Talk:Beholder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creator?

Does anyone know who created the Beholder? and what real mythological creature(s) it is based apon?

Beholder (or belonder) is not based upon anything. It is simply a folklore creature from Middle Ages in Europe (I guess Slavic and/or Germanic), where it was believed to come from Egypt or some other kind of "distant deserts". This creature spoke all languages and the only way to kill it was to say certain phrase in 19 languages. I strongly recommend to investigate this issue. Im am quite surprised that it is believed here (or did I not understand the article?) that it's a D&D invention which I know to be very untrue. However, they depicted it quite well (same goes for Heroes of Might and Magic III).

No, Meeler, your latest version is extremely awkward, what with the "e.g." and the parentheses. You seem to be allergic to the word "fictional", relying on it to be implied from "D&D", "fantasy", etc. But as I pointed out, D&D creatures comprise real, fictional (made up by Gary Gygax & thousands of others) and mythological (made up long before D&D) creatures. Wikipedia exists not for us to demonstrate out knowledge of the arcane, but to inform readers who don't have that knowledge. As such, it's burden some on them to expect them to figure our what an article implies.

Try this thought experiment: imagine you're a Chinese person who is browsing Wikipedia as an adjunct to the beginning English course you're taking. Being a rural Chinese, you've never heard of D&D, and being a beginner at English, your grasp of the word "fantasy" is somewhat overly: you've mostly heard it in the context of psychology (Fantasy (psychology)) because that's the literal translation of certain denunciations of the West you've encountered from the Chinese Communist Party. Now, a close reading of the Beholder article might still cause you to conclude that the beholder doesn't really exist; but we also want to accommodate readers who only have time to glance at the page. As for instance, the poor Chinese fellow whose English class assignment is to write an essay, in English, on bizarre animals of the world.

Now of course this is a contrived example, but it will also apply to a twelve-year old home schooled Pentecostal girl who has never been allowed to play D&D, or a kid from the Atlanta housing projects who has never seen other than domestic animals, and thinks that perhaps along with bear and badger, beholders really do lurk in the woods of Appalachia.

Don't rely on your readers to figure out what you mean; don't assume they hail from the same background or possess the same knowledge you do; if they did, they wouldn't need to be reading your Wikipedia entry. The article is for them, not for your ratification. Spell out what you mean. -- orthogonal 13:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, the current phrasing works better than previous attempts (mine and yours). I'm happy with the article in its current state. I think we both had valid points, and now the article is improved. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

In the Futurama episode referenced, the Beholder had a comrade number. I believe it was either 16 or 19, but I'm not very confidant about this. Does someone want to add this to the final paragraph of the page? 129.110.240.1 06:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

spikebrennan asks: If the beholder was first introduced in that 1975 "Greyhawk" supplement that was referenced, can a specific person be credited with inventing the beholder?

---

From an interview with Gygax

"Where did you get the idea for the Beholder?" "That was Rob Kuntz's brother, Terry. He had the basic idea, but I detailed it for publication." (full interview can be found here http://ridureyu.tripod.com/ggygax.html)

Important info?

"The "bomb" creatures in the Final Fantasy games are likely inspired by the beholder."

Is this information really important? I mean, personnaly I don't think they look like beholders at all. Yes they are ball shaped, but have two eyes and no eyes/tentacles on top. They are mainly just balls of fire with eyes and a mouth, that have the ability to explode... I don't see how this can relate to beholders much...

The page has now been updated and doesn't contain this information anymore

I think I was the one that added that a long time ago because I remembered a creature mentioned in the AD&D monster manual that that was listed in the beholder section. It was called a "gorbel" and it was described as "a wild, clawed beholder-kin lacking magic but with the nasty habit of exploding if attacked." I don't really care to press the issue, but it seems like that's a near exact description of the Final Fantasy bombs. If you don't feel it's worth mentioning though, I'll accept that. Here's the link to its online entry, if you're curious http://www.planetadnd.com/interactive_books/mm00020.php Quixoto 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Floating Eye != Beholder

Floating eyes are not beholders in Nethack! They are simply floating eyeballs which have a paralyzing gaze. Beholders do exist in Slash'Em and appear only in Nethack in some commented out code until the DevTeam figures out a way to make their implementation feasible within Nethack. It is appropriate to refer to floating eyes as beholder-kin.

