Talk:Skyrim Civil War/Archive 1

Regarding non-Nord membership of the Stormcloak rebellion
Bethesda provides numerous in-game references in the game of Skyrim that highlight how the Stormcloak rebellion is not a Nord-only affair. Specific examples which disprove the contentions of user Daevran13: Assuming that user Daevran13's edits are made in good faith, they appear based on a lacking knowledge of the in-game lore of Skryim. His continued attempts at removing information directly relevant to the content of this article are detrimental to its quality, and are to be responded to accordingly. Arshudar Al-Muhdarin (talk) 12:51, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * Endon refers to his son Cade, who is a Redguard native of Skyrim who has joined the Stormcloak uprising. Endon additionally mentions that he would have made the same choice as Cade did if he had been younger. This is revealed as part of random dialogue within the Silver-Blood Inn during evening hours.
 * The Dragonborn can partake in the initiation rite of the Stormcloaks regardless of his or her ethnic background.
 * When asked by a non-Nord character whether he or she should really consider joining the Stormcloaks after escaping from Helgen, the Stormcloak NPC Ralof responds with the following statement: "Of course! You don't have to be a Nord to fight for Skyrim's freedom." This is revealed by talking to the NPC right after the quest Unbound is completed.


 * Their in-game dialogue when spoken to clarifies the following:
 * "I'm on my way to Windhelm to join the Stormcloaks. Ulfric has the right of it."
 * "The Empire is in shambles. They've banned the worship of Talos."
 * "I may have roots in Cyrodiil, but Skyrim's as much my home as any Nord's."

Verify this for yourself when playing the game and speaking to these NPCs when you encounter them. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. (Arshudar Al-Muhdarin (talk) 18:16, November 24, 2013 (UTC))


 * None of this is proof he's an Imperial. If a Dunmer says the Empire is in shamlbes, this makes him an Imperial? Nonsense, stating a fact doesn't determine your race, neither does having roots in a particular province. Annaig Hoinart was a Breton living in Black Marsh and had roots there. Does that make her an Argonian? No. I've reverted the article to its previous state. The Creation Kit says he's a Redguard, then he's a Redguard. The fact the developpers programmed him a Redguard makes it a fact, not your personal interpretation of what he says.  DRAEVAN13  23:07, December 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is still no justification for your repeated attempts at removing relevant information about non-Nord citizens joining the Stormcloak uprising. I've re-added this information yet again. If your behavior persists, I will report you for vandalism. Arshudar Al-Muhdarin (talk) 11:14, January 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * My edits are based on in-game evidence. The Stormcloaks have ZERO non-Nord members. This is according to the game's programming and the Construction Kit which allows us to view the race of every single member of the faction.
 * Endon is not listed as a Stormcloak in the CK and his son Cade is never seen in-game, nor is there a Cade/Race=Redguard/Faction=Stormcloak in the CK. Ergo, it's an UNSUPPORTED RUMOR, not fact.
 * Bethesda did that because restricting membership based on race would have induced fanboy rage.
 * See above.
 * NOT. ONE. STORMCLOAK. IS. A. NON. NORD. Your edits appear to be based on either ignorance or desire to add your fanboy proaganda.  DRAEVAN13  14:47, February 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're the one at fault. You keep adding mis-information about the Stormcloaks and reverting my edits when I return the page to a factual state. I've reported you to the Admins for adding mis-information.  DRAEVAN13  02:14, February 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * You are at fault. You appear to have an implicit intent of removing information from this article which covers the multi-cultural aspects of the Stormcloak rebellion, such as non-Nords joining and sympathizing with the movement. This amounts to intentionally spreading misinformation, and can be considered vandalism. I will notify TES Wiki administators of your behavior, and I will be closely watching the edits you make on other related articles, as this is clearly not an isolated incident. Arshudar Al-Muhdarin (talk) 12:17, February 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already discussed the situation with the Admins a few weeks ago, and they told me that I was right and that you were at fault: THERE ARE NO NON-NORD STORMCLOAKS. I've contatced them again and returned the Civil War paghe to a factual state.  DRAEVAN13  14:33, February 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * Please keep this discussion civil and remove blaming from each-others edits. There's an easy way to solve this. Come up with the sources that says there were many non-Nords that joined the Stormcloak Rebellion. Otherwise, it is an assumption that many non-Nords joined. None of the Stormcloak Officers are anything but Nords. But, yes, there are some non-Nords that sympathize with the Stormcloaks. If you have stumbled upon other races that have said (in-game) that they support the Stormcloak Rebellion, then source the information inline with the text, so it's not construed as misinformation.


 * As for the Imperial Legion, the player fights alongside Legate Rikke and Hadvar; Nords. The Imperial Legion has more diverse races that joined, as evidence by the various races that have the rank of Legate. Legate Emmanuel Admand (Breton), Legate Fasendil (Altmer), Legate Hrollod (Nord), Legate Sevan Telendas (Dunmer), Legate Skulnar (Nord).


 * While it may be true that some non-Nords were headed up to join the Stormcloak Rebellion, during the civil war, how many non-Nord Stormcloaks did you see fighting alongside your character? This information is based on the Creation Kit not having any non-Nords listed. Non-Nords joining up is not the same thing as non-Nords sympathizing with the Stormcloaks.


 * Also, please do not cite an edit-revert as "Vandalism" when it is clearly not, it's a disagreement that needed further discussion. — TombRaiser  SPEAK!  19:22, February 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tombraiser.
 * A few farmers saying they're going to join up does not mean there are "many non-Nord Stormcloaks", especially if they're never seen or heard from again. And even if Endon's son is a Stormcloak (even though there's no evidence to support this), that's a single man. Not "many". That doesn't mean the Redguards support Ulfric, either. One or two individuals do not speak for their entire race.  DRAEVAN13  19:36, February 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * I say we should add that some non-Nords have shown to sympathize with the Stormcloak cause, but never the less, only Nords make up the in-game Stormcloak ranks. That way, it explains what both editors are saying. I am Sylar (talk) 20:16, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the Last Dragonborn? Whatever race you are in-game you are allowed to join the Stormcloaks. Maybe the paragraph should be more like: "Any race is certified to enter into Stormcloak ranks.<.ref>Dialogue with Ulfric Stormcloak Although, no non-Nord members of the Stormcloak rebellion are shown in-game. Mention is made of them however, as Endon in Markarth speaks of his son Cade, a Redguard, joining into the Stormcloak Rebellion.<.ref>Dialogue with Endon (Remove '.'s from refs) 17:47, February 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be fine. As long as it's doesn't say "there are many non-Nord Stormcloaks" or "The Redguards all agree with Ulfric" since that's a huge exaggeration and, well, false.
 * Though it's obvious any player race being able to join is for gameplay, not for lore reasons. Imagine if only Nord Dragonborns could join, people would throw a shit-fit.  DRAEVAN13  18:05, February 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * Since Galmar Stone-Fist does acknowledge your race, I don't think it was just a gameplay thing. So, I think it should be added. But I agree with what you said that saying "all Redguards agree with Ulfric" or "there are a lot of non-Nord Stormcloaks in-game" is false. I am Sylar (talk) 18:22, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Bethesda provides numerous in-game references in the game of Skyrim that highlight how the Stormcloak rebellion is not a Nord-only affair. Specific examples which disprove the contentions of user Daevran13: Assuming that user Daevran13's edits are made in good faith, they appear based on a lacking knowledge of the in-game lore of Skryim. His continued attempts at removing information directly relevant to the content of this article are detrimental to its quality, and are to be responded to accordingly. Al-Muhdarin(talk) 12:51, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * Endon refers to his son Cade, who is a Redguard native of Skyrim who has joined the Stormcloak uprising. Endon additionally mentions that he would have made the same choice as Cade did if he had been younger. This is revealed as part of random dialogue within the Silver-Blood Inn during evening hours.
 * The Dragonborn can partake in the initiation rite of the Stormcloaks regardless of his or her ethnic background.
 * When asked by a non-Nord character whether he or she should really consider joining the Stormcloaks after escaping from Helgen, the Stormcloak NPC Ralof responds with the following statement: "Of course! You don't have to be a Nord to fight for Skyrim's freedom." This is revealed by talking to the NPC right after the quest Unbound is completed.


