Talk:Haradrim

We have separate pages for the Haradrim and Southrons. These should be merged and disambiguated. I'll be moving the current contents of the Haradrim page to the Southrons page, since it's currently the smaller of the two. --Ted C 16:02, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

Hm, I think we definitely need to merge the two but we should probably think about which term is the most common and have the article content located there. I think in this case Haradrim is more common. The Southrons article can then have information about the actual title and why it was assigned to them, how Tolkien derived the word, etc. --Hyarion 16:16, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

That's probably a good place to put it; I just wanted to go ahead and put the article together in one place or the other. We can sort out the location now that that's done. --Ted C 16:26, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

Edits

I reverted some of the useful edits by Serpent Lord. In other articles, we put the "traits and culture" section at the bottom of the articles, so I returned that section to its place in order to maintain uniformity (which is open to discussion of course). I also removed some of the speculation on the language to keep the text "in-universe". I also removed the references to the names Barangils and Harwan as according to the context, they are certainly not "Haradrian".

Just for the record, I'd like to point out that "Barangil" seems to me like anglicized Gondor Sindarin, analyzed by me as baran = brown and -kil = -ing (cf. Tarkil) therefore a direct translation of "Swerting". Sage 21:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive revision

There are some problems with the massive revision just made. BartAllen, I welcome you to the wiki and I appreciate your work, but first of all, it would be more polite that you had made the edit step by step or at least you discussed in the talkpage your plan of making such a rewriting. Now, the main problem are the sources: we cannot mix Tolkien's work (which is given in-world) with academic discussions, these should be in other categories. Also, a refered cite should include what has been mentioned: for example, about the origins of the Haradrim, they obviously descended from the Men who awoke in Hildórien, but the cite from The Silmarillion doesn't say such a thing (I know the assertion was already there without a reference, but it still doesn't have anything to support it). In the other hand, I don't understand why you cite secondary sources like David Day or Daphne Castell instead of the original books. Also, this should be more focused solely in the Haradrim, there is so much info and speculation I cannot believe it. Finally, there is no need to repeat the references at the end of every sentence: it is assumed that what has been written till a point can be found at the reference put in the end. Please, check Tolkien Gateway:Manual of Style for more details you should know before editing an article. Idk what to do with this. Can somebody revise it? Second and Third Ages are not my specialty. --LorenzoCB 18:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Lorenzo: I cited Daphne Castell's interview Tolkien of in 1966, and for David Day I used in one reference relating to the term 'Swarthy Men'; but for the most part I used Tom Shippey. The only speculation was the possibility of Quenya being spoken by the Gondorians who fled that land for Harad post Kin-strife, and the reference to Tolkien's Lost Chaucer. The origin section is in relation to the events after the Awakening, and the Men during that period who didn't venture to the Light. The information on Beleriand was based on consolidating the information that someone already posted (in hindsight it's immaterial) ~ But in future I shall edit step by step or at least make my intentions known ~ The cite from The Silmarillion (on cite 6) was based on the children of Men spreading (wandering) throughout Endor. Again, apologies for the inconvenience -- Whoops :3 ~ --BartAllen 18:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The possibility that Queny was spoken by the Gondorians that fled to Harad after the Kin-strife was not "the only" speculation in your edit. Your edit contains many speculations, which are not identified as such by adding "it is possible that" or "possibly" and at least one of your references to a source that was not written by J.R.R. Tolkien is wrong. I do not have the time at the moment to explain all speculations that you made and why they are just speculations and to explain all errors. The blog entry by Bruce G. Charlton that you specified as the source for the statement that there were two descendants of classical Adunaic and that one was Westron and that the other was the language of the Black Numenoreans is not the source for this statement, because it does not contain this statement. By the way this statement is wrong, because this statement is not included anywhere in Part Two - The Notion Club Papers in Sauron Defeated. This statement has been copied and pasted on the internet and its source is an essay that was on lalaith's (i.e. Andreas Möhn's) Middle-earth science blog that was called "The Third Realm in Exile" that was later included in the book by lalaith's later pseudonym together with a female author Codex Regius "Middle-earth Seen by the Barbarians". However this statement is also wrong there, because this statement is not included anywhere in Part Two - The Notion Club Papers in Sauron Defeated and the words for the sun and the moon in Part Two The Notion Club Papers are not in two descendants of classical Adunaic. Please do not make any edits based on sources that were not written by J.R.R. Tolkien before checking whether they specify sources that were writting by J.R.R. Tolkien and before reading those sources that were written by J.R.R. Tolkien to be sure that their claims and speculations have a valid basis. In addition, the page on the Haradrim should not be overloaded with information about Harad, Umbar, the Kinf-strife and the Black Numenoreans. --Akhorahil 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with some points by Lorenzo. I already did some fixes to BartAllen's goodwilled edits. I would like to point out that the narrative must be in-context, that is, how Aragorn healed Faramir has no connection to the fact that the Haradrim used the Black Breath; the etymology of Incanus and its possible Quenya meanings don't have any place in the section about the language of the Haradrim; also the fact that the Corsairs were possibly Haradrim doesn't mean that we must repeat their details here. These facts are already mentioned in their respective, more appropriate, articles. Also, I see that BartAllen mainly tailored up some existing phrases form the books or other articles, which result in some awkward and repetitive text; for example the paragraph about the Blue Wizards (now fixed by me, I hope) repeated 3 times that they operated in East and South obviously because this fact was repeated in the multiple sources used by BartAllen, failing to merge it in one phrase. Editing an article doesn't only meaning finding sources, but also make it a flowing, readable narrative.

In those respects I wonder if BartAllen is connected to former users Kulid123, WhiteWizard and Tengwar, as the editing style is similar, with useful insights and elaborate work. Sage 10:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sage, thanks for your revisions as they were great; and once more apologies for the inconvenience as I shall try and adhere to what both Lorenzo and yourself have said ~ Relating to Incanus' etymology should that be placed in the 'etymology' section or simply left out completely? But I shall try not to repeat as much, and perhaps even remove sections of the Ages and instead place them within the 'Harad' page ~ But I'm not connected to those users lol ~ --BartAllen 13:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)