it wasnt for that one blade Éowyn and Merry would have been killed. She did not kill him because she was a women.
Weird, I edited this page once, then come back a few hours to find no edits or records of my edits on the history page. I will redo them, but if for some reason they later disappear again or show up on the history page as duplicates, I don't want you all tho think that I have lost it just yet!Fire Star 04:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the edits were stored on the "Edit this page" page. That is nice, but for some reason I'm not refreshing what I see with the latest page...Fire Star 04:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad there's a family tree. Let's add one to Éomer's as well.
Well, my name is Éowyn, so I hope the second one is correct. By the way, what is POV? I'm a newer user of this site and don't know everything about it yet.
POV = point of view. Wikipedia aims for NPOV, or neutral point of view, so anything that sounds prejudiced for or against the subject of the article is likely to be edited.
The article can't present two points of view without clearly labelling that they are POV. Tolkien knew how his names should be pronounced and wrote a great deal in the appendices to LOTR and elsewhere. Here he talks of this very point: "The 'outer' or Mannish names of the Dwarves have been given Northern forms, but the letter-values are those described. So also in the case of the personal and place-names of Rohan (where they have not been modernized), except that here éa and éo are diphthongs, which may be represented by the ea of English bear, and the eo of Theobald..."
There are recordings of Tolkien reading from his works - does anyone have him pronouncing these names? That should be definitive. Pete 00:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The bogus connection with Celtic
The intro paragraph says:
- The actors in the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy consistently mispronounce her name and the names of Éomer and Théoden, which both are pronounced similarly.
63.21.57.135 added:
- Contrary to what others may believe, Éowyn is pronounced properly in the recent Peter Jackson adaptation of the Books by J. R. R. Tolkien.
So who is correct? I commented out the anon's addition for now because it sounded more POV. Dangerous Angel 09:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
So is that a good thing that the second post, which I added, was POV or not? Because I would say that if someone's name is Éowyn, that they should know how to pronounce it. When I tell people my name I get varying comments. Once I told someone and they said, "Don't you mean Arwen?" Good grief, I should think I could pronounce and remember my own name. But the origin is Gaelic, Éowyn is just a mutation of the original Øwyn. Tolkien probably felt he wanted to add his own touch, so they weren't either a Gaelic or a made-up people group, somewhere in between. (anonymous)
- I removed this piece of info:
- The pronunciation and spelling are Tolkien's variation of the original Gaelic "Øwyn" which is pronounced "ü-win".
- Note that adding bogus information is vandalism.--Wiglaf 16:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is saying The pronunciation and spelling are Tolkien's variation of the original Gaelic "Øwyn" which is pronounced "ü-win". Bogus? Something that is "bogus" is something that is useless, bad or fake. That comment was none of those.-Aldthain
- Dear Aldthain, there are at least two pieces of bogus information in that text. Thanks for commenting. I realize that I'll have to watch this page from now on. Note, that I consider people who provide bogus info to be the greatest problem that Wikipedia is facing.--Wiglaf 21:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That still doesn't answer my question as to how any of that information is bogus. Maybe you could provide us with a link that disproves the information, or that proves otherwise? Instead of saying that something is totally wrong, explain it, then we shall be corrected.-Aldthain
- OK, now for a lesson in verifying facts. Try to read the articles Scottish Gaelic language, Irish language, Welsh language and Celtic languages and then you read this article Ø. When you have done that you might realize that Ø has never existed in any Celtic language, and that Ø has never been pronounced ü except in imagination. Please note that if you persist in providing bogus info on Wikipedia you may be blocked.--Wiglaf 30 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)
- That still doesn't answer my question as to how any of that information is bogus. Maybe you could provide us with a link that disproves the information, or that proves otherwise? Instead of saying that something is totally wrong, explain it, then we shall be corrected.-Aldthain
- Dear Aldthain, there are at least two pieces of bogus information in that text. Thanks for commenting. I realize that I'll have to watch this page from now on. Note, that I consider people who provide bogus info to be the greatest problem that Wikipedia is facing.--Wiglaf 21:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Moreover, if you want me not to remove your additions in the future, you'd better cite sources and not ask those who identify your bogus additions to do that for you.--Wiglaf 30 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)
Sieg (censored) Heil!!!! Wiglaf has spoken! PRICK!! (oh thats POV in case anyone wonders..... anon
- An anon with an IP very similar to Aldthain's has tried to remove this comment.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
- Thanks. I guess this means that you have understood that I am serious about bogus information in Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 1 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)
I looked this stuff up and here's hwat I found: é Eng. "Hey" http://www.standingstones.com/gaelpron.html
If the letter "e" in Irish has a síneadh (SHEEN-uh) over it -- é -- pronounce it like the first part of the vowel sound in English "may". Do not add the (ee) sound; say "may" very slowly, and you will hear it. Our pronunciation guide symbol for é is (ay*), in which the asterisk tells you that the sound resembles the English "ay" but has an audible difference.