 * My edits are based on in-game evidence. The Stormcloaks have ZERO non-Nord members. This is according to the game's programming and the Construction Kit which allows us to view the race of every single member of the faction.
 * Endon is not listed as a Stormcloak in the CK and his son Cade is never seen in-game, nor is there a Cade/Race=Redguard/Faction=Stormcloak in the CK. Ergo, it's an UNSUPPORTED RUMOR, not fact.
 * Bethesda did that because restricting membership based on race would have induced fanboy rage.
 * See above.
 * NOT. ONE. STORMCLOAK. IS. A. NON. NORD. Your edits appear to be based on either ignorance or desire to add your fanboy proaganda. DRAEVAN13 14:47, February 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * You struggle a bit with forming coherent arguments. If non-Nords actively come to join the Stormcloak rebellion and the Stormcloaks allow for it, then the Stormcloak rebellion is not a Nord-only affair. That is a matter of fact, and not opinion or interpretation. The game developers themselves are confirming through various in-game dialogue that non-Nords are indeed Stormcloak members, notably the son of Endon, Cade. Your misguided Crusade therefore seems directed at Bethesda itself, and not editors who include information which traces its source back directly to Bethesda's very own writers.


 * Secondly, the Hammerfell rebellion of the Redguards occurs for identical reasons and under identical circumstances as the Stormcloak uprising: an expression of local outrage over the Empire's treatment and abandonment of their people and culture, and as a military response to the Thalmor persecuting and murdering citizens within their own lands. The reference to Hammerfell is directly relevant to the subject of the Stormcloaks, as it explains why Redguards in particular are want to join the Stormcloaks despite being non-Nords. The addition of this information therefore does not qualify as a tangent, and is worthy of inclusion.


 * Lastly, I'd like to thank you for vigorously (mouth-frothingly) pointing out that the farmer which the Dragonborn encounters on the road is indeed a Redguard, rather than an Imperial. It serves to further solidify the truth that non-Nords - for unsurprising reasons Redguards in particular given that the Stormcloak rebellion has a sister movement in Hammerfell - join the uprising and the Stormcloak movement thus is multi-cultural by definition. Arshudar Al-Muhdarin (talk) 04:25, February 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you not read the Talk Page on the Civil War Page? Tombraiser and Zippertrain, Admins and Moderators, have asked you to stop adding that info. You keep adding it. There are no non-Nord Stormcloaks, let alond "many". There is no evidence of Hammerfell or the Redguard race supporting Ulfric. One possible Redguard supporter does NOT mean the entire race supports him. I've reverted your mis-information yet again. Hopefully, you'll stop adding this.  DRAEVAN13  20:36, February 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * You won't have to worry about that anymore Draevan, EbonySkyrim has locked the page. I am Sylar (talk) 20:39, February 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Good. I reverted his edit before it was locked. Now it'll stay in a factual state.  DRAEVAN13  20:48, February 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly - keep it civil and stop with the insults. Both of you. Secondly, Draevan - it should be noted that Creation Kit info is never a reliable source for lore - even the faction field. CK data is often obscure developer info that might give some insight into some things, but it should never be a primary source.


 * After looking at the points and my own knowledge on the matter, its clear that Arshudar has some valid points. Wth lore, you don't take the "Betheada's reasoning for xyz" path. You document what you see, read, hear. Lets look at the relevant dialogue:


 * Endon and Cade: "He's off fighting, Adara, with the Stormcloaks. He'll return when the war is over."
 * Imperial Farmer: "I'm on my way to Windhelm to join up with the Stormcloaks. Ulfric has the right of it."


 * The random Farmer is actually a dark skinned Imperial, so he may be mistaken as a Redguard. Based on these two isolated incidents and dialogue from other Stormcloaks, it's unreasonable to say that there are only Nords within the Stormcloaks. Nords are likely the vast majority, but to rule out any other races is false. Just because you don't actually see them as NPCs in game doesn't make it true - dialogue supports it.


 * Next, Arshudar - while there are parallels to the Hammerfell Rebellion, claiming that this explains why Redguards in particular are want to join the Stormcloaks (despite being non-Nords) is too large an assumption. There can be any number of reasons why a Redguard may wish to join the Stormcloaks, but its not for us to assume. For this reason, your edit about  "inspired the solidarity of non-Nords, notably of Redguards..." needs to be tweaked. I would support something that mentions some non-Nords having joined the Stormcloaks - but leave their motives/intentions out of it. I'll now unlock the page. Don't fight. Jimeee (talk) 12:12, February 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I have a feeling Arshudar is going to disagree with this, here's what I have in mind: keep the page locked until we can agree what to add. Here's what I would add:
 * "The Dragonborn may encounter an Imperial Farmer heading to Windhelm to join the Stormcloaks. Whether he is accepted into their ranks is never known." And for the Redguards I agree with Jimeee: one possible member does not equal their entire race supporting Ulfric.  DRAEVAN13  14:28, February 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * In all due respect Draevan, I feel Arshudar's evidence is more comprehensive, although when he rewrites that section, he seems to exaggerate hismpoints quite alot. I think what Jimeee has said sums up the situation about right, that there is evidence to support non-Nord Stormcloaks, nothing speaks of vast support in Hammerfell or other places. You two should meet in the middle over this debate, as both of you are seeming to exaggerate your evidence. Yes, it seems that other races are permitted to enter the ranks of the Stormcloaks, but it speaks nowhere (I think) of vast support in other provinces or regions. 17:48, February 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that's my point: nowhere is there evidence of vast support from non-Nords. I'm not denying there are a few non-Nord supporters. In my arguments I acknowledge there are non-Nord farmers heading to Windhelm to join the Stormcloaks. But no non-Nord Stormcloaks are seen in-game, which is why I'm reluctant to add it. I have no problem with the article saying there MIGHT be, but saying there ARE is a problem since every single Stormcloak we see in the game is a Nord. Those farmers going to join are never seen again, they're never seen fighting for Ulfric or anything. Point is, saying they MIGHT be is fine. Saying there ARE is a problem.  DRAEVAN13  18:31, February 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * While this discussion is over, I'd like to note that the lack of non-Nords is due to game mechanics. It would be hard to randomize the soldiers to have a few of the other nine races mixed in, and considering non-Nord enrollment is presumably around 1% and very minimal, its much easier to simply have them all Nords. Same thing with the Imperial Legion, the soldiers are all Imperials and male, but non-Imperials (i.e. Legate Fasendil) and non-males (i.e. Legate Rikke, and the lady who orders your execution) are present. While I can't find any examples for the Stormcloaks (Captain Valmir is just an impersonator, but Altmer can join the rebellion) it is still possible for non-Nords to be Stormcloak members.

