The Swamp of Sorrows was called by that name during the first war (see this article), so how could it have only been renamed after the portal was destroyed during the second war? Anyone know where this information comes from, I have not read the books so I am at a disadvantage here.
As an afterthought, that bit about the furbolgs at the end seems out of place and awkward, but as I don't know much about the lore of this place I chose to leave it alone. --Jiyambit || c 16:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
On this old map the name is shown, but as the southern part of the morass, while Stonard and Rockard are to the north, but we can leave that as artistic freedom :) I#ll rewrite some of the history.--Hurax 09:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Some sources state that Swamp of Sorrows was part of the entire area known as the Black Morass, iirc.Baggins 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I see, it was still called the Swamp of Sorrows, just as part of the Black Morass. Yes, please do rewrite it, Hurax, and much appreciated. Baggins, this may be a stupid question, but what does iirc mean? --Jiyambit || c 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
iirc="if I recall correctly". Rewrote that section, please check for spelling an dother mistakes, and add to it. --Hurax 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me, though I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say that is has been known as the Swamp of Sorrows since the first war - that was just an example I used to prove it had been called that since before the portal exploded. I will revise it a little, but change it back if desired.
Edit: Also, does that last bit about the furbolgs seem awkward to you? I don't really want to just delete it, but it doesn't seem particularly important. Any thoughts?
--Jiyambit || c 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I'll remove the furbolg sentence, didn't find anything about furbolgs outside of northern Kalimdor or Northrend anywhere else, sounds very odd. --Hurax 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The info may seem odd, but its valid it originates from a quote from one of the multiplayer maps in Warcraft III, called the Swamp of Sorrows.Baggins 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I figured it was valid, it just doesn't seem very important. It seems tacked on, at the end of the section like that. Is there a way we could integrate it into the article, or something? --Jiyambit || c 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sabotage?
Who has written that the "Capital city" of Swamp of Sorrows is Stonard, and that the "Government" is "Participatory democracy". Should I laugh or cry? --Odolwa 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's from one of the RPG books. --Jiyambit || c 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? And since when is there democracy in WoW? There are no elections or human rights.--Odolwa 14:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How exactly do you know this? Kirkburntalkcontr 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Because I know for a fact that Thrall wasn't elected Warchief by his people, it was a title he was awarded personally by Orgrim Doomhammer. Varian Wrynn, Magni Bronzebeard and Kael'thas Sunstrider wasn't elected as kings either, they enheritated the titles from their faders. And human rights? Stormwind doesn't even pay their own workers (Stonemasons Guild). And I'm quite sure that torture isn't banned.
So no, there are no democracy in WoW. As in most fantasy-universes, it is a pure dictatorial system.--Odolwa 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Gnomeregan before its fall was a republic, with the High Tinker being elected, though it was no where said whether by all gnomes or by few. The other "modern" society, the draenei, are a theocracy ruled by a prophet. For a tribal society like the orcs, shaped by wars, democratic procedures sound very odd, and I have seen no evidence for that. --Hurax 19:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the demographic and government data was added by Baggins, and I was under the impression it was from one of the RPG books. If you are curious as to the reason it is considered a democracy, ask him what book it is and look it up. If it is from an official source, it should stay, even if you think it is unlikely. I am also interested in knowing the reasons behind it, however - perhaps more detailed information could be added to the article once this is cleared up? --Jiyambit || c 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The government info is taken right out of Lands of Conflict. Yes, apparently Stonard has its own participatory democracy. Note its seperate from Orgrimmar which has a tribal chiefdom style government. But this makes sense they are a remote colony with less contact with the orc nation, and having to survive by their own rules.Baggins 19:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Democracy and human rights aren't black and white. Who says that Stonard can't be very progressive and elect officials differently? Why does the existence of torture preclude any sort of human rights? What, indeed, do human rights have to do with democracy? Democracy encompasses a wide range of things. Kirkburntalkcontr 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kirkburn here. As for Stonard being considered the capital of the area, well, it's pretty much the only town there. Yes there is a small encampment of Broken, but it is just an encampment, not a permanent settlement. --Jiyambit || c 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
True, let's take a look at some real world examples, some of the big nations of the world, such as the US, or Britain, are technocally democracies, but tend to have rather imperialistic ways of treating lesser countries, even breaking international law on occasion if it suits them. For the US I speak of reoccuring theme of manifest destiny, and its blaimed for most current occupations during war (although it often shares the blame with most of the United Nations).Baggins 19:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And modern "democratic" nations still practice torture, though it is usually on the "enemy" who is somehow therefor less human. At any rate, Stonard, like many real world democracies, is surely not a perfect democracy. But since it is a small population in a remote and isolated area, it makes sense to me that that small group could and would form a democracy. --Jiyambit || c 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ever read Lord of the Flies, now that was a democracy gone wrong ;).Baggins 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Okey, whoever wrote the RPG-books gotta have been drunk. They are classing Sargeras as a Fighter, Sylvanas as a Mage, Illidan as a Warrior, Malfurion as a Scout and Thrall as a Blademaster. And now this! It's just ridiculous. But as long as it's "official facts", I assume there's nothing I can do to get rid of these strange "facts".--Odolwa 09:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Plainly you don't know how RPGs work, or are just bitter about them for some reason. Sylvanas having levels in "mage" does not mean she is a mage, it means she has some abilities that are akin to mage-kind. In real terms, there are few who are so focussed as to be a single type of person. And exactly why are you so resistant to the idea of an elective democracy in Stonard? Democracy is an idea, it can be practised in many many different ways. Kirkburntalkcontr 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume it's technical possible, but I have always thought that Stonard was a village abandoned during the Second War, later being re-populated when Thrall formed the new Horde. With that said, I never thought Stonard was independent. Stonard also lack a real leader.--Odolwa 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
1. Thrall was a gladiator and a master of all weapons and blades according to Lord of the Clans. According to the RPG, Blademaster is the orcish name for gladiators. So case in point he was a Blademaster by orcish terminology.
3. Demonhunter is a prestige multi-class in the RPG, and is a cross between warrior and rogues for the most part.
4. Sargeras has always been classed as a warrior and a fighter. He has always been shown to wield a great sword. This makes perfect sense.Baggins 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Stonard is not independent, its just a colony vastly seperated from the main Horde in Kalimdar, and has little connection to the Forsaken in Lordaeron either, thus it has its own unique government style. As for its leadership, nothing really goes into that detail, we do know it has a population of 2,500, though (large enough it would need some form of goverment).Baggins 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