- In pronouncing é, hold the sound for a longer time than you would the English sound (ay). Compare Irish "mé féin" (may* fay*n) with English "may feign".
- Practice on these words: sé (shay*); béal (bay*l); déan; fé; clé; réim (ray*m); spéir (spay*r).
THe words listed on the site http://english.glendale.cc.ca.us/gaelic.html have the É making an "ay" sound.
http://www.contemporarypoetry.com/brain/lang/irish1.html#Pronunciation
Maybe this will help somebody.
Amber
So did it help? -Amber
---
And all of the above is utterly irrelevant to the pronunciation of Éowyn, as it is clearly stated in the Apendices to the Lord Of The Rings that the language and names used by the people of Róhan has been translated to Old English. (Of course, it could provide a theory about the origin of the name Éowyn in real life).87.222.26.6 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Intro Quote
Is it proper on Wikipedia to put a quote before the start of an article? It's poetic but does it adhere to Wikipedia standards? It struck me as weird...you wouldn't see such a thing in an encyclopedia. At least I don't believe so. Just a thought. --Doctorcherokee 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard that Éowyn was pronounced "Ay-o-whin" ??????
Removing of Wikilinks
(obsolete)
Why have the links in the links Shieldmaiden and Rohan been removed from the first sentence? I think we should reinclude them as they provide neccessary informaion. --Galadh 13:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I now have reincluded the links --Galadh 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
So did anyone ever resolve the issue of pronunciation? --illuvatar
Other uses of Eowyn
There is a singer/band named Eowyn, but I don't see it on this page --AndrewZ
Image copyright problem with Image:LOTRTT1.jpg
The image Image:LOTRTT1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Eowyn and Faramir
Passing thought - there were probably 'occasional discussions and diplomatic negotiations' between Theoden and Denethor (or the ruling councils of the two states) on the usual subjects discussed between two states at peace: a possible marriage between the King's niece and one of the Steward's sons might well have been mentioned. Eowyn would thus have been somewhat predisposed to consider Faramir as a potential suitor.
The working of the original prophecy would have to depend upon the exact use of the word 'man' which is ambiguous in English - mankind or man = male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.174.10 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- In the book it didn't really matter because it was the fact that Merry had already wounded him with a blade he got from the Barrow Downs, originally created specifically for killing the Witch King that made him vulnerable, not the gender of his attacker. Although for the sake of giving any credit to Eowyns speech I suppose the assumption is that the prophecy did mean 'man' as in male. Danikat (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Etymology of Éowyn
In the section Names and titles of this article, it is stated that Old English eoh does not mean horse, but it does. See Bosworth and Toller, where eoh is glossed as war-horse or charger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmjezhd (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Quite right--I have corrected the page accordingly. Alarichall (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Stab or swing?
Re Colin Douglas Howell's comment that
- Reword fatal blow to remove "stab", since Tolkien's wording doesn't clarify whether the blow is a stab or a swing.
Tolkein says that first a "swift stroke she dealt" that "clove asunder" the beast's neck. Then "with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle". It seems reasonably clear that the first blow was a swing and the second a thrust. But the change is okay; "stab" is what Merry's little weapon did.
—WWoods (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Methinks some folks got WAY too much time on their hands... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.217.222 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a minor point.