Glaring Errors
Some fairly big errors in this article. The imperials have their base of operations in Castle Dour, hardly a "small building". Castle Dour is (obviously) in Solitude, the hold of Solitude is the Blue Palace, which makes it impossible for the Stormcloaks to be using that as their base of operations.

Lastly this brings up the use of the word "there" in this sentence from the Stormcloak entry

"There base of operations is inside the Blue Palace ."

The correct word is "their". There is a general lack of good grammar use in this entire article overall.

The imperials don't want to destroy the Stormcloaks, they wish to crush the Stormcloak resistance and bring the entirety of Skyrim under Imperial rule.

The Stormcloaks have a more complicated motivation. Skyrim was a part of the empire. The signing of the White Gold Concordat that ended the war with the elves also forbade the worship of Talos. The Stormcloaks feel that this is cowardice, considering Talos (as Tiber Septim) was actually a Nord, to them this outlawing is an outrage and spits on the legend of the man-god. So the Stormcloaks want to remove the Imperials and make Skyrim an independant state so they can allow the worship of Talos. From what I have read on lore Skyrim was never really strongly aligned with the empire anyway.

Only write this here because I am not so good at writing succinctly, plus I may have some lore points wrong.

124.180.94.232 10:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)LogiC


 * At a quick glance - that looks pretty correct to me. The last little bit isnt completely correct: The nords were already pretty much the backbone of stability in the empire (one of the Pocket Guides, I think, forget which one said that if ever the Nords awoke from their political slumber, the empire would be in trouble) but other than that, the lore sounds pretty correct. As for the glaring errors - I agree. Timeoin•Say G'Day•View my work•Skyrim To-Do List 10:53, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this, but the entire Civil War topic on wiki is an absolute mess. If you look at the individual quests, jagged crown and of course joining the stormcloaks/legion are given from both POV's, but then "Message to Whiterun", the entire wiki page walkthrough is listed from only the stormcloak side. So is Battle for Whiterun, but then when you get to Reunification, the first thing it mentions is "report to general tulius" and the entire article is a short stub listing the legion side of events.

I'm trying to decide what faction to choose, but it's impossible with the information given on wiki because not only are each individual quests walkthroughs very poor, but they don't give both sides' events, nor is it consistent on WHICH side's events are given.

I was told the Civil War quests must be completed before the main quest and before the dark brotherhood storylines or diplomatic immunity will be terribly fubar'ed, so I should think this information would be very pertinent to most players.Theopheus (talk) 05:33, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't really even started the civil war (haven't gotten the Jagged Crown yet), but I had no trouble completing the Dark Brotherhood's storyline, nor did I have any hiccups while doing Diplomatic Immunity (XBox) Tyrasis (talk) 04:51, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done it twice now with no problems, joining the Legion both times, the first time before the main quest ended and the second time after. The chief weirdness was in the story itself -- joining as more or less a common soldier when you're already regularly knocking dragons out of the sky. But I suppose that's more interesting than just going right to Ulrich's palace and slice'n'dicing him, and it's not nearly as weird as starting the Thieves Guild questline that late and being demoted to pickpocket.


 * I've never played the Stormcloak side and I suspect I never will, for much the same reason I never play the Legion side in Fallout: New Vegas. The Nords, with some honorable exceptions, are brutal clowns, know-nothing nativists and racists, and booting them in the teeth feels very satisfying. I don't find them very oppressed by the Imperial forces either. The main offence or crime against the Nords that the Imperials are unarguably guilty of, forbidding the worship of Talos, is implemented just enough to keep the Thalmor off the Empire's back. Seriously, do you ever have any problem finding a shrine of Talos if you want one? There's one in Riften, for instance, out in the broad daylight and nobody seems to be trying to smash it. The Thalmor are the real problem; the Imperial forces aren't yet strong enough to take them on, and they never will be if they keep on getting stabbed in the back. If the situation bothers you that much, wipe out a few Thalmor patrols to work your feelings off. 174.6.51.17 09:58, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * That shows an ignorance of Tamriel international politics. For instance, The Second Aldmeri Dominion is actually a relatively small Tamriel Power, with the Argonian State and the Empire (even if Skyrim seceded) being much larger states. Furthermore, in the event of another war with the Thalmor, in all probability the Dominion would lose, as Hammerfell would most likely side with the Empire, as being surrounded by a potential enemy is NOT a smart thing to be, Skyrim would probably side with the Empire out of dislike for Mer races which had conquered it before, and Elsweyr would still hold tensions after the Five Years War. Also, The Empire has largely failed as a nation because the Thalmor have infiltrated almost all areas of their infrastructure, from trade positions to actively being able to seek out Talos worshippers in Skyrim. If you think Talos worship isn't being oppressed, you obviously haven't played a large amount of Markarth's missions. As for the rascism issue, while it is true that many races are a segregated minority, even if this did not end after the Civil War eventual social upheaval would occur and the threat of an uprising of all races would be politically disastrous for any nation. Corruption in the Empire is further seen when, if you give Riften to the Empire in Season Unending, Maven Black-Briar becomes the new Jarl. In conclusion, the Empire had become a disastrous, corrupt government that needs a new beginning if anything is to be done.
 * Uh, hey, quick fact check for the guy above me accusing others of ignorance while apparantly ignorant himself; first off, the Dominion is made up of the Summerset Isles, Valenwood, and Elsweyr (where they launched the initial attack in the last war, so clearly it's loyal). It's huge. Black Marsh was basically dropped from the Empire 200 years ago, and Hammerfall was kicked out when they objected to parts of their land being given to the Thalmor (they are now independent, and already managed to kick them out of their nation, so I don't see them running to back the Empire that sold them out). Morrowind is still reeling from the damage of Red Mountain erupting, and much of their heavily Dunmer population is likely sympathetic to the Dominion, since they are the last non-human race to be in the Empire; they will not be much help in any war. This leaves Cyrodill with Highrock (who have a bad history with the Altmer and will definitely remain loyal to the empire), Skyrim, and tiny little Orsinium. Losing Skyrim would deprive it of their best warriors (since they lost the Redguards) and also completely cut them off from High Rock. And the Nords, after all that bloodshed, would not turn around and support the Empire; after all, they just did that a few years ago and the response of the Empire was to give up and sell out Talos. If the Dominion started doing too well in a war, sure, I could see some aid coming to the Empire, but just enough to keep the Dominion stalled. And I realize this isn't the right place to have a debate, but I figured anyone reading this talk page might appreciate some facts.
 * Uh, hey, quick fact check for the guy above me accusing others of ignorance while apparantly ignorant himself; first off, the Dominion is made up of the Summerset Isles, Valenwood, and Elsweyr (where they launched the initial attack in the last war, so clearly it's loyal). It's huge. Black Marsh was basically dropped from the Empire 200 years ago, and Hammerfall was kicked out when they objected to parts of their land being given to the Thalmor (they are now independent, and already managed to kick them out of their nation, so I don't see them running to back the Empire that sold them out). Morrowind is still reeling from the damage of Red Mountain erupting, and much of their heavily Dunmer population is likely sympathetic to the Dominion, since they are the last non-human race to be in the Empire; they will not be much help in any war. This leaves Cyrodill with Highrock (who have a bad history with the Altmer and will definitely remain loyal to the empire), Skyrim, and tiny little Orsinium. Losing Skyrim would deprive it of their best warriors (since they lost the Redguards) and also completely cut them off from High Rock. And the Nords, after all that bloodshed, would not turn around and support the Empire; after all, they just did that a few years ago and the response of the Empire was to give up and sell out Talos. If the Dominion started doing too well in a war, sure, I could see some aid coming to the Empire, but just enough to keep the Dominion stalled. And I realize this isn't the right place to have a debate, but I figured anyone reading this talk page might appreciate some facts.

