Talk:Gawain

July 2005

68.50.147.190 has an clear pro-Gawain, anti-Lancelot bias, as seen in his edits here and on the Lancelot. This is awesome, considering they are fictional characters, but his edits are little POV. I kept some of them but reverted the rest.--Cuchullain 00:48, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good many of the articles around here are too opinion based (look at the Disney page guy thought he was being funny or something). Any ways its nice that someone is cleaning it all up.

Leon Evelake 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gawain's strength

The article says this of Gawain: "His strength waxes and wanes with the sun; his might triples by noon, but fades as the sun sets." I changed it to "In some works, his strength waxes and wanes with the sun; in the most common form of this motif, his might triples by noon, but fades as the sun sets."

What the article originally said is true--often. But not always. First, the question of his changing strength is not even mentioned in a great many texts that feature him. Moreover, there are conflicting versions of this motif; the French Vulgate Cycle offers several versions: in some his strength increases until noon and wanes thereafter (as indicated in the article), but in other places it is the opposite: weaker until noon and stronger thereafter. Thus, “his strength always ebbed at the hour of noon, and as soon as noon had passed, it came back doubled, and he regained courage and confidence and strength.” And in one case it increases until just noon, when it suddenly reverts to the original state and remains that way for the rest of the day.

Of course, not all such variants need to be spelled out in the article; I could be picking nits. So my changes are minor: just a few words added in the interest of accuracy.Njl2 16:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are minor, but they make the sentence more correct. Clearly not all works include the strength thing, and some include some variation on the idea of his strength being tied to the sun. Good catch.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat amusingly, in T. H. White's "The Once and Furutre King, Bors theorizes that Gawaine's nane "up north" would be pronounced "Cúchullain." Thought you might want to know that.... 70.114.146.227 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Eric

Thanks, 70.114.146.227 - that's definitely one of the great modern portrayals of Gawaine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gwalchmai of Gododdin

There was a historical Gwalchmai son of Lot, both of which were kings of Lothian, then called Gododdin. Check this site. ---G.T.N. (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Origins / Celtic Origins

I think this entire segment needs to be re-written, as first it implies The Welsh are not Celtic then implies Celtic = Irish. Celtic encompasses a lot more than just Ireland. The segment then proceeds to give examples of Celtic influence to show why it could be of Irish origins but the majority of examples given are common amongst all Celtic myth, not just Irish myth. Irish = Celtic but Celtic <> Irish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaginon (talk • contribs) 13:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Volcumagios

Noted Celticist John Koch has suggested the name could be derived from a Brythonic original *Wolcos Magesos, "Wolf/Errant Warrior of the Plain" but consider the possibility of the name being derived from *Volcumagios, the 'great one of the wolves,' 'the great one of the errant warriors' which, had it have existed, would likewise have rendered the form Gwalchmai in Middle Welsh by the regular phonological developments in Celtic.

A second element *-magios would have produce early Old Welsh *-mai (later -vai), Middle/Modern Welsh *-fae (compare MnW cae "hedge" from *cagios. See Peter Schrijver, Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology, Rodopi, 1995) .Cagwinn (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Historia Regum Britanniae

