Talk:Dagorhir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
archive1


Contents

[edit] History Edits

Hi Everyone,

This is Seldon. I have an account, but the session go messed up so when I submitted it did not do it under my account. I looked at the Dagorhir page and it looked like it was missing a lot of history. I put my bit in. I had not seen all this discussion stuff. Instead, I said "Here is the page, there is some stuff missing." Funny that I did adress Dagorhir's position as the birth place of many of these other groups.

Would like more people to fill in details about the rise of Ohio and Midwest Dagorhir.

Remember this page is not an advertisement for Dagorhir, instead it is a non-bias record of Dagorhir.

Look forward to reading your contributions!

Dave Graham aka Seldon

---

Seldon, most of your history I think can be construed to be "independent research." I think it has some great stuff in there, but can you put some citations please? I also question a lot of the relevance of the history section. I don't think it's necessary to go into the off-shoots of Dagorhir more than mentioning their founding. They have (or can have) their own articles for that. If no one disagress in a reasonable amount of time, I'll remove them. TheCommodore7 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Dagorhir has enjoyed explosive nationwide growth in recent years, expanding to a an international membership of over a hundred Chapters consisting of a total membership in the thousands."

I have removed most of the subjective sections of the History. The fact that Aratari battles averaged no more than 40 people in 1997 hardly seems like a noteworthy recruiting effort. Local and national event attendance did not reach notable levels again until 2000 and that was mostly thanks to concurrent marketing with the Lord of the Rings movies.

The Belegarth section was 100% inaccurate and misrepresents BOTH sides of the issues. It has been removed.

Information that is quantifiable and verifiable will be left alone. Notice that all requisite legal actions for intellectual property theft, libel, and character defamation are not included in this article. That is because they are unnecessary information. Conjecture, irrelevant information, advertisements for non-affiliated groups, and personal glorification are unacceptable.

If Belegarth members are so anxious to mention in the Dagorhir entry that they are the persecuted outcasts of Dagorhir, why is there no mention of their prior affiliation with Dagorhir on the Belegarth entry? Simply put it doesn't need to be there anymore than Belegarth needs to be mentioned on the Dagorhir page. Putting it here comes across as a cheap publicity stunt and has no bearing on the history of either game. It is neither notable, nor objective and therefore is unnecessary.

Brutilus

I strongly disagree with many of the removals. Although I may not have agreed with all of the subject matter Seldon added into the entry, much of it was very interesting to read, and so I refrained from personally tampering with it. Attempting to remove all of it is unwarranted.
With regards to the size of Aratari battles in 1997, that seems to be quite historical. Warren Buffett started with pinball machines and newspaper deliveries, Google started in a garage, and Toyota started with automatic Looms and machinery, not cars. The material of an entry is not limited to when the subject matter becomes notable, but includes the historical beginnings of the entry. Further, notability is judged by the topic of the article itself, not each individual sentence within the article. Notability is also not a contemporaneous determination. The question is whether the topic has ever been notable, not if the topic is currently notable. In this case, the topic, Dagorhir, is notable. Hence, the historical events of Dagorhir are within the scope of the article. It is proper to mention Dagorhir started small.
If the Belegarth and Dagorhir sections misrepresented both sides of the issue as you see them, you are free to modify them as you see fit, not merely delete them.
It does not appear that Seldon is in any way affiliated with Belegarth. Given the context of his post, I would say he is much more strongly associated with the history of Dagorhir. It would appear that Seldon has been fairly unbiased in his inclusion of all the other games Dagorhir has started. I don't know how much of it is true, but "Belegarth" centric, it is not.
However, the complete removal of all Belegarth mentions from the Dagorhir article is inappropriate. Once again, it is my understanding that the Belegarth/Dagorhir split was roughly 50/50 the first year. A 50% split in membership is a significant historical event, not an "advertisement". From earlier research, the rules sets are still substantially similar.
Since it seems as though most people adding "Belegarth" as being located in Virginia, it doesn't seem as if this is a concerted effort to get Belegarth listed on the Dagorhir entry. If you feel Dagorhir is being slighted, you are free to mention Dagorhir in the Belegarth history. I've had to update Romania several times, and have certainly missed some related pages. Not all pages are updated contemporaneously, if at all. If your complaint is unequal but proper mentions, then the remedy is an equally proper mention in the other article.
I have discussed my reasoning in posts below, and am now reverting back to Seldon's original post, with a removal of what I believe are inappropriate sections. Let me make one thing clear. The Dagorhir article is not an advertisement for Dagorhir either. See my discussions below. It is not an exclusive page for people who "sit on the DBGA legal defense and intellectual properties commitee." Sentineneve 21:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Simply put, Seldon did some basic advertising that is now irrelevant when compared to what was done as little as 4 years later with cross organization marketing campaigns and multi-national website affiliation programs.