Canon
what do you think will be the canonical winner in the elder scolls 6 i believe it is the stormcloaks due to the fact that the legion is like the romans and the roman empire it was around for ages and finanly got beaten by barbrians(the nords for skyrim)


 * Actually, they were beaten by the fact that all the other forces split off ;) Timeoin•Say G'Day•View my work 10:50, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * when i said beaten i didn't mean destroyed just beaten by the goths(they sacked rome)


 * They'll probably take the easy way out and say both happened thanks to another Dragon Break, like they did for Daggerfall. Two other options would be to set the events of 6 either before Skyrim or far enough away that the civil war doesn't much matter (still hoping for Elsweyr). Tyrasis (talk) 06:05, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a subject that has gained my increased interest lately. Each side to the Civil War conflict seems quite balanced in their agendas (Stormcloaks - Independence and freedom and right to worship Talos, on par with Ulfric's possible connections to the Thalmor and the fact that this entire uprising could be fueled mainly by his personal agenda of becoming High King more than just fight for freedom; And the Empire - Bound on keeping the age-long unification of their states and relative peace during those times, however poisoned with corruption and seemingly obvious degradation of power, since let's be honest, Septims did a whole lot better than the Mede dynasty ever seemed to.) Of course, unification and peace is good in the long term, however Nords seem to always be described as hardy warriors, one of the best in the empire, and since the Redguards could beat the Thalmor back from their lands on their own, Skyrim has a possibility of achieving the same feat. Of course, Skyrim has a lucky geographical position, since a land invasion could only come through either the Empire, Hammerfell, or Morrowind (Which according to some background lore I found, is apparently absorbed into the Argonian State after the eruption of the Red Mountain and the Dark Elf refugee wave, and as much as the empire and the Redguards are opposed towards the Dominion, I'm pretty sure Argonians wouldn't favor Aldmeri either - slavery. Also, and this I am not sure of, but if I recall correctly while playing Morrowind, I did overhear some Dunmer resentment towards the Altmer as well.Of course, quite a few centuries have passed since, but let's keep in mind that Elves can live that long.) Keeping all that in mind, what would be the most logical canon conclusion to the civil war conflict to set the stage for the new Elder Scrolls game? I'd love to read some structured opinions. :) By Sorko, 31.103.76.177 13:59, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Error
In the "Trivia" section, the last point has a minor error. The first sentence reads, "In The Elder Scrolls V: Dawnguard quest Awakening, the Dragonborn may ask the vampire Serana on how long she's been sealed in Dimhollow Crypt." The word "on" does not belong in the sentence, it should just read "ask the vampire Serana how long". 20:37, February 23, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed 15:30, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Reference to another game
There's a line comparing Skyrim to New Vegas. It's pretty pointless, and it bugs me. Is the wiki's policy to purge anything that doesn't relate to TES, or is this OK:

''Oddly enough, the dynamics of this war bear some resemblance to the fight for New Vegas in Fallout: New Vegas between the NCR and Caesar's Legion. The NCR, who adorn a two-headed bear (like the Stormcloaks use the Bear for their symbol) and Caesar's Legion, who, like the Empire, are based off of the Roman Legion, end up battling for control over the area.''

Any objections to me deleting it?