Cagwinn is quite right, Lancelot is not mentioned in the Historia. In a sentence about what the Historia says about Gawain, it is irrelevant that other, different sources mention Lancelot. Let's let this be the end of it.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I was beginning to lose all faith in Wikipedia! Lancelot first appeared in the works of Chretien de Troyes, which were written several decades after Geoffrey's Historia Regum Britanniae (written c. 1136); he is first found in Chretien's tale Erec et Enide, written c. 1170. Cagwinn (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase specified is specifically summarising Historia, it doesn't have to mention how other sources describe Gawain's fdeath and the way it was written it misrepresented the text of Historia. Other stories about his death can be summarised in the parts treating those sources specifically. Also I am a little worried that some editors may not appreciate that Gawain is a legendary figure and there is no way to ascribe greater or weaker truth to any of the sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have already told User:Cagwinn how there are many theories to how Gawain died and the user just deleted a theory and believe it is the actual own theory. There is nothing "idiotic"(as User:Cagwinn talks about being idiotic) how Gawain died and it is a reliable source from Howard Pyle's translation from Geoffrey Chaucer, and there should not be any edit warring.--GoShow (...............) 18:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Howard Pyle adapted and illustrated Arthurian legends for young readers—a fine and wonderful pursuit, but not a scholarly source. You need to be using secondary sources that interpret the evidence for you. Please review WP:PRIMARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, this IS idiotic! The passage in question is discussing Gawain in the Historia Regum Britanniae - not other, later texts! Some foolish people keep trying to insert Lancelot's name here, when the character of Lancelot does not appear in Arthurian literature until decades later! Cagwinn (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from using the otherwise apt description of the inserted sentence and simply notice that Cagwinn is right. The sentence is about Historia Regnum Brittaniae, and the way the sentence was written it made it look as if there was disagreement about what this text particular says, which to my knowledge there isn't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase appears to have no apparent source and looks like WP:OR. "although, some sources claim ...", seems like a WP:WEASEL to justify inserting a fringe viewpoint. GoShow, editors are expected to reach consensus on the talk page when inserting new content and not edit war for its inclusion, see WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content point, Cagwinn is of course right, and GoShow wrong. However, when I saw GoShow's post at the RS noticeboard and dropped a friendly reminder that he review the relevant guidelines, Cagwinn deleted my comment, which WP:TPO explicitly advises against. That and the incivility in edit summaries[1][2] aren't helpful in a collaborative environment—though again I would emphasize that Cagwinn is entirely right on the content point, and GoShow doesn't show a command of RS for this topic and needs to stop editing until he does. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

True, however, there are different points to his death before the regnum, some might say he vanished with Arthur to Avalon, but, it is not to assume other edits as idiotic, until then Cagwinn should not step into some users who believ it was from earlier sources, let us say we let this one go, however if you do let this one go,there is a source showing it was from Lancelot, however in any case all users must respect sources from earlier documents, or there is not anything "idiotic" as some user's naive opininated fact maybe. Thank you, Cynwolfe--GoShow (...............) 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Um … surely you don't want to thank me. I think Cagwinn is right. And you, GoShow, are the one who's edit warring, because you keep restoring the same thing without proper sourcing. In my view, Cagwinn is in compliance with the guideline that Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. Your edits fail the "overriding policy" of verification. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to edit war, it was trying to adjust the sources, I kept the user's bargain, but was not in any circumstance edit warring, as you may have seen trying to quotation mark the book. If Cagwinn wasn't in a furious mood, the user may have tried to address the user about the sources and come to a conclusion, without tolerable acts on edit warring, as I came to address enough is enough. --GoShow (...............) 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

GoShow, you need to stop. Multiple users have explained why that edit is problematic. What other works say is irrelevant to a passage on the Historia.Cúchullain ^t/c