The split was 60/40 at most and even then, a significant portion of those people now attend Dagorhir events at least once a year. Even a goodly number of the old EBF attended Rag this year. It may have been relevant in 2001, but it is now 2007. Those numbers are a non-issue.

Let's analyze some of the lines you've decided to include.

"Brian Wiese went on to form a celtic re-creational group named Dahlraidia. This group still exists."

-Has nothing at all to do with Dagorhir. File it away under Brian Wiese's entry. That's where it belongs.

"In 2001, due to internal strife, and politics, Dagorhir split with one faction, primarily the Mid Atlantic U.S. region, remaining Dagorhir and the other faction, primarily the Midwest U.S. region, reforming as Belegarth."

-Faction? Some chose to stay and a faction splintered off and chose to leave. Dagorhir is not a faction. It is an organization.
-Let's start the discussion on this paragraph by saying that, at the very least, it needs less emotionally charged wording.

These are just 2 examples that I have an issue with.

You are right. This page is not exclusively for those who "sit on the DBGA legal defense and intellectual properties commitee." It's also not to be used as a propaganda tool for ANYONE. (Nice use of the "common man" argument, by the way. I'm sure most people didn't even think twice about it.)

If you want to include mentions of David Graham's use of usenet and e-mail to advertise the game, then you need to include factual information about how website redesign, parallel advertising with major Lord of the Rings fansites, and diligent patrolling of the use of intellectual property on the web and in print have done more to help the game grow leading up to and after the Dagorhir / Belegarth split. I have a few things about myself that I could throw in there, but they're not as important as the basic history that is there now.

Currently, I am working on a more comprehensive history section that WILL include references to other medieval and LARPing organizations. When it is done I will post it for your perusal when it is finished. I will have verifiable sources for the information.

I would also like to mention that Seldon is not necessarily a reliable source. It is possible that the person posting as Seldon is someone else entirely. Seldon sold his e-mail account and website to the man who founded Belegarth with his foam-smithing business several years ago. (Shame too. Seldon made sturdy arrowheads.) This person has used numerous aliases to publicly and privately attack Dagorhir and, when he was feeling subtle, using propaganda to attack the character of the Dagorhir leadership. He has also violated US copyright law and lost in court.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not late-30's German radio. Let's keep this factual, verifiable, and currently notable.

You argue that some of this was notable at one time. At one time encyclopedias believed that it was notable, factual, and verifiable to include that the Mongoloid and Negroid archetypes of the species were significantly inferior to the Caucasoid both physically and mentally. We've since stopped including that rubbish in factual texts. The only place it gets mentioned as notable is in sociological studies of American thinking in the 1800's and early 1900's, not with current socio-political studies.

It is out-of-date and out of context information at best and political posturing at worst. It is unnecessary, irrelevant, and not notable any more.