Origin of name

I always thought that the origin of the monsters name came from the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". I think that its name was meant to be an humorous reference to the phrase. Is there any evidence that supports or disproves this? If there is any, I think it should be added to the article.

like you, i always thought so. i do think that this may also be simply because in the english language as we know it today, the word doesn't really appear anywhere else but in that exact phrase. so this explanation could possibly be just your (and my) way of (not necesseraly correctly) reasoning the origin of the word. unless somebody comes up with some hard evidence to prove this theory, i guess that's just what it'll stay - a theory.

Metallica

• "Eye Of The Beholder" is third song on Metallica album "...And Justice For All" from 1988

That's nice, but does the song have anything to do with floating eye monsters?

Legality of the page

Is it legal to post this data on the internet, when the article itself said that "The beholder is considered "Product Identity" by Wizards of the Coast and as such is not released under its Open Gaming License."?

That only applies to creating stat blocks for Beholders in non-D&D products, not describing them. The same follows for the mind flayer. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Could someone please identify the Weasel words here? There are some instances of "some" but that's all I'm seeing, and those seem reasonable in context. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is annotated with "attribution needed". That means there is a statement of opinion masquerading as fact, e.g "Beholder is among the most classic, famous and culturally significant of all Dungeons & Dragons monsters". Who said this, or more importantly, can you cite the source of this opinion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is different than Weasel words. That's a source needed. (Tag also there I believe). Would you please rewalk the 100+ pages you added this to and remove _that_ tag? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretion of weasel words is your own. Would you like me to raise this as an RFC and get some independent opinion to confirm? I think you will find this might qualify as Peacock language as well. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That might be a good idea. Please consider the possibility that you're wrong, however. Hobit's interpretation of the weasel words style guideline is consistent with both Wikipedia practice and the plain text of the guideline -- yours is not.

• "The Beholder is among the most classic, famous and culturally significant of all Dungeons & Dragons monsters" is an opinion statement, and should either be referenced and marked as an opinion (and removed as such).
• "Some people say that the Beholder is among the most classic, famous and culturally significant of all Dungeons & Dragons monsters' is an example of weasel wording,

which as the guideline states, is "unspecific disclaimers attached to what otherwise would be claimed statements of fact in order to turn them into true statements of opinion", the disclaimer being Some people say that. Basically, if a statement doesn't have weasel words, it may be have other problems, but it's not weasel wording. For example, the Beholder sentence is probably unverifiable without a reference to a tertiary source that has examined a body of literature to establish fame and cultural significance, although if it has been said by someone it could become a quote -- "Professor Daniel Scholar in a monograph has asserted that ...". Since this is unlikely, just removing the assertion is probably best -- but marking it as weasel wording is wrong unless weasel words are present. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Image:BeholderGBA.jpg
Any particular reason why this image was removed from the article? It has a fair use rationale. Obviously this article isn't specifically about this game, but this picture seems to be showing that the creature is still an important part of the D&D canon. Any reason? Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the rational as invalid. The image was removed from the article by User:East718 after I made an inquiry about my concern on his talk page. This image can be reasonably used in an article about the gameboy game, which it isn't, and I expect that it will be deleted if it isn't used and a rational for that use isn't added. Please do not restore this image to this article or the bad rational. If it is, I will seek the next level venue to discuss this. --Jack Merridew 06:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed cuts to article

I would suggest that the "society" section as well as the "aberrant" section be cut from this article. At most a tiny remark or two might be retained, but there's entirely too much detail here. The creative origins should also likely be moved towards the front of the article. Just my suggestions on what to do with this article. Any thoughts from others? (I'm trying to deal constructively with the tags on this page.) On top of that other (third party) references need to be located. Ciao --Craw-daddy | T | 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those sections should be trimmed (though not necessarily cut altogether), and I'm beginning to see that "Creative origins" sections in any D&D article should be at or near the top, to demonstrate that there is at least some out-of-universe perspective. Also, note that I have sourced one of Gavin's so-called "weasel" statements above. BOZ (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, particularly in this case, since this critter was supposed to have been originally developed entirely for this game, it would seem absolutely relevant (read "vital") to talk about it early in the article. Assuming that people have written about it in this context, then discussing it's creative origins, impact, influence, etc early in the article adds the real-world context that is so desperately sought here. Obviously it is this impact/influence for which third party refs are vital. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed 100%.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So I just trimmed out a lot of "in-universe" material. I'm sure that there's more that can be removed to actually make the article better in some ways. I also think that some of the "in other media" stuff can be removed (some of it could be considered original research as well). Comments? --Craw-daddy | T | 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC:Does this article contain weasel words?