Excuse me, I have the right to speak on this talk page, you dare not tell me to stop, every user has the right to voice their opinion and express their facts. It's even more more problematic how Cagwinn didn't delete the rest of Howard Pyle's sources in the article, it was offically, used by an administrator, thus it was used for WP:IRS, and WP:Notability, otherwise both Cagwinn's and Howard Pyle's source translated from Geoffrey Chaucer would be both WP:BOLLOCKS, since both are fictional, thus it is a fictional, character, read more on the Matter of Britain, don't ever tell me to stop, because I was in the middle of just making a suggestion and pointing out the problematic situations, you haven't even edited on.--GoShow (...............) 04:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk about overreactions! Can't you chill out? I mean, if you are having to resort to complaining to several users about perfectly reasonable edits to the Gawain article, are posting a screed on Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard, are posting on Wales' talk page to ask people how Gawain died, and are referencing Geoffrey Chaucer, you probablt shouldn't be editing any Arthurian articles until you have conducted a little more research on the subject. Just saying. Cagwinn (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have restored Cynwolfe's comment which Cagwinn evidently removed accidentally. It's abundantly clear that inserting material that doesn't occur in HRM into a passage about the HRM is not workable. This whole discussion brings up a good point, that Pyle appears to be seriously misused here. I wrote the majority of this article long ago, back when footnotes were still optional on Wikipedia, and didn't include them; in the meantime GoShow has inserted citations to Pyle's book in various places where they don't verify what is said in the text. They all need to be removed and replaced with superior sources.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have enormous respect for Cagwinn, and I often chafe against the courtly etiquette required on talk pages, having once seen an exceptionally erudite editor blocked for pointing out the need for another to seek remedial education, which I myself regarded as a mere statement of fact. Nor am I unaware that I can be tiresome, but I didn't quite think I'd reached the level of deserving expungement. On some occasions, regrettably rare, new editors have benefitted from having policies pointed out to them, because they really didn't know what was required. Such editors, however, are usually quick to see where they've gone wrong. (About footnotes: I see this often in some fairly fundamental articles within the scope of Classical Greece & Rome, because they were written so early in the history of Wikipedia. The omission can allow POV editors or habitual deletionists to remove vast swathes of content that anyone who actually knows the subject would regard as "common knowledge" even in the restricted WP sense. So you have my sympathies.) Cynwolfe (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I too have a huge respect for Cagwinn and understand the frustration, but this never should have gotten to the point of inadvertently antagonizing a good editor who agrees with him. At this point I hope all this energy can be channeled into improving the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I shared the user's bargain, thus, there is alot of (fake)sense of deleting a source which was one is still already in the article since June, while deleting one source, than the other(which was the same source) source comes from the same author from Howard Pyle's version. However, in any case the sources from Howard Pyle comes into a translation from Geoffrey's sources, not overreaction, once again, just stating facts, about equality, not just whose information is more accurate than, later traditions, for a false warrior, any WP:IRS is, of course, common knowledge, such as Geoffrey's, thus, if the user was intelligent enough to know there are a few sources from Howard Pyle's book in this article, in any case the user did not delete, it is no wonder why Wikipedia, sometimes is not successful in it's publishing, just because of someone believe someone else's other sources, are "idiotic" (from Cagwinn), and deleting the one source, although, forgetting to delete the other same WP:IRS sources at the bottom of some paragraphs. Just a note --GoShow (...............) 03:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I literally can't understand a word of that. If what you're getting at is that the other citations to Pyle's book should also be removed, I've now done so, as they don't verify any of the material they're attached to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Cúchullain stop baggering other users, GoShow is correct some of you user don't have the time to respect other user's sources, and thus this website is a failure for it's purposes.--74.34.83.111 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim you're not GoShow? Please understand Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppet accounts, which prohibit using such accounts to create an illusion of support.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at their respective contributions pages - they are editing some of the same articles - clearly we have a sockpuppet! Cagwinn (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We both live near the same district, but thirty miles apart, so stop think it is whatever you call it sockpuppetry!--Mr.AwesomeMrAwesomeMrAwesome (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to think you have the last talk I do live in the midwest but I do not know who Goshow is, but I do know you are making a fool of yourself by edit warring comments on this talk page, from your contributions, you have always deleted reliable sources from other users. I am relatively new here, but different IP address, but I am interested in mythology.--Mr.AwesomeMrAwesomeMrAwesome (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Gawain and Robin Hood influence

Could their be some kind of similarity between the two, I know Geoffrey took some of the ideas of Arthur and Knights of the Round Table used ideas from the Magna Carta to use as a basis for a better society for England, some of the writings in the Magna Carta:

"....Custos autem, quamdiu custodiam terre habuerit, sustentet domos, parcos, vivaria, stagna, molendina, et cetera ad terram illam pertinencia, de exitibus terre ejusdem; et reddat heredi cum ad plenam etatem pervenerit, terram suam totam instauratam de carucis et waynagiis, secundum quod tempus waynagii exiget et exitus terre racionabiliter poterunt sustinere.

Heredes maritentur absque disparagacione, ita tamen quod, antequam contrahatur matrimonium, ostendatur propinquis de consanguinitate ipsius heredis.

Vidua post mortem mariti sui statim et sine difficultate habeat maritagium et hereditatem suam, nec aliquid det pro dote sua, vel pro maritagio suo, vel hereditate sua, quam hereditatem maritus suus et ipsa tenuerint die obitus ipsius mariti, et maneat in domo mariti sul per quadraginta dies post mortem ipsius, infra quos assignetur ei dos sua.

