Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Gondorian Military Forces

Revision as of 21:36, 28 August 2008 by Dr Death (Talk | contribs)

Reason for Creation

It seems to me that ME's most powerful military needed it own article to explain how it was formed and what tactics it used in what era. That's why this is here, and it acts as a auxiliary to my many war articles.--Theoden1 15:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

It's good, though I disagree with the title "Irregulars". Especially since it's capitalized, it might seem an "official" term to some. -- Ederchil 15:24, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, I could the term Special Forces-- I guess that would be more impressive.--Theoden1 15:31, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
And so I did. -- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


I question how canon the facts in this article are. It seems to use Weapons and Warfare as its primary source which is problematic as that particular book has no basis in Tolkien's written material- it is simply a piece of merchandise for the films. I think it would be wrong to present any information from it, unless explicitly supported in Tolkien's own texts in articles on this encyclopedia. It would be the equivilent of writing articles based on David Day's books. Since it is also used as a source in many of your other articles Theoden1, i think the same rule applies. Dr Death 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, all the references need to be to the original source. It might be worthwhile to include a section in the book's article listing all of the statements which were made up so others don't make the same mistake. It's probably not worth our time to list all of the David Day fanon. --Hyarion 18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
More purist opinion, I see. I consider LOTR:WaW to be a highly useful secondary source, and while it may dominate the section on weapons, it won't dominate the whole article. So keep your fur on, guys. This is long way from fanon, and I'm sure author Chris Smith would be rightfully offended. A vast library and a vast amount of study would be required to come up with these few facts from primary sources-- anybody got that kind of time? -- Theoden1  talk  contribs  edits  18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It's purists? I think it's just embedded in my head from all those lost points on English essays from not citing the primary source when I could have :p. While I don't have the book myself, I'm sure it is a great source, this review cites some of the issues with trying to merge canon and non-canon material. However even if everything was 100% accurate we still shouldn't be citing it, we should be citing the original source. Just like someone writing an essay on Gondorian Military Forces shouldn't be citing Tolkien Gateway, they should be citing the original sources we compiled the information from, and they can't do that if we can't provide them. That being said, a secondary source is still better than no source. Citing everything is like perfect spelling, it won't happen but it's still a good idea to try. --Hyarion 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt regard it as purism. And i wouldnt call works by other authors 'secondary sources' since the events they're supposedly reporting on are fictional- Tolkien's meta-fictional mythology about the Red Book and how it's all supposed to come from that is all well and good but in the real world he was the creator rather than a 'primary source' on events that happened independant of anything written about them. To be honest i dont know why i'm going into such depth about something that should be quite plainly obvious. Lets put it this way- how is WaW any different from fanfiction? In fact lets touch a nerve here and say Slash fanfiction. Both are extrepolations from the source material covering subjects otherwise scarcely (if at all) reported in the original work. Now within the reader's own mind they can construct whatever vision of the mythology they see fit and WaW or 'Legolas and Glorfindel get it on' are designed to stir the imagination in directions that appeal to different kinds of people, but even though war does have considerably more detail bestowed by Tolkien than sexual relations, as soon as you start to extrepolate, both as are uncanon as the next. And as an encyclopedia of Tolkien's work rather than derivative authors i think we should stick to what's written by him, and interpretations rather than inventions on his work. As a final point, you ask who has the time to look up these facts in their original sources, well i can tell you if you're doing this kind of work you have to find the time- there's no easy way out. As a bit of a pet project i actually went searching for every reference in Tolkien of the physical appearance of characters, objects and locations from the First Age and it was remarkably good fun! Dr Death 21:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)