IncinerateChicken (talk) 08:19, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the title
As far as I'm aware, there is no other game which talks about Civil Wars. So I propose that we move this to just "Civil War" (over the current redirect) since, until another game puts the player in the face of one, there is no reason to have this disambiguated with "Skyrim Civil War" as the title. --Sajuuk talk 13:36, April 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping, just to make it noticed in the community. I assume that people would be fine with this change, but I'd like to hear from others first. --Sajuuk talk 08:28, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to change the name, it was the Skyrim civil war, changing the name doesn't better or fix anything. I am going with the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" method.-Cheatcodechamp (talk) 08:42, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point Sajuuk but I'm not sure in changing the name for two reasons; it's always been known officially as the Skyrim Civil War (or the Civil War in Skyrim) and because there have been past civil wars discussed in lore books (which is probably why it got the title Skyrim Civil War in the first place), just obviously not wars big enough (well this one wasn't that big, but we got to play in it so you get what I mean...) like this one to warrant their own article. Bluesonic1 (talk) 08:43, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * @CCC: The "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" method never works on wiki's, nothing is perfect and things can always be improved. So assuming that nothing can be changed will only lead to issues down the line, since nothing is "complete" in a wiki environment. :D
 * @Bluesonic: The reason, I think, it should be moved, is because most of the links point at the Civil War redirect. A lot of links on the wiki that point directly to the page are piped to avoid a redirect. So, in all fairness, nearly every link is using the redirect, which makes it the more likely search target. You mention that other books talk about past wars, but don't other pages already mention them?
 * If mentioning that it's a Skyrim war is needed, we could always just do: "The Skyrim Civil War, commonly referred to as the Civil War" etc, in the lead, but I think most, if not all, people coming to this page will know it's a Skyrim war, not other civil wars. Most in-game characters just refer to it by "Civil War" or "Stormcloak Rebellion", the full "Skyrim Civil War" title is never used afaik. --Sajuuk talk 08:47, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't feel that changing it because the redirect is most used is a just reason- because it is not its official title. It's kinda like character names, calling them a nickname as opposed to their full/real name. It's more appropriate to have the redirect as the nickname and the article showing their real name- officially, this was the Skyrim Civil War. Yeah, the redirect is going to be used more often because it's more convenient but it's not its full official & formal title. And yes, other pages do discuss other civil wars of other provinces, but you get what I mean in that each of those has their own title (even if they don't have a dedicated article) like this one is titled the Skyrim Civil War. I feel that it's just a more formal and precise title than simply calling it the Civil War. Bluesonic1 (talk) 09:06, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source that states the current title is the official one? It's not that I don't believe you, but the word "official" is easily thrown around to keep things as they are, even when it's not. :P
 * Also, if a redirect is always used, it can indicate a better title, since there are some editors who will make efforts to systematically "remove" redirects even if they're very useful. So if the page is not actually directly linked on any other articles, but all the links point at a redirect, it would make more sense simply to move the page to the redirect. Note that, if this was moved, a redirect would be left behind. --Sajuuk talk 09:15, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of official title, I refer you to the trailer narration which highlights that the prophecy the Blades spoke about was about a civil war erupting specifically in Skyrim, and here is the prophecy that specifically mentions a Civil War in Skyrim i.e. Skyrim Civil War. And again, yes the redirect may indicate a better title but it can also indicate a common name that people use too, which is still not appropriate to name an article by e.g. everyone just calls him Galmar, but that doesn't mean the article should be renamed to that considering his full name is Galmar Stone-Fist. Bluesonic1 (talk) 09:35, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they call it a "Civil War in Skyrim", not "Skyrim Civil War". They're just describing that Skyrim is the location of a Civil War, just like how -- on the wiki -- we write things like this: "In the Gray Quarter, you can find Dunmer refugees". That doesn't mean the section is called "Dunmer Gray Quarter" ;)
 * Character names are not the same, since we have to use in-game names for that. But nearly all the in-game characters call it a "Civil War", because the game is already based in Skyrim, so it would be redundant for them all to say "Skyrim Civil War", as that would make it seem like they are talking about a civil war somewhere else.
 * Does that make sense or no? Skyrim Civil War, at least to me, is only a descriptive name for the purposes of explaining to others where the Civil War takes place, it's not the official title. CK, or in-game content, could probably state more about it though. And please don't think I'm trying to push my thoughts on people, I just want to explain what I'm thinking, since this is a community effort ;) --Sajuuk talk 09:41, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Americans call their civil war as simply "The Civil War". Outside America, it's known as "The American Civil War". I don't see a need to change the title, for all we know there could be an Elsweyr Civil War in the future, and in Daggerfall there was a High Rock Civil War. ☞ Rim < Talk 17:27, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to be pedantic, but should this not have been resolved BEFORE you started changing all the links to "Skyrim Civil War", albeit piped links, to the redirect page "Civil War"? It seems like you have already made up your mind @SuperSajuuk. What's next? Renaming "Dragon Shouts" to "Voice" or "Shout"? Garry Damrau( talk ) 04:30, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Garry, you don't have a clue what I was doing. I was fixing piped links which BYPASSED A REDIRECT. Those edits were NECESSARY. And no, I haven't made up my mind about anything. I would appreciate you drop the sarcasm. --Sajuuk talk 07:58, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * Links that 'bypass' redirects are sometimes called 'direct links'. Being 'piped', as you call it, should not be a problem. The user is directed straight to where they need to go. I might be new here but I can read the diffs and what I see is that you make a lot of edits that create more double links than they eliminate. As far as sarcasm goes, you should read your own comments and stop being 'the kettle calling the pot black'. P.S. If I'm in the wrong, please ask an Admin. to tell me and I'll stop editing here. Garry Damrau( talk ) 08:09, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ An example of an attitude that is completely wrong. You should never bypass a redirect. They are there for a good reason. I was simply fixing the links to use those redirects because that's proper wiki-etiquette. Going around piping links to bypass redirects is detrimental and creates issues with things, so I was simply following proper standards. --Sajuuk talk 08:15, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

As Rim said, the term Civil War is a generic term dependent on which country you are in. In the real world there has been a French Civil War, a Spanish Civil War, a Mexican Civil War, a Russian Civil War, a Syrian Civil War, an Afganistan Civil War, a Japanese Civil War and many others including an American Civil War. Just because when you are playing TESV, everyone simply refers to it as the Civil War does not mean it's the ONLY Civil War. If someone enters Civil War in the search box they are directed to the Skyrim Civil War. I would like someone to explain to me why a 'piped' link is considered bypassing a redirect? To me all it's doing is linking DIRECTLY where you should go to learn what you want but displaying a different text than where you are linked to. Not everyone knows where to search for what they want. That is the reason for redirects and disambigs. I also do not appreciate being told that I don't have a clue. Is that how Patrollers here make people feel welcome? I took a while to respond because I was concerned that I WAS getting an attitude like you say. Garry Damrau( talk ) 11:18, April 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Because, piping a link  IS redirect bypass. Civil War is a redirect to Skyrim Civil War, so piping the link is redirect bypass. Feel free to educate yourself on redirect bypass here.
 * Also, being a patroller doesn't make me above anyone else, we are all regular users, despite what some people might claim. I'm a regular user like you and when people post something that is wrong, I will tell them they are wrong and why. Me being a patroller doesn't automatically mean I cannot tell people when they're making statements that are simply not true.
 * You wrongly assumed I was "making an executive decision", when I was really cleaning up links to use the proper redirect that exists. That is something I will always do, regardless if a policy says to use direct links (unless, there is an ACTUAL reason to avoid a redirect, which there is never a reason to do so).
 * Also, by "attitude", I did not mean your tone, I was referring to your claims that a "direct links are better than redirects". --Sajuuk talk 11:24, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

So by that logic we should change all pages that use the piped link to Dragonborn to Dovahkiin because Dovahkiin is a redirect page. I will read the page you linked to but I will still feel that a direct link with alternate text is the best way to link when the pagename is different than the phrase uses to describe it. And telling someone that they "don't have a clue" is not an executive decision; It's rude, in anyone's book.-Garry Damrau( talk ) 11:40, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Well Spey, I did "educate myself" and found it ironic that you would send me to a page where the header of that section is "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken". Wasn't it you who told CCC "CCC: The "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" method never works on wiki's"? It does say, and I quote "While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental." Would you not agree that doing the exact opposite, changing direct/piped links, that work fine, so that they link to the redirect page is also a "time-wasting exercise"? No wait, I'm sorry, You don't agree. "you don't have a clue what I was doing. I was fixing piped links which BYPASSED A REDIRECT. Those edits were NECESSARY." I did find a point that does support your opinion and am grateful for you pointing it out. When editing in Source Mode it does make it easier to read text when the links are simple and not piped. Everyone has their own opinion, and all of them are equally valid. If I were you I would feel exactly the same way. I'm not here looking for an argument but I'm also not one to back away from one. In closing I must respond to your comment "Also, by "attitude", I did not mean your tone, I was referring to your claims that a "direct links are better than redirects".". If you read what I said, I never claimed that one way was "better" than the other, merely that piped links take one directly where they want to go and leave one the option of going "Back" a page to where they were. Garry Damrau( talk ) 06:32, April 24, 2015 (UTC)