Nulla vidua distringatur ad se maritandum, dum voluerit vivere sine marito, ita tamen quod securitatem faciat quod se non maritabit sine assensu nostro, si de nobis tenuerit, vel sine assensu domini sui de quo tenuerit, si de alio tenuerit. "

In English:

"....caught from the land of an heir who is under age, shall not take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction and waste of men or of things, and if we have committed the wardship of any such land to a sheriff, or to any other who is is responsible to us for its revenues, and he has done of prison, or the destruction of waste, we take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we have assigned them, and if we give or sell to anyone the the wardship of any such land, and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be answerable to us in like manner as is aforesaid.

But he that keepeth, so long as the custody of land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, preserves, ponds, mills, and other things that belong to that land, from the revenues of the same land, and restore to the heir to the full when he comes of age, to have been rebuilt to their own land with plows and the whole of husbandry, according to the that the season of husbandry requires and the revenues of the land can reasonably bear.

Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage is contracted those nearest in blood to the heir.

Widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; pay nothing for her dower, or her marriage portion, or of his inheritance, the inheritance which her husband and the same is held on the day of the death of her husband, and let him abide in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to.

No widow shall be forced to marry, long as she wishes to live without a husband, in such a way, however, must give security that she will not marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the owner of which has kept it, if she holds of another."

It kind of reminds me of the characteristics of Gawain for use of a true hero and a need of good quality and peace in the land. Robin Hood has many characteristics with Gawain as well, defender of the poor, and rightful Baron of his lands which were stripped from his own title, after coming through the crusades, and both gained allies in order to subdue tyrants, sounds familiar.--74.34.86.196 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey of Monmouth released the Historia Regum Britanniae c. 1136; The Magna Carta was issued in 1215. Cagwinn (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

{{3O}} The pop culture trivia section is unnecessary and detracts from the article. It is just a random list of pop culture depictions of the character without any sources of any kind. Per Wikipedia policy, the burden of evidence is on the editor adding or restoring the challenged material to defend it. In reverting the material back in (twice), Mediatech492 claimed that "this is normal for character articles of this type". That's simply not true; as per WP:TRIVIA, trivia sections are deprecated and have been for years, especially when they're just bulleted lists of random pop culture ephemera. If you can find an appropriate way to incorporated cited, noteworthy depictions of Gawain in prose, please do, but the current presentation is inappropriate.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating my self yet again: If you check other articles on fictional characters you will similar sections in almost every one. These references are not "trivial" they serve to show where and how the character has been depicted in various media and are therefore very relevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeating yourself? As far as I can tell you haven't brought this to discussion before, though the burden of evidence is on you to defend material you add or restore. Can you respond to the policy and style points I've brought up - specifically that this is a WP:TRIVIA section, the material is uncited, and gives no indication at all why it's significant to the article subject or receiving proper weight? In its current state it's a indiscriminate collection of information. Additionally, the suggestion that other articles have a similar poor sections is irrelevant; decent articles never have such a section, for instance the Featured Articles King Arthur and Batman do not have them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I see someone is interpreting the policy wrong. Either it is the hundreds of editors of those articles referred to, or it is you that is getting it wrong. I'm simply on the side of the majority. Nuff said. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Are you going to respond to any of my points, or just write it off? For the third time, the burden of evidence is on you to defend material you restore.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm following established precedence. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What does that even mean? I've already demonstrated that pop culture trivia sections have been deprecated for years and that no GA or FA has one, even on other fictional characters such as King Arthur and Batman. The section needs to go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediatech, I reiterate once again that the burden of evidence is on *you* to defend and find consensus for your challenged material. Please respond to the policy and style issues above, and do not edit war. Cúchullain ^t/c 00:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The format is consistent with every other character article on Wikipedia. I require no other proof than that. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, you most certainly do. burden of evidence, WP:BRD, and all that. Can you find a single policy or guideline page that recommends introducing an indiscriminate collection of uncited, improperly weighted trivia into articles? Because those ones specifically recommend against it. Can you find any Featured Article or Good Article that includes such a section? Please answer these questions directly. And I'd really stop edit warring and slinging baseless accusations of vandalism around if I were you.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact: You are the one trying to change the article, not I. The burden therefore is on you, to show why this article should be any different than all the others. You have utterly failed to give a reason for this. Provide a valid reason why this article should be unique in this way and I will allow it. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't allow anything. There is no unilateral editing on Wikipedia; decisions to introduce or re-introduce material are made by consensus. There's just not any for your changes. Please revert yourself immediately to avoid an edit warring violation, and please see the articles cited above, King Arthur and Batman, for examples of FAs and GAs that disprove your claim that these sections are ubiquitous. Also read, and respond here to, the policies and guidelines I've linked multiple times now.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, I am not the one attempting to make changes to the article. You are. The reason you give for your changes are not valid. If you need supporting references try the articles for Superman, Jean Valjean, Huckleberry Finn, and Kermit the Frog, I can easily supply many more.And you'd better recheck on King Arthur and Batman while your at it because they do have it. And thank you for proving my point. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, WP:BURDEN doesn't say anything about changes to the article, it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You are the one restoring the challenged material, you need to defend it, and you have not. Please respond to this directly.