Brutilus 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I think Brutilus put it best in this sentence: "Let's keep this factual, verifiable, and currently notable." As much as I'd like to include every single bit of history in here, we must maintain wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Most of the Dagorhir history used to read like a Dagorhir advertisement because most of the published, verifiable information on Dagorhir was written in newspaper articles that *shock* advertised Dagorhir. Unfortunate though it may be, that's the way wikipedia wants it.TheCommodore7 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are references to just one of several offshoot groups relevant or accurate?

I appreciate the edits to keep the article on topic - but as a relative Wiki neophyte I have a question: Is it valid to list just one of the many groups that were inspired by Dagorhir? Belegarth is just the most recent one that has gone off and established itself as a separate group with its own identity, local groups and so on. Amtgard, Emarthengarth, and Darkon are earlier ones that took the inspiration of the idea of fun medieval/dark age and fantasy reenactment with foam weapons and developed it in their own way.

Despite Anonymous' arguments, Belegarth is only important to Dagorhir as an irritant online - with individuals hacking in ads here, trolling and redirecting people off of Dagorhir's websites and the like. I've talked to folks in both groups, at events and online and most are either not knowledgeable of the other group or just want to go to local events and have fun.

Kyrax 05:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Kyrax

It is my understanding that at the time of the split, Belegarth and Dagorhir split approximately 50/50 in terms of population. Hence, it seemed to me to be a fairly powerful historical event that was worth at least a small mention, and not just a minor spin off. It does not seem correct to label Belegarth as a group that merely is "inspired" by Dagorhir. Instead, it seems proper to list Belegarth as a historical splinter group, much like the Latter Day Saint or other movements. Hence, I allowed the historical reference to stay in the article. I may not be happy with the way it is written, but as a historical schism, it probably should at least be mentioned. In terms of the second link, in the "See Also" section, it is my impression that the rules set for Dagorhir and Belegarth are not just similar, but extremely similar. The rules set seems far closer to Dagorhir than SCA, Amtgard, Darkon, or any other game.
Further, it was my impression that subsequent mentions of Belegarth crossed the line between mentioning the splintering of Belegarth as a "historical fact", into advertising a second group on a main group's page. I viewed that as improper, and removed the further references of Belegarth. If most people you have spoken to indeed simply wish to go to the local event and have fun, regardless of group, I may have been in error for removing a few of the other Belegarth references. However, that seems a bit like Original Research, which is generally not allowed. In any case, it is my suggestion that the historical and see also reference to Belegarth be allowed to remain, but the further references be denied. Sentineneve 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the IP address of the worst vandal appears to be from Virginia, which I think is a Dagorhir stronghold, and does not have a very strong Belegarth population. The additions of "Belegarth" is not vandalism, simply disputed material. Sentineneve 06:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter where an IP address is located, vandalism is vandalism. Brutilus 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding repeated references to Belegarth

Dear Anonymous IP Address(or not quite so anonymous): The material you are adding violates N:OR. It is also not Verifiable. Lets examine each claim in turn and see if we can reach a consensus. Remember, the burden is on you to support the challenged statements.

  • This divide has caused ill will among Dagorhir leaders, but for the most part the fighters tend to treat the two organizations as interchangeable, attending the events that are most convenient for them, regardless of organization affiliation.

Do you have any sources that state the majority of fighters tend to treat the two organizations as interchangeable? Upon reading the Dagorhir board, it seems to me that treating the organizations as interchangeable is incorrect. Is it relevant that people in one game go play another game? It seems we would be adding to the SCA section "People in SCA also fight in Darkon, Amtgard, Belegarth ,Dagorhir ,Nero, etc etc. The article is about Dagorhir, not about what people in Dagorhir also happen to do.

  • This number may also be skewed by a large number of fighters that consider themselves members of Belegarth, who attend Dagorhir events from time to time.

Once again, the Belegarth members that attend Dagorhir events. Is it relevant to the number of Dagorhir members the number of members fighting at a Dagorhir event who also happen to fight Belegarth? Shall we list the SCA? You get one bite at the apple. Belegarth split from Dagorhir. That is historical fact. There may be crossover members, but at this point they are two distinct boffers, just like Nero and Darkon.

