# Talk:Palantír

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palantir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Palantir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Tolkien's Elvish language(s) transcribed into "Common" or otherwise followed the grammatical rules of Classical Latin concerning "syllable weight." Therefore, the proper pronunciation transcription of "palantír" would be /paˈlanˌtiːɹ/ Bladesinger46n2 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou. That sounds very plausible but we'd need a reliable source so that other editors can verify the pronunciation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of the subsection Stress in Section I (Pronunciation of Words and Names) in Appendix E of LoTR, which I quote in full (2nd edition), since it may be of use elsewhere:
"The position of the 'accent' or stress is not marked, since in the Eldarin languages concerned its place is determined by the form of the word. In words of two syllables it falls in practically all cases on the first syllable. In longer words it falls on the last syllable but one, where that contains a a long vowel, a diphthong, or a vowel followed by two (or more) consonants. [emphasis added]. Where the last syllable but one contains (as often) a short vowel followed by only one (or no) consonant, the stress falls on the syllable before it, the third from the end. Words of the last form are favoured in the Eldarin languages, especially Quenya."
Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do we care what Paul Kocher, Joseph Pearce, Tom Shippey or anyone else thinks about this?  Speculation by anyone not named J.R.R. Tolkien shouldn't be part of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.235.4 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC) 

Ironic use of 'speculation' when that's what the palantir supports. To answer the question, these are major Tolkien scholars, the most reliable secondary sources. Without them, the topic would not be seen to be notable, i.e. they are essential for the article. Tolkien is the primary source, meaning that he can be used for facts but does not establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The opening paragraph claims that the palantíri could be used to see "whether past or future." But I'm not able to find any source for that. Could anyone confirm if this actually come from Tolkien, please? Thanks! RR (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The Silmarillion says only that "those who looked therein might perceive in them things far off, whether in place or in time." ("Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"). This is ambiguous about whether the future might be included. Unfinished Tales says "scenes or figures in distant places, or in the past." ("The Palantíri") which seems to exclude the future. This differs from the Mirror of Galadriel where it is explicitly stated that future things may be glimpsed, though they may not come to be. Perhaps there was a confusion between the two. I'll edit the text now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
"whether past or future" is still there in the opening paragraph. Should I fix it by myself, or can someone more expert of the topic fix it? Meridiana solare (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A palantír (/pæˈlænˌtɪər/; in-universe pl. palantíri) is one of several indestructible crystal balls from J. R. R. Tolkien's epic-fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings.
By the time of The Lord of the Rings at the end of the Third Age, a few palantíri remained in existence.
I thought the first quote says they're "indestructible". LOL  Cloudswrest (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