As for other articles, I said I highly doubt any FA or GA has one of these uncited, indiscriminate lists of trivia. Despite your claims, neither the FA King Arthur nor the GA Batman have uncited, indiscriminate material in them. Green Knight is another Arthurian GA that has no such section. Of your examples, the best one, Superman, has no trivia section. The other articles are all in a poor state; I have no idea why you think they are good examples to follow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you've also reverted out a bunch of other work I did to the article. My edits added and rearranged material and was cited to an eminently reliable source. Was this your intention? Please explain yourself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've filed for a third opinion to try and resolve the dispute. To reiterate, as someone who has done a lot of work on this and related articles, I believe that the section Portrayals in media is an unnecessary and indiscriminate collection of information. It is uncited and there is no indication that the items are receiving their due weight. As I've pointed out, WP:TRIVIA sections are deprecated, especially considering that we have multiple other sections dealing with portrayals of the character. Such sections do not appear in any FA or GA that I can find, for instance in King Arthur, Green Knight, or Batman. As the one re-adding this challenged material, the burden of evidence is on Mediatech to defend it, but in my opinion they have not been particularly responsive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Response: The section in question in this article is consistent with other articles on fictional characters that I have cited, and many others besides this. In fact some character articles have dedicated articles solely for the purpose of listing information of this sort. This information is not trivial as it shows the use and impact the character has in popular culture. Cuchullain has offered no valid reason why this article should be any different than all the others in not having this information provided. Though he seems quite adamant beyond reason to make it so. Quite frankly if he thinks the section needs more sourcing he could have been proactive and simply provided it instead of arbitrarily blanking the section and resorting to all this nonsense. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, well, I was planning to do some more on this article today, but was waiting to hear Mediatech's explanation for why they blind reverted all my work from yesterday.[3]--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. Portrayals in media are generally considered trivial, unless they are significant in some way to the topic. For example, if a particular portrayal in media was a key event in raising the profile of an otherwise little-known mythical character or historical figure, then it should be mentioned, generally in prose format. List formats of portrayals in media are usually discouraged, because they grow without bounds and add little useful information for the reader. The fact that other articles do it does not mean it is the right thing to do, only that the other articles are poorly maintained, or have better reasons for such sections. That said, I don't think the lack of sourcing here is a big deal. Media portrayals always have the primary source of "go watch the movie/show", and are thus verifiable even without citations (similar to plot summaries). Mediatech492, please don't call good faith edits you disagree with "vandalism". That could be considered a form of personal attack. Regarding consensus, I don't think citing a lack of consensus alone is a good reason to add or remove material. Please remember that the three revert rule is a bright line rule that can lead to blocking, even if the reverts were not over the same material. This means you both need to discuss rather than reverting further. Gigs (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position Gigs, however there is no way that that Cuchullain's aggressive section blanking can be called "Good Faith", even if the objective was well intentioned. It was inconsistent with good faith from the outset. That is why I was obliged to resort to tagging it as vandalism. That said I consider the matter closed as long as such tactics cease. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you really going to sling even further false accusations of vandalism and bad faith immediately after you were told this could be a personal attack? In what way is that productive? The matter is certainly not closed so long as this challenged, trivial information is left in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And for the third time, are you going to explain why you revert all my recent work? Do you have some reason for that or are you just blindly reverting every edit I make?--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mediatech492, it's not unusual to completely remove sections that are lists of trivia, if none of the trivia is significant enough to be incorporated into article prose. I think the only productive way forward is for you to make a case why the trivia is important enough to the topic, from an encyclopedic perspective. Gigs (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mediatech, are you going to respond to these various comments? As I said I was planning to work on the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As it's clear that Mediatech has no intention of answering these comments or doing anything to improve the article, I'm going to continue work. I plan on restore the work I began previously that Mediatech blind reverted and continue from there. First, however, I'm going to remove Mediatech's pointless list and replace it with a brief section about Gawain's portrayal in modern literature and media. This is hardly the most important thing this article needs, and ideally it should be reliant on earlier sections that have not yet been written, but I'll get started on it to get past this obstruction. For now the material will focus mostly on film and be taken from the chapter in the book Cinema Arthuriana, as I don't have access to scholarly works on Gawain in other media, such as what's found in Gawain: A Casebook. At any rate it will be a start.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have given your commentary full response, repeatedly and in detail. My concerns about your intentions remain. The section in question is a normal feature of articles of this type and useful data. Arbitrary removal of useful data is not constructive. Edit the article if you will, by all means please, but I, like all other wiki editors, will make such adjustments as necessary to preserve the the article's integrity. The objective here is to optimize the information available for the reader. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Except some hand-waving references to similarly pointless sections in poor articles, you didn't respond to anything that was asked, and it's been weeks. You've made it clear you don't intend to do anything to improve the article. I'm going ahead with the changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I trust Mediatech will not revert war over these changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent work