Serious lore-issues on the CW page
Things need to be removed It is stated ingame, that the chests of gold were given due to the White-Gold Concordat, nothing related to the Civil War. On the page it says that it's the 'Mede Empire' while there doesn't exist a 'Mede Empire', it's still the same Empire, only a different dynasty. What Sports' posts isn't trivia and has no place in its section, unlike the previous line, which does. Someone really needs to remove these major errors, unless if we want to look like a bunch of lore-novices. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:44, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Jarls such as Balgruuf the Greater were gifted with chests of gold in order to facilitate their cooperation with the Empire.
 * The Mede 'Empire'
 * The trivia section
 * 1. "J'arls such as Balgruuf the Greater were gifted with chests of gold in order to facilitate their cooperation with the Empire." It is a forgone conclusion that the chests of gold was a bribe to the jarls to fall in line with the Empire and aid them in suppressing the Stormcloaks who desire to openly rebel against the Talos ban. There is literally no other way to interpret this. Balgruuf said it himself, he was told to obey, why would a governmet enact a law and have to bribe their subjects to obey it? Does any government have to pay their citizens to not murder or steal? It's a bribe to fall in line so the line rings true.
 * 2. The Third Empire, known to this wiki as the Septim Empire was an Empire established by Talos or Tiber Septim who's heirs are legitimized by the Amulet of Kings to rule on the Ruby Throne. The Mede Empire is called so because it is a different Empire, founded by an upstart warlord who illegitimately took the throne by force and is not a Septim heir nor wears the Amulet of Kings which would be necessary to legitimize the Medes as true inheritors of the Empire. Thus completely different Empires.
 * 3. The original line in the trivia section pertaining to Thalmor Dossier: Ulfric Stormcloak was, " Strangely, despite the Stormcloaks saying that they hate the Thalmor, the Thalmor only state than an Imperial victory harms their overall position, while a Stormcloak victory should only be avoided." is completely misleading as it paints a biased Imperial propaganda interpretation of the contents.
 * The full quote is "The incident at Helgen is an example where an exception had to be made - obviously Ulfric's death would have dramatically increased the chance of an Imperial victory and thus harmed our overall position in Skyrim."
 * The "The incident at Helgen" is the subject, specifically, Ulfric's scheduled execution. Ulfric's death at Helgen would decisively ruin any chance of a Skyrim civil War, which is what they mean by harming their overall position in Skyrim. Since the civil war occurs anyways, their overall position in Skyrim is already secured because their desired goal is:


 * "As long as the civil war proceeds in its current indecisive fashion, we should remain hands-off"


 * No where is that to imply that a Stormcloack victory in Skyrim Civil War is preferable to the Thalmor to an Imperial one which is what Jauffre's original content implied. There is significant evidence that the Thalmor have no preference who is the victor in the Skryim Civil War. Only that the Skyrim Civil War keeps going. Further discussed here  http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Draevan13/Skyrim_Civil_War_edit_discussion
 * But even if you ignore the justification for how deceptive the original line was and my interpretation of it, all I did was write a concise and accurate summary of the contents of the Thalmor Dossier: Ulfric Stormcloak explicitly word by word, which was the aim of that trivia line anyways, instead of the biased interpretation of the original line.
 * The Revised line in question:"The Thalmor Dossier explicitly states that Ulfric Stormcloak is considered a "dormant asset". When discussing Ulfric's scheduled execution at Helgen, the Thalmor states that "Ulfric's death would have dramatically increased the chance of an Imperial victory and thus harmed [their] overall position in Skyrim." Even so, they also seek to avoid a complete Stormcloak victory." --(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 16:26, October 30, 2016 (UTC))
 * 1. The WGC was signed before Ulfric's puny rebellion even started, so it's utter nonsense that the Empire bribed anybody to 'fight against Ulfric', since Ulfric wasn't even a bloody warmonger back then. The chests of gold were compensation for the troops that fell and not being allowed to keep fighting, nothing else.
 * 2. First of all, the name 'Septim Empire' is ingame, only referenced as the 'Tamrielic Empire'. There's only a change of dynasty, not Empire, nowhere is it stated that they are different Empires.
 * 3. It doesn't matter what the quote says, what happens is what matters. Not to forget, it's not misleading, it's directly what is stated by the Thalmor. They state an Imperial victory harms their overall position and that a Stormcloak victory should be avoided. The Skyrim Civil War was already ongoing for a couple of years prior to 4E 201, so it wouldn't ruin any chance of a rebellion because there was already one ongoing. Galmar would lead it. You're basing your argument on an illogical speculation, while at the same time, the Thalmor need the Stormcloaks to even be allowed in Skyrim in large numbers.
 * My take


 * 1.Because the White-Gold Concordat was enforced by Imperial Law the only way the Jarls could really protest it would be to openly defy the Empire. This is what "chests of gold" were for. They were compensation so that the Imperial vassals wouldn't feel cheated by an otherwise tyrannical edict and possibly revolt.


 * 2.This is one of those things that's really up to opinion, similar to the old 'should the Byzantines really be considered the Roman Empire' disagreement. It should by noted however that in both Lord of Souls and the Infernal City, the Septim Empire is occasionally referred to as the "old Empire."


 * 3.I'm not even sure why this last point is up for debate. It's made fairly clear that the Thalmor do not wish either side to win the war. Arguing 'which side winning is worse for the Thalmor' is entirely presumptuous.


