Talk:The Ecology of the Charr/Archive 1

discussion

The original article is hosted here, here and here. Anyone with the time can check that I transcribed it right, and didn't make any typos or anything. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You copied that? Jesus, thanks. There were a few typos I picked out, I'll get on it now. Calor (t) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Calor (t) 17:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any official word on whether or not we can use it? If not, we can still summarize the information from the article. -- Gordon Ecker 09:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard, official word is "no" on that sort of thing. That content is often licensed in an exclusive or semi-exclusive way. I propose deleting it until an explicit "yes" is given. —Tanaric 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Gaile stated that placing this content on the wiki would be acceptable. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the link, Santax! —Tanaric 16:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. -- Gordon Ecker 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Their cultur reminds me somehow Spartan.. like they are put in camps in young age and all that... o.O --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:84.250.204.31 .

Spartans didn't have civil wars. They fought unified in them against Athens, and later joined with Athens to fight Persia. Calor (t) 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Charr were once a primitive people", shouldn't that be primitive creatures or something like that? --MageMontu 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is copied exactly from an official source (see the link above), so nothing should be changed. -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, "people" does not necessarily mean humans. Lord Belar 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

People denotes a group of humans, either with unspecified traits, or specific characteristics (e.g. the people of Spain or the people of the Plains). took that from wikipedia, but since it cannot be changed, its useless to argue. --MageMontu 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the context of fantasy and sci-fi, "people" refers to any sentient group. Lord Belar 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Their Culture does kind of seem like a spartan culture, with mongoul naming scheem, and a few other cultures mixed in. we need documents like this for the past of the other races. Farwind 04:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

she?

why in the article does it say only "she"?(Arthurperson 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

Why do we assume it should say "he"? -- Armond Warblade 08:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"He" is the correct gender-neutral pronoun in English. —Tanaric 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Human English, yes, because historically human culture has been male-dominant. But this is about charr. -- Armond Warblade 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It might make more sense for it to be "he"/"him" then she as the article says that the female charr were removed from warbands for 200 years before the searing and 40 years after the the eye of the north events. So mentioning them as a "she" in the part about warbands would be contradictory.(Marsc 15:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

There is no contradiction, Guild Wars 2 takes place ~250 years after Eye of the North and ~210 years after Kalla Scorchrazor's rebellion. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed that to "it" for neutrality, as Charr are not an all-female race (and as such, don't reproduce asexually as far as I know). They're also not all-male like the Galka from FFXI so I didn't use the male pronoun. 201.150.72.248 06:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I undid it, read the note thanks. 88.85.130.12 08:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Who ever started this GET OVER IT!!! it was put she because whoever did it wanted it to be she, its not always going to be he ok!!!god u stupid man,gosh get so mad cuz it states women are better in the charr thing--♥Icyyy♥ 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that conversation is almost a year and a half old, right? Look at timestamps. That said, I personally always use "she" as the generic pronoun when I write. Arshay Duskbrow 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you follow proper English you'll use "he" for generic (based on the foundations of man being the "generic", hence Human, woman, etc). However, like they said, Icyyy, this conversation is really old, there's no need to try to resurrect these conversations or you might even get in trouble for it (people might think you're trying to start arguments when you might not be). --Amannelle 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no more reason to use "he" as a generic than to use "she", but there IS a reason to use "she" - to remind people that male is not the default template of humanity. Also, if you knew the history of the English language, you'd know that "man" did not originally refer to the male, it was a non-gendered word for humans in general - "vir" (as in "virile") was the male indicator. At any rate, it shares no linguistic root with the pronouns he/him/his, so no, it's not "based on" anything but sexist assumption. Arshay Duskbrow 03:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have taken my words out of contest, but I guess that's to be expected. I said that the generic is "he", which it has been until just recently, actually. I also said that "man" is generic. I know it did not originally refer to male, but it does now, and no, "she" is not more accurate. Gosh you make a lot of assumptions. xD You're feminist, aren't you... Lol I've already learned it's useless to try to speak reason with feminists, so if you are, please say it now so I wont waste my time. :) --Amannelle 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If "speaking reason" translates to "trying to justify male centrism", then I'm not surprised you haven't found a receptive audience. It's a shame, though. I expected quite different from you, since you seemed so pleasant, but that's just the proof that even nice people can hold chauvinistic views. I hope one day you will understand why we seem so "unreasonable". Kalla Scorchrazor could tell you, I'm sure. Arshay Duskbrow 04:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How is he feminist?--♥Icyyy♥ 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to specify who you mean, Icyyy...if you mean Kalla Scorchrazor, it's because she and her fellow female charr stood up against persecution in their society. If you mean myself (also a she), I suppose it's for suggesting that male is not the default human sex (no more is female, but that's the point: there isn't one). Young as you are though, I can understand if you're confused. Arshay Duskbrow 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmhmmm, i hate how men think its wrong to put she for both male and female species its half&half, 50/50--♥Icyyy♥ 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and I'm very glad that you see it like that, just as I do. ;D Arshay Duskbrow 04:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[1]