Now that we've moved beyond the above silliness, I've been doing a good bit of work on the article. I've found a number of problems in going forward. Many of these are do to my edits from many years ago, back when inline citations were a suggestion and not a requirement. While all of that material was verifiable, the lack of citations evidently led other editors to add their own over the years. I've discovered that a lot of the citations that have been added are incomplete, inadequate, or otherwise problematic. Where I'm able I've tried to incorporate valid material into my revisions, either by keeping valid citations or replacing troublesome ones. Additionally, the presentation is all over the place. I think I've made a good start, and I'll do more this week, but any input is welcome.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Portrayals in media

• James D'Arcyin Gawain and the Green Knight (2002 animated film)
• Murray Head in Gawain and the Green Knight
• Miles O'Keeffe in Sword of the Valiant
• Liam Neeson in Excalibur
• Robert Gwyn Davin in First Knight
• Anthony Hickox in Prince Valiant
• Joel Edgerton in King Arthur
• Noah Huntley in The Mists of Avalon
• Sebastian Roché in Merlin (film)
• Eoin Macken in Merlin (TV series)
• Clive Standen in Camelot (TV series)

Although, above are all well related actors, if there was ever a really close interpretation of the character Gawaine, some have speculated to be Orlando Bloom as his portrayal as Balian of Ibelin, in the film Kingdom of Heaven, fiercely loyal to his promises and defending his kingdom throughout more than one war, and finally keeping the peace and fortune of the kingdom to his death, to be by far a more accurate character of Gawaine as some would say. --74.34.74.56 (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a list like that in the article. We already have a section on the more noteworthy portrayals.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than the revert from user, Sdgegewgd or whoever you are, I'll delete my own discussion thank you, yes I know there's a list in the media section I am just comparing characters. Although this list would me more productive and similar to other media sections in articles of knights such as Lancelot.--74.34.74.56 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir Gawain does not appear whatsoever in Monty Python's Holy Grail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.39.19 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Dutch & Other Folklore

Why in the world is he related to Dutch French folklore when he originally Welsh and Scottish folklore. Is there any legit source of folklore about him coming from France. --Oh goes the waterhole (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Search for Book sources:

