Talk:Noakes Family: Difference between revisions
From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 11 September 2013 by Morgan
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Probably because of the company they kept? Old Noakes hung around with other working class families. --{{User:Ederchil/sig}} 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | :Probably because of the company they kept? Old Noakes hung around with other working class families. --{{User:Ederchil/sig}} 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
::Hmm, that's probably why. But I think the term is inappropriate - as an encyclopedia we can't really assign the post-Industrial British class system to the anachronistic Shire unless Tolkien said so explicitly. | |||
::The reason I raise this issue is because the Independent's crossword apparently had the answer "Noakes" to a clue about working class hobbits...--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree on the inappropriateness. Could the concept perhaps be derived from Foster's ''Guide''? I'll try to remember to have a look later.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes indeed, Foster in almost each Hobbit-family entry describes its "class" (working class, well-to-do or aristocratic). I think he is based on the narrative's descriptions or the familial connections. I am not sure if it's inappropriate or indeed the Shire had a class system. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::~Thanks, Sage. If that's the case (and if we want to keep the information), I'd opt for placing it under a separate heading or in a separate sentence, along the line of "Robert Foster has suggested that...".--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Personally, I treat such details in the main article, but supplement them with footnotes (I took this idea from [[User:Gamling]]). See for example [[Will_Whitfoot#Notes]]. There have been some exceptions where I used your proposal of opening a separate heading, such as [[Mount_Doom#Theories]] because I felt it didn't fit in the narrative. [[User:Sage|Sage]] 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Ah, well that explains it. Yes, I think a note would be fine.--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::+1 to a footnote. Just as long as it is clear to the reader from where this piece of information derives.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:56, 11 September 2013
I can't find any explanation for why the Noakes should be described as working-class. Any help?-- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 21:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Probably because of the company they kept? Old Noakes hung around with other working class families. --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's probably why. But I think the term is inappropriate - as an encyclopedia we can't really assign the post-Industrial British class system to the anachronistic Shire unless Tolkien said so explicitly.
- The reason I raise this issue is because the Independent's crossword apparently had the answer "Noakes" to a clue about working class hobbits...-- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree on the inappropriateness. Could the concept perhaps be derived from Foster's Guide? I'll try to remember to have a look later.--Morgan 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, Foster in almost each Hobbit-family entry describes its "class" (working class, well-to-do or aristocratic). I think he is based on the narrative's descriptions or the familial connections. I am not sure if it's inappropriate or indeed the Shire had a class system. Sage 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- ~Thanks, Sage. If that's the case (and if we want to keep the information), I'd opt for placing it under a separate heading or in a separate sentence, along the line of "Robert Foster has suggested that...".--Morgan 15:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I treat such details in the main article, but supplement them with footnotes (I took this idea from User:Gamling). See for example Will_Whitfoot#Notes. There have been some exceptions where I used your proposal of opening a separate heading, such as Mount_Doom#Theories because I felt it didn't fit in the narrative. Sage 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, well that explains it. Yes, I think a note would be fine.-- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- +1 to a footnote. Just as long as it is clear to the reader from where this piece of information derives.--Morgan 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)