If you don't know what gender you are talking about, or you are talking about both genders at the same time, "he" is customary to use. Of course the most appropriate pronoun would be "it", but that could seem offensive (much more than he). If anyone wants to call me sexist, I suggest he shoots himself in the head. c wut i did thar ? MadSkillz1o1 13:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he is most commonplace when using a general gender pronoun for humans - I've seen people refer to many a cats, for one case, as "she" instead of "he" or "it" when they didn't know the gender or meant it in a general sense. I would assume that in many fantasy settings they change the general pronoun used for different races. Edit: It could also be considered similar to how Russians refer(ed?) to their homeland - most ethnicities referred to their homeland as "the motherland" (which is where terms such as mothership came from - but the "sexist" argument has mostly removed such from what I've seen), while the Russians (at least in WWII) referred to it as "the fatherland." Point being that even in the typical use of a general term, one group can easily use it differently. -- Konig/talk 13:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to clear up on quick thing (since you share traits with feminists I've spoken with; who also love to jump to conclusions), I was referencing my grammar books, which yes, do say that "he" is appropriate, and "she" is not, unless it is confirmed that the gender is indeed female. Perhaps where you are from this is not the case? But, as I have been taught, "he" is correct. Perhaps if you would prefer, we could just use "them", "they", and "their" (even though they aren't grammatically correct) to remain "gender neutral"? ^_^ Oh, and the reason feminists are unreasonable, is every SINGLE one I have spoken with is completely and utterly confident that all things feminine are blessed, and all things masculine are, well, pretty much the source of all things wrong in the world. These people claim that men only serve 1 purpose, and that is for reproduction, and that aside from that they are inferior in every other way (yes, they really do say that). So perhaps I have been exposed to the wrong feminists? Or perhaps you feel all my interactions with them are simply anecdotal? Perhaps you are right ^^ but until that is proven, I stand by my theory that it is mentally unhealthy to embrace feminism. --Amannelle 19:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm sure there are more reasonable ones out there. Issac Asimov as a feminist, yet he certainty didn't act like that at all. And yes, the general rule of thumb in english is that 'he' is used when you are unsure of the gender. Many other languages are like this to. As for a suitable non-gender specific pronoun, 'it' is rather... demeaning. This would require a new word, so, what shall it be?--Corsair@Yarrr 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for a new term as nothing is wrong with using he or she - it's up to the writers of the lore (Ree, Jeff, Linsey, and more) to determine whether races refer to themselves in a general fashion as "he" or "she." Just because our culture uses he, doesn't mean that others MUST use he as well. So it depends on Anet, and for charr and sylvari they use she (which, tbh, makes absolute sense to me; at least charr post-Shaman caste's fall). And Amannelle, you've just hit the extremists, that's all. Don't take them as the common feminist let alone how all act - it's like taking the right wing extremists in the US government as an example for how all right wing act; or, more universe among this community, taking those who complain about nerfs and buffs to certain skills and areas because the changes "ruin the game" (when it is just balancing things, and trying to fix the game) as how all GW players act. I actually know a ton of people who did casual or extreme 600/smiter or perma SF who said "good, it's about time" when the nerfs came and found another way to farm for cash. Those feminists you've met are just the most vocal, not the majority. -- Konig/talk 22:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Those feminists you've met are just the most vocal, not the majority." I certainly hope you're right. T_T those people were horrible. --Amannelle 22:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What I find strange is, don't they teach "he" is both a masculine pronoun and a gender neutral pronoun in schools ? And also I would to call out a retarded statement from above: "Human English, yes, because historically human culture has been male-dominant. But this [article] is about charr." So this article is written in Charr English? Ha! MadSkillz1o1 21:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I was taught, in English, most masculine pronouns are also used as general pronouns (most commonly used are "he" and "guy(s)"). In regards to your comment - it typically wouldn't called "charr English" but it is written from an in-universe perspective, so it would be written from a charr's perspective. -- Konig/talk 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So basically...