According to any sources on Tolkien's characters I've ever seen, including The Thain's Book (cited in the external links section of this article) Eowyn was seven years old when her father Eomund was killed, not three, as originally stated in your article. Hence the minor correction made by me. Helensguy1 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciation
How does one pronounce Eowyn? 98.223.170.154 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's in the article, see Éowyn#Names and titles. De728631 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Eowyn in the movies
The article says that in the movies "Éowyn plays a much larger role in the Battle of Pelennor Fields than in the book, where the only fighting mentioned is her conflict with the Witch-king and also Gothmog." I don't remember this being the case. Anyone? --RR (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Reporting a scholar's view
The scholarly opinion of Penny Griffin is reported and cited in the article, and summarized in the lead. This is appropriate and sufficient. I am surprised that an experienced editor should repeatedly challenge the report; it is both attributed and cited, so the opinion is not in Wikipedia's voice. The matter is certainly relevant to the article. It's hard to see what an objective observer might find wrong with that, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- The matter of the article seems straight forward in good intentions, but because of the clear bias of the writer it can make sense why someone would potentially not want the “snippet” of the article in. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- thanks, you may be right. In any case, the problem has not recurred for many months now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Having this one perspective in the lede is certainly WP:UNDUE for the lede. there's no reason why one specific view should be pulled out like this when it's covered perfectly adequately later. Additionally it's not a terribly accurate rendition of the information in the source, which also actually attributes it to Liang anyway - this article https://www.cracked.com/article_16587_hollywoods-5-saddest-attempts-at-feminism.html. And cracked.com is not RS.Pipsally (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, we certainly don't want the lead to be unbalanced in any direction, so I'll look again at its balance now. As for "covered perfectly adequately later", the function of the lead is to represent and summarize the content of the article, so I'll check it does that; of course that means covering Griffin along with everyone else. Finally, if Griffin has cited other authors, that is notable, even if the sources she cites would not in themselves be considered reliable sources here; the same is true if a film critic cites social media discussion of a film, at which point the critic's opinion and mention of the discussion is notable, although the social media discussion would be unsuitable for Wikipedia to cite directly in other contexts. This is exactly the transition from unreliable primary to reliable secondary sourcing that the encyclopedia requires. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's no need to start pulling out individual views like this in the lede to effectively summarize the article. In this case it's also talking specifically about the presentation of Eowyn as a character in the Peter Jackson movie. Pipsally (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your new version is a significant improvement.Pipsally (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, the final sentence in the lede is undue weight to the content around the film's love triangle. It is enough to leave it as the stuff about the strong character, without the love triangle fluff which is specific to one depiction of the character.Pipsally (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the far-more-romantic-in-Jackson view is held by multiple scholars, even in the selection mentioned here. I hope that's short enough for you; it's certainly well attested. Basta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well the fact that something is well attested doesn't automatically translate to particular significance, but the new version is marginally better.Pipsally (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- We've now got multiple scholars, including some of the most famous Tolkien scholars in the business making variations of the point, which, yes, is proof that it is widely considered significant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think all these "scholar's views" should have a disclaimer that Tolkien (a scholar) said nothing of the sort, unless there is a source from his letters or somewhere else. There should perhaps be a section on "Scholarly Interpretations" to separate these things from the author's intentions, and reality. I also think that the statement 'The scholar of literature Maureen Thum comments that Jackson "stresses what Tolkien implies"' is utterly false, and belongs in the article on the movies, anyway. Tolkien made it perfectly clear how Eowyn felt about Aragorn, and Jackson says less about it. Faramir tells Eowyn that he understands why she wanted Aragorn in the book. (There is also the silly episode in the movie when Eowyn brings Aragorn some bad stew that she made, and I have to say this is a sexist play on one of the world's oldest jokes: the man who marries a bad cook.) Likewise, the statement 'Originally, Tolkien intended for Éowyn to marry Aragorn. Later, however, he decided against it because Aragorn was "too old and lordly and grim"' may be true, but it is unsourced. There should be more emphasis on the books (which no one reads any more, it seems), and less on the movies. The movies have their own article, Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