 * "Dovahsebrom (talk) 20:16, November 2, 2016 (UTC) From User talk:Sports72Xtrm


 * You didn't make an accurate summary of anything, you made the trivia part lack trivia. Search for the definition of trivia for once. Your lines are the biased ones. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 16:56, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * " The chests of gold were compensation for the troops that fell and not being allowed to keep fighting, nothing else." No one says or implies this. If this were true in the sense that this is the excuse, its still a bribe since it is illogical that the jarls should be getting paid while Angrenor Once-Honored who actually fought in the war and lost the more are still poor. But I don't even have to defend that because as I said No one says or implies this.
 * To the rest of your points, I stand behind my points above. --(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 17:56, October 30, 2016 (UTC))
 * Regarding the argument; It's important that the reader is presented with both sides of the story, in order to give a non-biased point of view. I recommend both of you to come to a compromise, and find a way to include both of your points in the article, without making it sound biased. (As long as the content is sourced with credible information)
 * If you're unable to do so, I will do it for you.  —Carlo  ( Talk      /Contributions)   17:50, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's the best if you (Carlo) do it, Sports doesn't agree with my view and I don't agree with his. There's no doubt going to be an edit-war if we have to settle this by ourselves, because neither of us says that we're wrong. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 17:52, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * What does Carlo suggest then? Because I stand by my edits are unbiased and credible, can't say the same for Jauffre. --Sports72Xtrm (talk))
 * Sports, your edits aren't unbiased and not credible in the slightest. Just let Carlo deal with it and be done with it. You should play the game, instead of only watching videos of it. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 18:19, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * How the edits are now is perfect but should Carlo chooses to re-edit, I at the very least deserve an explanation to justify changes he's making for it. Appeasing Jauffre because no one wants to deal with his whining is not a legitimate justification. I am in agreement with him about making changes so long as the content is sourced and credible. So far, the content as is now are both those.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 18:25, October 30, 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes, both sides of the story is the best idea. We have no evidence either way to what the chests of gold were for, so we should present both cases, like this:
 * "Jarls such as Balgruuf the Greater were gifted with chests of gold after the war. Whether these were to facilitate cooperation with the Empire or as recompense for the Great War is unclear."  DRAEVAN13  19:03, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DRAEVAN. Also, Sports, they aren't perfect. Just because one (incredibly unreliabe) source says something doesn't mean it's true. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 19:05, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * " as recompense for the Great War is unclear."
 * How do we get to that conclusion from this?
 * Irileth: "Was it cowardly then to accept the White-Gold Concordat?"
 * Balgruuf: "This again? That was different. Was I given a chance to object to the terms of the treaty? No. The Jarls weren't asked. We were told. And we had to like it."
 * Proventus: "The chests of gold didn't hurt."
 * Balgruuf: "Damnit! This isn't about gold!"
 * I will not settle for anything less than the Empire sent bribes to the jarls to support the "White-Gold Concordat" Saying it is a recompense for the war makes absolutely no sense and is a theory so wild it is completely out of left field. they make absolutely no mention of their loses for the war. Content must be credible, not wild theories. --Sports72Xtrm (talk) 19:18, October 30, 2016 (UTC))
 * Similarly, there's no proof it was a bribe. It's an implication, not a fact.
 * Since there's not going to be a concensus here, I say we just ask an Admin whether we go with both sides or only Sports' side. They'll edit it and leave the page locked for a while, and anyone who goes against their decision once unlocked will get banned. And that'll be the end of it. -- DRAEVAN13  19:37, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it should say, "it is implied that the Mede Empire sent bribes to the jarls to support the White-Gold Concordat" because that is the subject matter of the dialogue, but to state that the chests of gold were "recompense for the Great War" has no basis. --Sports72Xtrm (talk) 19:44, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Irileth: Was it cowardly then to accept the White-Gold Concordat?
 * Balgruuf: This again?! The Jarls weren't asked, we were told, and we had to like it.
 * Avenicci": The chests of gold didn't hurt.
 * So no, nothing 'to support the White-Gold Concordat', it was mere compensation for the fact that the Jarls had no say in it, and thus, were unable to keep the war going, making their troops have died for 'nothing'. Besides, we never know the Empire's intentions, for those were never made clear. Nowhere is there some kind of Imperial record saying they bribed the Jarls, saying they did is mere headcanon. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 20:15, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * enough jauffre you're grasping at straws. The emperor doesn't need to pay let alone consult jarls such as balgruuf; whos not even high king; regarding laws already supported by high king torygg (Sports72Xtrm (talk) 20:38, October 30, 2016 (UTC))
 * Lol wut? Torygg wasn't even High King when the WGC was signed. Also, this comment of yours is completely irrelevant to the edit on the page, if you want to discuss the truth, go to the forum, if you want to speak about edits, stay. --Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 21:32, October 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * "Our own high king, Torygg, betrayed us to the empire. He traded our god for peace. He agreed to a pact with the Thalmor signed by an emperor in a foreign land. Are we to be beholden to such a pact? No! A thousand times no." - Nords Arise!. Torygg was High King during the WGC signing.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 00:54, November 1, 2016 (UTC))
 * This discussion is going nowhere and is a pointless round-in-circles debate with no end or actual substance in improving the article itself. The wiki has far better things to do than persistently mediate debates started by the same user over the same obvious biases.
 * Both of you should read the talkpage policy before using them any further anyway, as it seems some of you don't know how they work. --Sajuuk 11:27, November 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * One of you, create a thread or blog post about this and discuss it there.  DRAEVAN13  12:09, November 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * I get it, this is a pain in the ass for people. But Jauffre isn't specifically targeting your content, rewording it to change its intent and meaning, or just deleting it all together because it personally displeases him and feels he's allowed to be judge of other people's contributions. He's not leaving messages on your talk page trying to discourage you from contributing in this wiki. He is however, doing it to me. So long as he does that, I will challenge him at every turn and if that raises hell, so be it. Despite what he believes, I'm amenable to reason and this isn't personal for me. My only motive is to a paint a clearer picture of the Game's story. But lil dude is triggered by my edits because some of them paints his favorite faction, "The Imperial Legion", in a bad light. He has to understand that this isn't personal, it's a fantasy game and some of the pro-Stormcloack content is part of the game. As for the issue of the contention, I'm willing to compromise changing the The Mede 'Empire' into the Tamrielic Empire but removing or rewording the trivia part or the chests of gold gifted to the jarls part are all sourced, credible, and relevant and I will not compromise on.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 14:24, November 1, 2016 (UTC))
 * Still, create a blog post or thread for this issue, it's clearly not going to be resolved quickly here and it'll clutter up the Talk Page.  DRAEVAN13  14:35, November 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it though? Jauffre seems to be the only one who's particularly resistant to finding a resolution, perhaps if he desires to chime in and is amenable to my compromise we can all move on from this. If not then we'll do it your way, we'll create a thread and hash it out.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 14:45, November 1, 2016 (UTC))

Decision regarding the edit war

 * Enough time has transpired where cooler heads have prevailed and Jauffre and I have provided our points in the defense of our desired intents. Jauffre wants to make the changes to the contents he listed, I desire the page to remain as it is. So far, those are the only proposed solutions to this page. This page will be unlocked by November 6,2016. If no one speaks out in support of Jauffre's desired changes by then, I will take that as emphatic consent that the page should remain as it is and if he takes the opportunity to reword and delete any of the contested content discussed, I will be in my right to restore it to its previous incarnation.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 15:00, November 2, 2016 (UTC))
 * I've made a blog post so as to stop cluttering this talk page, let's keep it there: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Draevan13/Skyrim_Civil_War_edit_discussion  DRAEVAN13  16:15, November 2, 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say we should Archive the entire talk page on November 10th.
 * I agree with Jauffre. What I propose is that we only mention it slightly in the "Background" section. It has much more to do with the White-Gold Concordat. The chests of gold being given to Jarls is a fact, and it was likely just compensation so that they received something in return for Talos-worship outlawing. ☞ Rim < Talk 02:14, November 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Or we could just archive this whole talkpage right now and be done with it. ;) --Sajuuk 09:15, November 4, 2016 (UTC)

When did the war actually begin?
So I'm sure I'm not the first person to ask this question, or wonder about this. I'm sure there are discussions about this somewhere, and likely a matter of debate. But I was wondering about the year the Skyrim Civil War truly began. It says here and on the timeline of the Elder Scrolls Wikia that the war began in 4E 201, the same year Skyrim is set in. But there are a lot of people who say things which contradict this theory.