  • Additionally, many Dagorhir fighters will attend Belegarth events, particularly the large seasonal events.

What is this, an advertisement? You've stated it twice already, you want to state it a third time? I understand if you believe the games are the same, but other people believe the games are not the same. Until you find some verifiable sources that treat the majority of fighters in the game as interchangeable, please do not re add your material. If/When you do find such material, I will add a tag to merge both games if they are that similar. Instead of spending your time screwing around on the Dagorhir wiki entry, why not spend your time building up the Belegarth wiki entry?Sentineneve 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Sometime in the course of Sentineneve repeatedly posting and creating concurrent edits my reply was lost. I am not in the mood to type it out all over again tonight. 205.161.214.82 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We must have hit an edit conflict. Do you have another way to be contacted?Sentineneve 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very confused with the amount of changes going on here. This is an encyclopedic article about Dagorhir. It's relevance to Belegarth is noted appropriately in the history section, and in the "see also" link. I don't think anything more needs to be added and doing so just seems to be yet another "Belegarth vs. Dagorhir wiki battle" that is, frankly, pointless and silly. If editors have problems with one or the other, that is no excuse for this silly editing war. I assume the same thing goes on over at the Belegarth page, and the same should apply over there too.TheCommodore7 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but it is bad form to just revert edits without explaining why. I left Belegarth in the history and see also link because they were relevant. I also don't believe anything more needs to be added. I agree that adding more turns it into a Belegarth v. Dagorhir wiki battle. I don't want to see that happen. Actually, if you look closely, it is much closer to a Belegarth v. Belegarth battle. Really, I want both entries to be fair. Five references to Belegarth in Dagorhir's wiki makes it less of an encyclopedic article about Dagorhir, and more of an advertisement for Belegarth. My first devotion is to the integrity of Wikipedia. Sentineneve 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Article