• Book 1
• citebook|title=Arthur of Britain|last=Chambers| first=Edmund Kerchever|year=1927|publisher=Sidgwick & Jackson, Ltd.|
• citebook=Knights of the Round Table:Gawain|last=Rowley|first=Gwen|year=2007||publisher=The Penguin Group|

--Oh Goes the Waterholes (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. There are sources of Celtic folklore traveled down into France and into Germany and there are sources coming from Italy as it is shown in the beginning of the article. True there is a similar stories in Greek mythology about the Theseus relation to the sword and the stone and Arthur as both founders of new nations.--Oh goes the waterhole (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

While Gawain was big in Dutch literature, I don't believe he was very prominent in folklore per say. The two are different things. I'll remove that category.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are trying to say, Oh goes the waterhole...the article very clearly states that one scholar, Lauran Toorians, believes that Gauvain is a Dutch name in origin and that the character was introduced into Arthurian literature by a substantial number of Flemings who were settled in Britain in the middle ages. This theory has not gained wide acceptance among Arthurian scholars, but you do often find it being mentioned these days as a possible alternative explanation for the character, other than the standard line of thought that he is derived from Welsh Gwalchmei. Cagwinn (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gawain Gwalchmei, does respect with other nations such as Dutch mythology, so I rest my case, it's a melting pot of ideas Geoffrey made, although I hope the source above may help more about his mythology.--Oh Goes the Waterholes (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Introduction: Gawain as the Green Knight

"In some spin-offs, Sir Gawain is the Green Knight." I've never heard of this, and the lack of examples and citation given makes this a throwaway sentence that, while interesting, offers little substantive information. All adaptations mentioned later in the article make no reference to Gawain as the Green Knight, as far as I can tell. Can anyone find these spin-offs back up this sentence? (Apologies for my lack of Wikipedia editing knowledge)--140.104.201.101 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I also question this, I've never heard of it. The term "spin-off" is also strange to me. Did the person who originally wrote this mean modern, non-faithful works like Monty Python, or did they mean older derivatives like The Greene Knight? Either way, I think that it probably doesn't deserve to be in the opening section since the later article doesn't follow up on the idea. -- DrDoog (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. Rojomoke (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

"Florence, Lovell, and Gingalain" and Gawain's sisters are only mentioned in the lad, nowhere in body

It obviously should be fixed by adding the relevant content that is otherwise exclusive ton the lead section. The references should also be moved to the body, as the lead should bhe only a short summary of the actual article. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gawain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612125145/http://athena.english.vt.edu/~baugh/Medieval/ to http://athena.english.vt.edu/~baugh/Medieval/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726162019/http://humx.org/movement/medieval/on-sir-gawain-and-the-green-knight to http://humx.org/movement/medieval/on-sir-gawain-and-the-green-knight

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead contains exclusive content, instead of just summarizing the article

It and the article need to be rewritten. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I expanded the article with content based on a Wikia article

Namely https://kingarthur.wikia.com/wiki/Gawain so someone might check it out for validity (much of this stuff has been entirely unknown to me), and add refs or request them when needed. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of references, purged the bibliography the entries not used directly:

• Benson, C. David. "The Lost Honor of Sir Gawain." De Gustibus: Essays for Alain Renoir. New York: Garland, 1992.
• Gustafson, Kevin. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." Companion to Medieval English Literature and Culture. Ed. Peter Brown. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
• Davenport, W. A. The Art of the Gawain-Poet. New York: Athlone, 1985.
• Reichardt, Paul F. "Gawain and the Image of the Wound." PMLA 99.2 (1984): 154–161. JStor. Modern Language Association. Web. 14 November 2009.
• Shoaf, R. Allen. "Green Girdle." College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Florida. Web. 14 November 2009. Online
• Weiss, Victoria L. "Gawain's First Failure: The Beheading Scene in ‘Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.' ” The Chaucer Review 10.4 (1976): 361–366. JStor. Penn State University Press. Web. 14 November 2009.

La Familia de Gawain

Este tema me confunde mucho. Porfavor hagan el esfuerzo de hacer un árbol genealógico o algo. Christian Alexis Arroyo Ortiz (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A genealogical family tree might help. However, it would require that someone take the time to construct one. That's the hard part. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)