...Charr of GW2 are atheist, warlike, proud, communist, sex-egalitarian, furry killers? Can't wait to play one!! :D Hope Anet is pushing hard to get this out til 2009. 78.2.40.32 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about the Charr being staunch believers in communism. If anything, they reward power, and the bravest and strongest Charr take what they want and everyone kind've agrees by the logic that they deserve it. They're more meritocratic, in that regard. And no, I'm not thinking too much about this. Leave me to my fantasies (I want a Charr Elementalist!). --Cjad the Nord 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

God, I can't wait to see this come out.... But when's the relese date?

Roman-Barabrian, flip reverse

the Charr military seems quite similar to the Roman military in terms of having legions, yet they invaded Ascalon quite similarly to how the barabrians invaded and ransacked Rome.--Penners 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the Khan-Ur page and its talk page, you'll see that people pointed out many similarities to the Mongols. Which were one of the "barbarian tribes" that attacked Rome. -- Konig Des Todes 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

well in any case it is very similar to the invasion of Rome without the reverse, i realised that actually the roman miliatry has very little similarity to the charr's, it just has legions--Penners 12:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Guilds

"In extremely unusual circumstances, Charr have even been known to join guilds with humans or other races in lieu of warbands. These Charr may be outcasts or they may simply have been forced through necessity to take unusual allies. But despite their odd allegiances, no Charr ever forgets her loyalty to the legion. " What do you think of this? would only a few charr join guilds with other races, would the legions be so important to charr players? It could be pretty interesting --Majere 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I took it as the "lore excuse" for allowing guilds not to be race-specific. Meaning, the guild system will probably be the same as GW1, and they wanted a lore reason why Charr would join guilds instead of sticking with their warbands - and other races join guilds (which is said in the Movement of the World). -- Konig/talk 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Training Camps

I don't know about you guys, but i think there should be a child phase for characters like in the Fable games. When the characters start they should be put in different training places like Fahrar camps for the Charr. You guys agree or just a stupid idea?--Kew24 02:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a little bit like pre-searing. I think it'd be neat, but I'm not sure I'd want to play as a child.-- Shew 11:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

+ sylvari are born fully grown.-- Shew 11:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't be children, we would be cubs.Thor 5:23, Febuary 2010 (UTC)

Extra models for children used in 2% of the game are unnecessary, the tutorial part at the beginning could resemble that, though (you being fully grown and just about to leave). -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 03:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

Should we have images in this article? That could give the impression that those images were present in the original source, and if we must use images, let's use ones that were present in the original source --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Verbatim

So does that include spelling errors as well? Because IPs are touching things... Eive 05:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And I thought this page, along with The Movement of the World, were semi-protected (so that IP cannot change things) to prevent such things... -- Konig/talk 05:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Given that there are some pretty blatant mistakes in this article, is it at least legal to add a footnote pointing out that the accuracy of the original source is questionable? For example, it states that "the only real threat to the Charr at this time was [sic] the Forgotten, who dwelled within the Crystal Desert far to the south... Then, the humans came..." That's a nice trick, because the Crystal Desert wasn't even a desert until a couple of centuries after the arrival of humans on the continent, and the forgotten did not live there until the desert had been in existence for some time. There is simply no way to retcon this to fit with well-established timelines and lore from other sources. However, sites such as Ten Ton Hammer are picking up this misinformation and spreading it. BrettM 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, read the top of the page. --Odal talk 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the top of the page primarily reinforces the idea that this information is "official", and the prohibition against correcting any errors does not mean that there are errors or that the errors are more serious than spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. I feel that the existence of informational errors in this article needs to be emphasized somehow. If someone does not already know the lore, they have no reason to distrust anything in this article based on the statement at the top. BrettM 22:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sic tags should be added, nothing else is needed. Sic tags are added throughout all verbatim documentations on either wiki. -- Konig/talk 02:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)