Talk:Goldberry/Archive 1

Nature of Goldberry

I'm not entirely happy with the phrasing of the Maia theory as presented here. The comparison to Melian in particular seems awfully shaky to me; overall, we have few if any explicit examples of Maiar "binding themselves" to existing natural features in Middle-earth. I think the wiser course here is to simply present the underlying theory without trying to flesh it out on shaky ground, but if someone wants to write a more detailed analysis, be my guest. (My essay on Bombadil does a fairly thorough analysis of what we do know abou ther, but I wouldn't expect this entry to reach that level of detail.)--Steuard (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Advancing the journey

Tolkien had the hobbits meet Bombadil (and wife) and encounter trouble with trees and wraiths for a reason: probably, to tip off readers that they were not on a casual camping trip. We also learn that the Ring is not omnipotent, since there is at least one being who is utterly impervious to its effects. This foreshadows Faramir, who masterfully resists the temptation to steal the ring from Frodo. Also, the effect the barrow-wrights had on the hobbits' will - similar to the will-sapping effects of the willow - is important. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Tolkien specifically addressed Bombadil in his letters. He was somewhat apologetic and acknowledged that Bombadil was "discordant" with the rest of the work, but stated that Bombadil was one of the oldest elements in his writings (having been one of the characters created for Tolkien's children) and that he simply wished to give the character his due by actually making an appearance in the tale. He (Tolkien) wanted an "adventure" on the way to Rivendell that did not include the Black Riders, and the Willow episode and rescue by Bombadil suggested themselves as a good solution. He did not intend anything beyond that. Tolkien dismisses the idea that Bombadil is Illuvatar and suggests that he (and presumably Goldberry) might be Maiar or akin to them, etc. And that's it!

Tolkien never addressed another frequently cited Bombadil-related issue-- calling Bombadil "eldest," and the language about him being "first," etc. In other places, Treebeard is referred to as the oldest living creature in Middle-earth, and of course Sauron presumably accompanied Melkor to Arda long before any living things were there, and possibly other servants of Melkor, like the Balrog, might have done so, too. So there are several other possible nominees for "eldest" or "first" depending on how you look at it. From his tone in his "letters," Tolkien enjoyed such discussions, but took it all in stride, suggesting to fans that they keep in mind it's just a story, after all, and not to be taken too seriously as regards "contradictions" and origins. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was in a letter to one such fan on the Bombadil/Illuvatar connection that Tolkien explicitly said that while he was flattered, the reader was giving him too much credit and should not take the mechanics of the tale quite as seriously as he seemed to be.169.252.4.21 (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Vainamoinen