Based on notability requests, a link has been added that leads to a listing of several articles on Dagorhir. These articles are taken from such organizations as the Washington Post, TheOneRing.Net, Chicago Suburban News, and Renaissance Magazine. In addition, though I can't find a link to it, Dagorhir was featured in the national TV show "PM Magazine." I believe that this, in addition to the thousands of current and former members, satisfies notability. TheCommodore7 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I went and looked at the news site. At least a few of the links were broken. A few were student newspapers, which I believe is sufficiently reliable for notability purposes, but some other (more experienced) editors disagree. A few did not meet the reliability criterion. A news search on Google did provide stronger sources. It is my recommendation that somebody links one or two of the more reliable sources in. Sentineneve 06:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So the link of Dagorhir in the News is there. There is at least as much on Dagorhir as there are on the other groups. The article has changed a lot since April. I think that the tag isn't needed anymore (although I could contend that is didn't before). The mere fact that it's the first LARP-like game should make it notable enough. Here's a few news articles: TV News Broadcast Ball State News DeMyztikX 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with a link to Dagorhir in the News with non-working links is a question of reliability. Your citation is coming from your own site, and if the links are broken, from...where? That essentially means any web page can put up a "Webpage in the news" with broken links and then claim notability. Do you see the problem with non-working citations? I was just pointing out a few of your links were broken and a few were not sufficiently reliable. For example, the links for Theonering.net are sourced entirely from "Sean" of Dagorhir. That is perfectly fine for the Dagorhir website, but that unfortunately, that's just not reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia.
  • Saying there is at least as much on Dagorhir as there are on other groups just means an editor may not have gotten to the other groups, or a news search has made the relevance fairly obvious. It is a little bit like saying, "All the other cars are speeding, why don't you pull them over?"
  • With regards to the article changing significantly since May...that is a bit misdescriptive. The editor Eyrian put the notability tag up on April 28th. It has only been about two weeks since then. Looking back through the article history, the vast majority of changes have been somebody putting in references to Belegarth, and me taking most of them out. The actual content of the article has changed very little.
  • I agree that the tag probably does not need to be there, but I am not the one to take it down. I disagree that Dagorhir is the "First larp-like game". Dagorhir appears to have begun in 1977. The SCA appears to have begun in 1966. As the history of live action role-playing game page points out, LARP games include "Cowboys and Indians", "House", or "Doctor". At the very least, the SCA seems to have a prior claim to Larp-like games than Dagorhir, having begun at least 11 years earlier. Do you have a proper citation for Dagorhir being the first Larp-like game?
  • With regards to the Ball state newspaper, again, I agree student newspapers should be reliable enough for notability purposes. Other (more experienced editor) disagree. With regards to the youtube video...sorry...but it looks just like a bunch of Dagorhir people talking and seems self reported. I didn't see anything about what TV station ran it. It looks just like a youtube advertisement to me. Do you have a more proper citation for it? Sentineneve 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be a few reliable sources in the bunch on "Dagorhir in the news", demonstrating notability. However, we should not link to the "In the news page", but, rather, integrate those sources into the article. --Eyrian 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the notability tag is now gone. But I've double checked the "Dagorhir in the News" links and nine of them work fine (including links to those lightweights, The Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. But thanks for the heads up, I've let the webmasters know of the three broken links and one that should have a "registration required" notice. I'll also follow up on the Google suggestion for additional articles to post there, as well as add here in a section of links in the article. Is a DVD documentary that includes Dagorhir as one of its feature stories also notable? If so, is a link to its Amazon.com webpage relevant? I ask that since I do not believe that there is a separate website for the DVD itself. Kyrax 00:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, simply cite the documentary itself. Please see WP:CITE#HOW to see how to do this. --Eyrian 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The news report was on a CBS affiliate if I remember correctly. Someone else probably knows better. The In the news section on the dagorhir page can mostly be just moved here if it hasn't been already. The "first LARP" was what I had read on a wikipedia article at one point (when I first started working on this article), so if that's wrong it was a mistake on another page here (most likely the history of LARP page). It would also seem that SCA doesn't count itself as a LARP and I would be more logically meaning organized LARP. Perhaps it would best be stated the first fantasy based LARP? Like I said, it's on another page on Wikipedia somewhere. I think I got to all the major points here, apologies for the sloppy writing though, long week. DeMyztikX 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also Links

I will leave the see also links alone when certain matters are resolved:

1) All of the associated pages are linked together. No more using the Dagorhir page as a portal to the other pages. 2) People realize that the SCA, at an organizational level, NEITHER WANTS NOR NEEDS ASSOCIATION to any "boffer" groups. That has been their stand for 30 years. 3) Amtgard is the only organization operating in good faith with the tenets of Wikipedia by actually cross linking to other organizations. Most other organizations find it necessary to exclude links back to where they came from. One way streets are unacceptable. I left LARP and Amtgard in the See Also section and put a link back to Dagorhir on Amtgard while leaving the LARP link on the page they requested.

On a side note, I think the revision of the Ragnarok section does read better and I am glad it was reverted. 198.200.181.208 12:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go and disagree with you most strongly about the changes made in the "See Also" links. Merely because an organization does not wish association with another group does not qualify for a deletion of their link. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and should be written in NPOV. OJ Simpson may not want to be linked to Nicole Simpson, but a neutral observer should link the two. Mike Nifong may not want to be linked to the Duke Rape Case, but a neutral observer should link the two. The same applies here. Although SCA's position may be that it doesn't need nor want to associate with "boffer" groups, any neutral observer can see the similarities between them. As editors of a neutral encyclopedia, it is our duty to reference similarities such as these to better inform the general public coming here to access this information.
On another note, I can see absolutely no tenet of Wikipedia saying that See Also's must be cross linked. I am re-inserting the removed links.TheCommodore7 17:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

... And in doing so deleted the three links of people operating in good faith on Wikipedia. 141.157.69.63 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction, one was outright deleted by your undo, one I missed because of the change in order, and I goofed on the other.

