Talk:Dagorhir

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

archive1

History Edits[edit]

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)[reply]

---

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.

---

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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.

It doesn't matter where an IP address is located, vandalism is vandalism. Brutilus 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mentioning Dagorhir as the granddaddy of all foam-fighters is important. You need not gone into the he said/ she said of why. Just mention the groups that can trace there roots to Dagorhir. Really, Dagorhir's insistance that other groups not be mentioned is irrellevent. It's not the purpose of wikipedia. Pralfer (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Pralfer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pralfer (talk • contribs) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding repeated references to Belegarth[edit]

I would like you to verify that your numbers are ~not~ inflated by non-members from other groups such as Darkkon, SCA or Belegarth, as obviously there is a faction of folks who believe they are. I know of many peope who consider the games as interchangable, I will sight just a few (Crynolyn, Kyrax, Onyx, Magnus of Taurendor/Narnia, Athron, etc.) Go ahead, ask them, I dare you.

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. (That is because Dagorhir will barely acknowledge the existanc of other groups, much less work with them to promote the foam fighting community.)(Yes, I have sources who attend both dag and bel events regularly, as well as statements from Dag members on the Bel boards stating such.)

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.

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)[reply]

Notability of Article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fan Site[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other Events[edit]

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)[reply]

Wreckreation Nation[edit]

Dagorhir will be featured on Discovery Channel's Wreckreation Nation on June 20th at 10pm. This show could go a long way to adding a lot of verifiable information to this entry.TheCommodore7 (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit, comments about opinionated content.[edit]

I removed the words "numerous lesser" before "spin off organizations" because "lesser" was not neutral/opinion-free as required on an encyclopedia page, and "numerous" was misleading--only two foam-fighting organizations descended directly from Dagorhir, Belegarth and Amptgard. If there are more than two that have _directly_ descended from Dagorhir that I have overlooked, please feel free to choose another appropriate adjective ("two" is not really "numerous"). Also, as a member of this organization, I would like to say that adding content opinionated against other organizations does NOTHING for our publicity, except make us look egotistical and elitist. Really guys =/ -Sidheag, Dominion of the Unconquered Sun 72.128.62.85 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. There has been a lot of POV content on here, both pro- and anti-Dagorhir. Any help eliminating that stuff to create a NPOV article is helpful.TheCommodore7 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Links[edit]

I am of the opinion that the recently added external links (to similar groups) are inappropriate for this article. I believe that this article is about Dagorhir and any similar groups should point to another wikipedia article, where that article can link to the respective external link. There are currently wiki articles on Belegarth, Darkon, and Amtgard. I know nothing about the Kingdom of Stanislaus, and wonder how big a group is that uses Tripod.

I also note that, according to Wikipedia:External_link, we should avoid "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." What does everyone else think?TheCommodore7 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has any objection, I'll do what I stated above. TheCommodore7 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the name[edit]

The name Dagorhir appears to be Sindarin for 'battle master'. Can someone confirm such an origin? —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

History section of article copies wholesale from history section of their website. Zell Faze (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dagorhir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dagorhir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History Edits[edit]

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

Adding repeated references to Belegarth[edit]

Notability of Article[edit]

See Also Links[edit]

Fan Site[edit]

Other Events[edit]

Wreckreation Nation[edit]

Small edit, comments about opinionated content.[edit]

Outside Links[edit]

the name[edit]

Copyright violations[edit]

External links modified[edit]

External links modified[edit]