- Thank you for your views. Firstly, the use of a separate analysis section is usual and we do in fact have an 'Interpretations' section here. Secondly, the comment by Thum is already in the Jackson section; she may be wrong about her comment but we are neutrally reporting, quoting, attributing, and citing her view, which is published in a high-quality source, the book on Tolkien in film by Janet Brennan Croft. I do not agree it "belongs" in another article: even if there is another suitable place for her views (which there might be), her comment is certainly relevant here as it's about Éowyn, the subject of this article. You might like to notice that immediately after Thum's opinion is a contrary opinion by another Tolkien scholar, Jane Chance, succinctly stating what seems to be your point of view also. Thirdly, the statement that Tolkien was a scholar is true but nothing to do with the question of later scholars' views of his fantasy output (or indeed, of filmmakers' interpretations of that output); the scholarly comment is already sharply distinct from the description of his output, in this case the story of Éowyn, not least by having it in a separate section already. Fourthly, your personal opinion on whether episodes in the film are "silly" is not relevant here (either on the talk page, which is not a forum, or in the article, where WP:OR is forbidden). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. My contrary viewpoint is probably not as encyclopedic as I wanted. I would like to see more information from Tolkien's many letters that contradicts these pundits/scholars. I stand by the description of the movie episode as "silly" and "sexist," though. Yes, it is my opinion and I wanted to say it, for a reason that doesn't matter: the movies suck. Wastrel Way (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Eric
- The scholars had surely read the letters before they started; and their interpretations are based on what they understand of Tolkien from all the evidence, not just what he himself claimed. There are many instances (such as claiming he never used allegory) which are demonstrably false. As for the films, they're the subject of another article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. My contrary viewpoint is probably not as encyclopedic as I wanted. I would like to see more information from Tolkien's many letters that contradicts these pundits/scholars. I stand by the description of the movie episode as "silly" and "sexist," though. Yes, it is my opinion and I wanted to say it, for a reason that doesn't matter: the movies suck. Wastrel Way (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Eric
- Thank you for your views. Firstly, the use of a separate analysis section is usual and we do in fact have an 'Interpretations' section here. Secondly, the comment by Thum is already in the Jackson section; she may be wrong about her comment but we are neutrally reporting, quoting, attributing, and citing her view, which is published in a high-quality source, the book on Tolkien in film by Janet Brennan Croft. I do not agree it "belongs" in another article: even if there is another suitable place for her views (which there might be), her comment is certainly relevant here as it's about Éowyn, the subject of this article. You might like to notice that immediately after Thum's opinion is a contrary opinion by another Tolkien scholar, Jane Chance, succinctly stating what seems to be your point of view also. Thirdly, the statement that Tolkien was a scholar is true but nothing to do with the question of later scholars' views of his fantasy output (or indeed, of filmmakers' interpretations of that output); the scholarly comment is already sharply distinct from the description of his output, in this case the story of Éowyn, not least by having it in a separate section already. Fourthly, your personal opinion on whether episodes in the film are "silly" is not relevant here (either on the talk page, which is not a forum, or in the article, where WP:OR is forbidden). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think all these "scholar's views" should have a disclaimer that Tolkien (a scholar) said nothing of the sort, unless there is a source from his letters or somewhere else. There should perhaps be a section on "Scholarly Interpretations" to separate these things from the author's intentions, and reality. I also think that the statement 'The scholar of literature Maureen Thum comments that Jackson "stresses what Tolkien implies"' is utterly false, and belongs in the article on the movies, anyway. Tolkien made it perfectly clear how Eowyn felt about Aragorn, and Jackson says less about it. Faramir tells Eowyn that he understands why she wanted Aragorn in the book. (There is also the silly episode in the movie when Eowyn brings Aragorn some bad stew that she made, and I have to say this is a sexist play on one of the world's oldest jokes: the man who marries a bad cook.) Likewise, the statement 'Originally, Tolkien intended for Éowyn to marry Aragorn. Later, however, he decided against it because Aragorn was "too old and lordly and grim"' may be true, but it is unsourced. There should be more emphasis on the books (which no one reads any more, it seems), and less on the movies. The movies have their own article, Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
- We've now got multiple scholars, including some of the most famous Tolkien scholars in the business making variations of the point, which, yes, is proof that it is widely considered significant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well the fact that something is well attested doesn't automatically translate to particular significance, but the new version is marginally better.Pipsally (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the far-more-romantic-in-Jackson view is held by multiple scholars, even in the selection mentioned here. I hope that's short enough for you; it's certainly well attested. Basta. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at it again, the final sentence in the lede is undue weight to the content around the film's love triangle. It is enough to leave it as the stuff about the strong character, without the love triangle fluff which is specific to one depiction of the character.Pipsally (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Your new version is a significant improvement.Pipsally (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's no need to start pulling out individual views like this in the lede to effectively summarize the article. In this case it's also talking specifically about the presentation of Eowyn as a character in the Peter Jackson movie. Pipsally (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, we certainly don't want the lead to be unbalanced in any direction, so I'll look again at its balance now. As for "covered perfectly adequately later", the function of the lead is to represent and summarize the content of the article, so I'll check it does that; of course that means covering Griffin along with everyone else. Finally, if Griffin has cited other authors, that is notable, even if the sources she cites would not in themselves be considered reliable sources here; the same is true if a film critic cites social media discussion of a film, at which point the critic's opinion and mention of the discussion is notable, although the social media discussion would be unsuitable for Wikipedia to cite directly in other contexts. This is exactly the transition from unreliable primary to reliable secondary sourcing that the encyclopedia requires. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)