With regard to the article Beholder which is peppered with weasel statements (i.e. statements of opinion masquerading as facts), I am not sure that the removal of the template by Webwarlock can be reasonably justified. Weasel statements from this article include:

1. "A Beholder is an aberration comprising a floating spheroid body with a large fanged mouth and single eye on the front and many flexible eyestalks on the top; it was once described as "a big eye with a bunch of little eyes that eats adventurers for breakfast."
2. "The ultimate lackey caste of beholder society, from the Spelljammer campaign setting, these lack eyes and their limb configuration relegate them to roles of menial labor and cannon fodder."
3. Each beholder nation believes itself to be the true beholder race and sees other beholders as ugly copies that must be destroyed."

I would for these statements to be removed or the Weasel template to be reinstated. Should I ask for the template to be reinstated in the first instance? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these are statements that need references, but aren't weasel-worded ones. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to read this, really, I have. It does appear that there is opinion presented as fact. There are also massive in-universe and context issues, and, I expect, original research. Please remember that articles are supposed to be comprehensible to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. Tag should be restored; speaking of which, where'd the notability tag go (again)? --Jack Merridew 11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, the "weasel" tag should NOT be restored. Whether or not those are "statements of opinion masquerading as facts" -- even if they are, they are not weasel words.
  Gavin, the definition of weasel wording is not "statements of opinion masquerading as facts" as you have presented it, it is (and I take this directly from the first sentence of the style guideline on weasel words : "Weasel words is a term used in Wikipedia (and generally, see Weasel words) to refer to unspecific disclaimers attached to what otherwise would be claimed statements of fact in order to turn them into true statements of opinion." Weasel wording is a particular way of disguising an opinion as a fact.
  The two statements you list don't even suffer from that flaw, however -- they are simply unreferenced in-universe descriptions (and in the second case, badly written as well). The article needs references. It has many other issues. Tag it as such. But, save the "weasel" tag for when it strictly applies. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced statement #3. That concept appears in more than one book, but I just took the first place that I could recall seeing it. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I still assert that the following are weasel words:

1. "A Beholder is an aberration comprising a floating spheroid body with a large fanged mouth and single eye on the front and many flexible eyestalks on the top; it was once described as "a big eye with a bunch of little eyes that eats adventurers for breakfast."
2. "Beholders in the Spelljammer campaign setting are said to be deadlier than the neogi and more sadistic than the illithids."

I think these statements should be deleted or the Weasel template restorted. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good examples of the issue. --Jack Merridew 10:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, only the latter one of these is a useful example, and even it is weak. The first one is an example of a quote which needs a reference, not a weasel word situation. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Refs

When I get a chance to re-read it there "The Complete Guide to Beholders" by Goodman Games and “Tools for the Tyrant Hunter” in EN World Player’s Journal #2. Two independent sources.

The image (Image:Beholder.jpg) is hideous

And in a bad way. Surely we can come up with something better than this. (It was recently featured on Reddit, with comments such as "This is just sad." - which it is.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's one person's view, other people have commented that it is ...PLAIN AWESOME.68.203.187.210 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its a very good drawing! Zorodius (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well with wikipedia's moronic image use rules, what do you expect? We've got exhibitionist editors showing off their disgusting junk on any sexual related pages and we have to resort to MSpaint images because boxart is somehow considered not fair use.

On that note, check out the page on carrion crawlers. Someone was inspired. 129.194.8.73 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's strange is that on both that page and this one, there's a link below each drawing to a much better drawing, from Wizards themselves. Why don't we just use those? Rodeosmurf (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we? I think we were not allowed to. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is covered on Wikipedia:Image use policy. In short, we're limited by copyright and the restrictions for fair use. Abusing fair use policy would be highly unfair to professional artists, so I think it is quite appropriate to be conservative in what gets allowed. Two options are either to try and recruit a good amateur artist, or to pay for the art and donate it to wikipedia.—RJH (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of good D&D art on deviantArt, maybe someone there would be willing to let theirs be used? Also, I just noticed that the Illithid page also has this problem. Rodeosmurf (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Publication history

This section suffers from too many short sections, which is advised against in Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_sections. Would it look okay in a table form such as the following?

Release	Period	Publication
Dungeons & Dragons	1974-1976	The beholder was introduced to the game in its first supplement, Greyhawk (1975), and is depicted on its cover (as shown in the section below). It is described as a "Sphere of Many Eyes" or "Eye Tyrant," a levitating globe with ten magical eye stalks.
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition	1977-1988	The beholder appears in the first edition Monster Manual (1977), where it is described as a hateful, aggressive, avaricious spherical monster that is most frequently found underground. Ed Greenwood authored "The Ecology of the Beholder," which featured in Dragon #76 (August 1983).

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Article merged: See old gauth talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)