One word: "lost". A stone could be buried in a catastrophe or lost at sea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Interesting to know, by the way, that it has a standard English pronunciation. —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's fine and appropriate that we list the in-universe plural at the top of the article, but it's not fine that we use it. The plural form in English ends in -s, and for English Wikipedia that's what we should use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we move Dúnedain to Dúnadans, and Gracchi to Gracchuses?
Is the plural in s attested anywhere in the canon? If not, it's arguably OR.  And extending the anglicism to the German interwiki link was unfortunate. —Tamfang (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Evidence the canon plural is always "palantíri": compare palantíri  with palantírs.
Saying "The plural form in English ends in -s" is, most charitably, a vast oversimplification.  MOS:PLURALS itself refers to English plurals which has "Foreign terms may take native plural forms, especially when the user is addressing an audience familiar with the language. In such cases, the conventionally formed English plural may sound awkward or be confusing.  Nouns of Slavic origin add -a or -i according to native rules, or just -s".
Rohan, Middle-earth is full of uses of "Rohirrim".
Many more non-canon English works on the fictional universe use "palantíri" (59) than "palantírs" (9).
For me, Google has 14,100 results for "palantírs" and 42,600 for "palantíri"
So I'd vote for the restoration of the in-canon plural form here. Jaa101 (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
So far, two to one against. —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I see I meant filicide, though I did not notice that it was a Shippley list, as opposed to a general one, so I can't quibble on the first two bones of contention, but it does matter, as the result of the deception would have rid Gondor of Faramir as well, ending the line of the Stewards in Gondor.Halbared (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so, and you're forgiven for not noticing the attribution, but we editors obviously can't construct an argument ourselves for such a table. If I come across a source that goes over this ground (presumably it'd be someone bravely picking an academic bone with Tom Shippey...) then I'll consider adding to the table. There is an argument against doing even that, which is that the table expresses exactly one scholarly opinion. Tables that just organize data can reasonably assemble materials, but in the case of a logical argument, any construction is dangerous. Safer would be an annotation ("Note 3: Scholar X adds that ...[23]"), perhaps. My tuppence 'orth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone (other than me) suggested that Tolkien might have been inspired by H. G. Wells's 1897 short story "The Crystal Egg"? Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The word "Palantír" is not the same as "Palantir Technologies", nor even the same as the abbreviation "Palantir" which may or may not be in use informally in business circles. The title is not ambiguous and does not require a hatnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally, accents are ignored when deciding whether something is ambiguous. They are also discouraged in article titles where unnecessary. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The thing that is "unnecessary" here is a hatnote. It's the usual pointless bureaucratic clutter; no reader is going to be the slightest bit helped by a hatnote, quite the contrary. When half-a dozen real business article readers have complained they got lost and couldn't understand why they ended up here, then we'll happily accept that they need assistance; but in the years this article has been here, nobody has had the slightest difficulty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
So you basically have no valid guideline-based argument against it. Skyerise (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Guidelines are no substitute for common sense; nothing should be included in an article when it contributes nothing useful, and indeed all editors are expected to remove anything like that whenever they see it. Guidelines are written by editors to advise new editors on useful principles, not to bludgeon everyone into foolishness. A point you may well have missed is that if anyone types "Palantir" (spelt that way) into the search box, they immediately get presented with Palantir Technologies as well as this article: which may well explain why nobody ever feels the need for a hatnote over here. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it really suitable to use an AI image as the first image of the article? Surely it would be more suitable to use an illustration from an illustrated edition of LOTR, if any are in the public domain? KenzieDawson (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not suitable at all, I've removed it, thank you. As for illustrations, anything published from the time of the first edition onwards, from 1954, will be in copyright unless an artist decides to donate an image. Copyright is the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years, in most cases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap Thank you! Though it's disappointing to know that a more suitable replacement would be unfeasible, it's out of our control, so all we can do is wait. KenzieDawson (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@KenzieDawson: Something else that we could do other than waiting for decades is not removing a useful, good-looking image without explanation. What do you think about that? I'd like to readd it – it's useful and the best free media file in the article that doesn't do any harm including except making the article more interesting and well-illustrated. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective
I refer you to WP:AICLEAN. [[1]]
Moreover, I did not remove the image. I asked whether it was appropriate, and another user removed it.
I could perhaps advocate for the public domain painting "The Crystal Ball" (1902) by John William Waterhouse to be the primary image on this article, as it is on the article for crystal balls in general. Palantíri in Tolkien's fiction books are, fundamentally, crystal balls, and I see no need for an AI generated image to be accepted on an article which is not about the subject of AI image generation, especially over a public domain painting which is already used for similar articles. KenzieDawson (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I like Waterhouse's painting, and indeed put it in the article, but it's not appropriate for the lead as its subject is different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we use the Saruman/Lee pic already in the article, it's good enough and has the orb in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If this were a film article it would be perfect; but Tolkien wrote the book which led among other things to the films, so it would be grossly misleading to head the article with a film still, putting the cart before the horse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
If this was a film article we couldn't use it as non-free, probably. A "real" palantir, since we won't use userg stuff which I agree with, must be from a published work of fiction or the author. The films are relatively late, but also acceptable in context. As a WP:OTHERSTUFF example, consider Paul Atreides (and that took some discussion, I favored Kyle MacLachlan's portrayal myself). OTOH, it also seems to be OTHERSTUFF to exclude leadimage in articles about Tolkien-stuff, unless he drew them himself, and that doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't suppose Tolkien drew a palantir that we know of? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, I gues we sort of agree really. Tolkien didn't, and the choice is nonfree film images which belong in the film section (for at least two reasons), or perhaps fan images which we don't use in the lead, and elsewhere only with the greatest of caution. If a major Tolkien artist ever decides to paint an image and donate it, then of course we can do as we like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

As the start of the article, it mentions that the plural of "Palintir" is "palantíri". Shouldn't the article use that plural instead of the currently used "Palintir's"? Dietcoke3.14 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The question is whether we go in-universe in a worldwide encyclopedia. On a fansite, fans are free to use any form they like. On Wikipedia, articles must be accessible to a general audience. This case is small but the -s form is certainly more approachable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)