The first example that comes to my mind is Solaf, owner of Gray Pine Goods in Falkreath. He says he was a Stormcloak fighter but was injured, so he went home. He says this was "years ago". So according to Solaf, this war has been going on for years before 4E 201.

There seems to be no real evidence confirming the actual year the conflict began (at least that I know of). So what year did it begin? I figured that this could be something worth discussing, or at least mentioning. --MasonRacin (talk) 00:21, November 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * The date given is the only known date that is provided. While in-game characters have said otherwise, they do not provide firm dates about the start of the war, unlike what happens in the initial starting quest. --Sajuuk 10:38, November 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * The war started at least a few years prior to Torygg's death, so that's 2 at least. So it'd be 4E 199 or earlier.
 * Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 15:26, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Can this lockdown finally be over?
Can this page finally be removed from lockdown? Sports and I no longer have edit-wars and the page still has inaccurate information that needs to be adressed -- badly. It's been a month since the lockdown, so I think it's rather forgotten than kept on lockdown on purpose, but it needs to be corrected on several aspects. It also needs references, which I have ready, but am unable to place. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 17:23, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Curious? What mistakes, exactly? Because the last edit I made on this before it locked was it's (probably only) mention in the Dawnguard DLC (speaking of which, forgot to add it's mention in the appearance page) when you have the option to barely talk to Serana about it (besides that, neither side have any quests linking to them like undercover vampires on whichever side the DB picked). I hope that isn't it. A-91 (talk)A-91

A pretty big error on the page is the date on which the Civil War started. While this page claims it was on Torygg's death, it was already years prior. Or how about the fact that it claims that the Stormcloaks Hold fast to old Nord tradition which is not only wrong, but even limited to a few events, while the Stormcloaks in fact break many of Skyrim's other traditions.

Aside from that, it's mostly referencing. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 19:13, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is: "The Stormcloaks holds fast to old Nord customs and values and recruits from those who share their principles." Considering that the Empire refuses to acknowledge the lawful challenge in the "Old Nord Way" that the High King legitimized by accepting the duel, and considering Nords like Roggvir believe Ulfric's claim to the throne is legit by his victory, it is conclusive that the the quote is apt since as stated, they are disregarding their old Nord customs. Also, when exactly do you think the rebellion started if not at Torygg's death?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 22:18, December 23, 2016 (UTC))

Nord Customs ey? So what about: Seems to me like they break more than they honor. The Civil War was at least ongoing in 4E 199, which is 2 years prior to Torygg's death, chances are it started even earlier. Now, before this ends up the same way as the last time, make up a forum thread if you want to discuss, that's not why I posted this. I posted this to get rid of the lockdown, which is something we can both agree with. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 14:38, December 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * Breaking the Way of the Voice?
 * Betrayal of the Greybeards?
 * Betrayal of the High King?
 * Damning the Jarls?
 * Disrespecting the Moot?
 * Damning the Moot?
 * Not following the Nordic Pantheon?
 * Fighting to keep an Imperial God?
 * Your proposed changes are a bunch of Imperial biased nonsense which if the mods didn't revert, I would. Talos is a Nord God, the Imperials are the one who disrespect the Moot by not acknowledging another moot after Torygg's death and interfering with the High King election process, and the Way of the Voice is just a philosophy, and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. I'd rather this article be locked down then let you turn this article into a anti-Stormcloak hatchet job with your fake narrative.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 15:15, December 24, 2016 (UTC))

Sports, you do realize that trying to start a debate here and degrading someone else's points isn't actually helping anything, right? Even if you don't agree with what he's saying that gives you absolutely no right to belittle his views and try and keep this page on lockdown because you just can't bear to see him edit this page. Everyone here needs to be treated with respect, even if we don't see eye to eye.

We're on the wiki to improve articles as best as we can. If something he or you wants to add sounds "biased" to anyone else, or it isn't agreed with, it will be worked on. Articles are constantly changing and nothing is set in stone. I suggest you both move this to your own talkpages, or another thread, since your messages are taking up space here and this lack of disrespect isn't needed. If you want the lockdown to be over (because prolonging it as you are is hindering its improvement which is just damaging in general) I suggest taking it to an admin and coming over your own differences in views and working past it to make this article better. And if you'd rather keep it on lockdown because you don't want him to edit it because you don't agree with it, even though it can be changed any time, then that is one of the reasons why it got locked down in the first place, and it's ridiculous. - Kora Stormblade (talk) 15:47, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

People need to stop trying to add their personal opinions such as using a short conversation between NPCs or what an NPC tells the Dragonborn as a fact that one side is winning the Civil War. First one is Galmar's conversation with Ulfric has absolutely no other information about their losses in both resources or strategic foothold in the civil war. The same goes for Ulfric's statement regarding Tullius keep sending troops to die in Winterhold. Busiao No Laughs (talk) 07:14, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

And stop harassing me with BS* denying that you are indeed slipping your opinion in amidst the lore. Busiao No Laughs (talk) 07:16, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

I came to read the lore for kicks then see tons of personal opinions hidden behind the lore, it gets annoying seeing some contributors' attempts to brainwash people to follow their opinion instead of providing plain lore for people to make their own decisions.Busiao No Laughs (talk) 07:19, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Moderator who right this wrong in the Page with unbiased lore facts, it is greatly appreciated and I hope the people who likes to hide their personal opinions as lore will not ruined such a good piece. Busiao No Laughs (talk) 07:30, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

A conversation by the second in command of the Stormcloaks is a valid source, "our men are getting massacred out there" is a general statement, not a specific one. Losing men is enough, since those who lose men tend to lose wars.

Also, please, stay on topic. It's not brainwashing if it comes from ingame sources. The reason why there are references is so that people can look up the sources and get their own idea on the situation, the description on the wiki is how it's generally accepted. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 19:40, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

PS: It isn't "correcting" and "unbiased lore facts", it's the removal of facts, which is truly a shame for the most part. Countless valid pieces of information are thrown in the bin, a real shame and a sign that the wiki is starting to fade. Blademaster Jauffre (talk) 20:19, June 19, 2017 (UTC)