Restoration of article

Haleth, regarding your edit summary when you restored this article: the correct procedure was followed — see WP:MERGECLOSE. WP:NPOV says that articles should be written with a neutral point of view. It's not relevant here. Your other comments refer to deletions. This was a merge. This continues to be an article with very little content that is largely duplicated by the Tom Bombadil article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Jack Upland, your opinion that the current version of this article is lacking in content or overlaps with the Tom Bombadil article, is noted but not accepted. There are now well over 20 secondary sources cited in the article, with at least six of them specifically analyzing the character in her own right or in comparison to other female characters in Tolkien's writings with considerable depth. Per WP:GNG, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. You are correct, WP:NPOV is not relevant and I misquoted, it is in fact systemic bias. I have yet to find any misgivings from you about a lack of content on the Tom Bombadil article. Haleth (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Bombadil is a much more important character. There is a book of poems about him, and he is a main character in three chapters of LOTR. Goldberry is a very minor character, and there is not much known about her. This article is mostly speculation.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Goldberry has appeared in the vast majority of stories that Bombadil appears in. As per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST, we judge whether coverage is significant based on the current availability of sources, not in-universe significance or content in the current version of the article. Several professional writers and academics clearly think she is significant enough for them to devote time and effort into writing about her, and about the potential influences that go into her concept. Bombadil was never a main character in LOTR; if he was, we would see a lot more depictions of him, Goldberry and his other supporting cast like Old Man Willow and Barrow-wight in other media adaptations. Your claim of speculation is only supported by your subjective editorial opinion, and does not fall under the definition WP:OR or WP:CRYSTALBALL as all of the information are verifiable with reliable and independent secondary sources by writers who clearly are knowledgeable about Tolkien's works, so a standalone page is well-justified. Lumping the analyses about her, many of which are only tangentially related to or has nothing to do with her husband, in the article for Tom Bombadil would be WP:UNDUE per my interpretation of WP:PAGEDECIDE. Haleth (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, the article is sufficiently CITED and free of ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and as such is viable as a STAND-ALONE article. My view last year, with fewer sources found in what was quite an extensive search through all the usual books and journals, was that it worked best as part of Bombadil; now I'd say the judgement was quite finely-balanced. Personally I'd have left Goldberry wedded to Bombadil (or is that Hashberry and Tim Benzedrine), and added the new sources in there, as the article would not have become UNDULY long, and she remains a very minor player in the story; though (given the paucity of Women in The Lord of the Rings) she arguably needs her own voice. But I find arguments thick with ALL CAPS unprofitable in the extreme; the project is certainly better covered than before, whether she paddles her own canoe on the Withywindle or keeps house with old Tom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I think the risk is that people will say that if Goldberry has an article, then some other minor character or topic should also have an article etc. I don't think we should have an article about Goldberry just because she is female. I would say WP:PAGEDECIDE indicates that Goldberry should not have a standalone article. Goldberry appears in Tolkien's fiction as Bombadil's wife, and any reader wanting to know who Goldberry is (is there anybody out there???) also needs to know who Bombadil is.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Femaleness is nothing to do with it. The subject is notable because at least a dozen15 scholars, cited in the article, have seen fit to write about it, not to mention the people who thought it appropriate to include her in adaptations of the book. The scholars have discussed the literary origins of the character, her role and symbolism, and her nature; it's a remarkable depth of analysis for what might be considered a minor character. In short, Tolkien scholarship has found her to be surprisingly important. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
            • @Jack Upland, the longstanding community-wide consensus for notability guidelines on any given topic of a fictional nature is WP:GNG, not WP:PAGEDECIDE, and this has been established in innumerable AfD's or other discussions of a similar nature. The fact is, the current sources cited on this article prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources specifically about the character in her own right. Over the years a lot of other famous characters in popular fiction have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted or redirected because editors who participated in these discussions have determined that there is not enough significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources and therefore notability guidelines have not been met (until proven otherwise), whereas the opposite is also true for characters who are minor in importance within their own universe. Figwit is a perfect example of this, a notable character with completely frivolous origins who is arguably better known then many canon Tolkien characters due to the influence of internet culture. In response to you implying that hardly anyone is interested in reading an article about Goldberry, this article's page information states that it has had 3,209 viewers in the past 30 days. As an example, by contrast, the combined views for Old Man Willow (another Bombadil supporting character) and Húrin (a book bears his name) is just one viewer shy of the views for Goldberry last I counted. As for the article about Tom Bombadil, it is only one click away. Haleth (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. You have proved my point. You are justifying the existence of a standalone article about Goldberry by referring to the standalone article about Old Man Willow. Both these articles were merged into other articles and didn't need to be recreated. The idea that there is a high level of interest in Goldberry is a ridiculous fantasy. This discussion seems to be confusing merger with AfD, but I'm too busy to contribute further. I'm writing an article about Bombadil's hat.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

And you proved my point, that the only rationale behind your previous merging proposals (which often had very minimal participation and which you hastily closed on your accord without waiting for a neutral party to do so) and involvements within AfD's in this space is basically your subjective POV, rather then a view formed thorough investigation and research into whether each and every individual topics are objectively notable or if they pass WP:GNG per the scope of existing independent and reliable sources. If all you have to say from this point onwards involve casting aspersions or crude attempts at sarcasm, instead of constructing proper rebuttals towards our interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, then we're done here. Haleth (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you are casting aspersions at me. As I stated before, I followed the correct procedure for the merger. As far as I can see you are the only person who is opposed to the merger.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Guys, please, calm: let's focus on the subject, not each other. The merger looks to have been conducted according to the rules, but given the evidence presented in the article today, it was clearly not necessary. Had more WP:BEFORE "research" been done, and the article extended, no doubt the merger would not have gone ahead, but we are where we are. The article today is well-supported both by the scholarly and other evidence, and by its popularity, so enough has I think been said on this subject. We may reflect that since the merger has been properly undone, all's well that ends well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE relates to AfD, not mergers. That's the problem with this discussion: it's confused. The merger was not based on size. It was based on duplication. The two article are not big and could easily be merged if there was consensus to do so.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)