Simply put, one link is from a group that has defaced this page before. No dice on a link to them.

The SCA... Maybe, but I am maintaining my position on cross-linking. A reference is a reference for everybody. This page isn't a portal. Links get linked back or I'll delete them. Plain and simple.

It's not an unreasonable thing to request and it's in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Fine... There is no rule saying that links must be linked back, if you look up optional in a thesaurus, you find discretionary as a synonym. If you look up discretionary, you'll see optional. Link and link back. Simple precept and it falls under the Wikipedia mission. Brutilus 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dammit... Why do I usually forget to sign my posts? Brutilus 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've linked to the SCA and back-linked this page. As long as the back link exists, the link stays. That's how I'm treating all links.

Pages of organizations that support vandalism I won't link to. Brutilus 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think that I need to clarify a few things here. First, the links that I eliminated were links that had already been incorporated into the article. According to Wikipedia, "a See also section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." Since boffer and LARP were already incorporated into the article, I didn't see the need for them to be under the See Also section as well.
Continuing on that line of thought, why don't we incorporate the rest of the links into the article? We could have a section dealing with how Dagorhir is different from other groups. Not only would that make this article more informative, it would highlight what Dagorhir has that other organizations do not. I joined Dagorhir because of the lack of magic. Stating the differences in a section would help others learn of Dagorhir's unique attributes.
As to the cross-linking, I completely support cross-linking. However, I do not believe (and Wikipedia does not state) that it should be a requirement for entry into a See Also section. I only edit a few wiki pages, and I'd like to hope that just because I chose not to cross-link, that my additions aren't worth entry. They are. If you feel that they should be cross-linked, be bold and cross-link them (which you did, thank you).
I'm not here to promote Dagorhir. I think any event does that better than an encyclopedic article. I'm here to write a non-biased description of this game. Refusing to link to organizations merely because of squabbles between the two organizations is hardly a good reason. Remember, this isn't the battleground between Dagorhir and Belegarth. This is wikipedia. You're right that we shouldn't tolerate vandalism, but that's by issuing warnings and requesting bans, not refusing entry of organizations into this article. TheCommodore7 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See, that's a point I have to disagree on. I think the requests of bans get petty and serve no real purpose in the long run. I've dealt with the Belegarth people for several years now. They'll just create a new account or get someone else to do it. Brutilus 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede your point. I haven't dealt with Belegarth outside wikipedia and will agree that you know more about this than I do. It's not that big of a deal, so I won't make it so (any more than I've done already). I just worry about this becoming, as one fly-by-nighter called it, a fan site. It's not in its current form, and I want to keep it that way. :-D TheCommodore7 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't said this yet, but I do appreciate the dialog. It helps a lot. I am still taking steps to improve this article. Look down in "Fan Site".Brutilus 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt, the Dagorhir leadership has specifically asked that the article NOT include references to other groups. I do think that the description of the game needs a touch up so it is more specific. The clarification that I made about the nature of the combat seems inadequate to me.Brutilus 17:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Site

Gotta love fly-by-nighters who place things in our article like this without mentioning anything in the talk page. From the look of his edit, it looks like he's an SCA guy who didn't like our cross-link. Since he doesn't want to back up his reasons for doing such and he's disregarded what we've talked about regarding notability (read: fan site) already, I'll revert these changes. TheCommodore7 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a "brief" message about what I thought about his edits and comments. The fact that there is as much emperical data in existence as there is doesn't give him wiggle room.

He called into question verifiability in a message to me.

I have an English professor that has contributed to a number of reference books looking over the article now. She said she would be happy to offer some clean up tips. --Brutilus 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Events

This section is meant for events that are hosted by and /or attended by multiple chapters / realms. This is meant for the general public. The inclusion of the host chapter is not necessary.Brutilus 13:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)