Talk:Noakes Family

From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 11 September 2013 by Morgan

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
~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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Ah, well that explains it. Yes, I think a note would be fine.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+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)Reply[reply]