Lore talk:Pocket Guide to the Empire, 3rd Edition/Orsinium

Error in Original Text

I have added a [sic] reference to the phrase "the first [Orsinium] was a creation of the tenth century of the Second Era", because that date must necessarily be incorrect. There is no tenth century of the Second Era: after Tiber Septim had united all provinces in Tamriel in 2E 896, he proclaimed the beginning of the Third Era in the following year (2E 897). For reference, see 'Brief History of the Empire v 1'. Therefore, Orsinium possibly cannot have been founded in that timeframe (of the Second Era), as it simply does not exist.

There is also the argument that such a date of founding does not correspond at all to the history of Orsinium as we know it from other sources, but as that would likely fall under the category "original research" I do not wish to invoke it here.

Further on in the account it is revealed that Torug gro-Igron, the Orc chieftain who is credited here with the founding of Orsinium, must have been alive somewhere prior or during the siege of Orsinium, which was concluded in 1E 980. I conclude this from the following text from the very same source: "For thirty years, a joint military force from Daggerfall, Sentinel, and the Ansei Order of Diagna attempted to breach the seemingly impenetrable walls of Torug gro-Igron's fortress kingdom. In 1E 980, they succeeded, annihilating all who lived within, scattering the stones into dust." This implies that the founding of Torug gro-Igron must necessarily predate the siege of 1E 950 - 1E 980, and that the Orsinium he founded was indeed the first Orsinium which was destroyed in 1E 980. In turn, this might be taken to mean that the date of founding was meant to be "the tenth century of the First Era", but that an error was made. This, of course, is my interpretation and as such also falls under the category "original research" but as it is based purely on the very same account I would like to maintain it as an argument in favour of my interpretation.

Coincidentally, this interpretation would also fit in quite well with the history of Orsinium as we know it from other sources (as in: it would not contradict those).

Marduk Kurios (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Wikipedia defines Original Research as information that cannot be attributed to a source, not information that conflicts with a source, or a conclusion drawn from a source. As yours is the latter, it does not constitute original research, so it's perfectly acceptable.

As for the addition of the {{sic}} tag, I entirely agree with your assertion. The tenth century of the Second Era simply does not exist, because the era ended in 2E 897. However, 1E 900-999 is a valid range, because A) the First Era ended in the year 1E 2920, and B) Other sources specifically mention that Orsinium existed in the year 1E 950, as you've already stated. • JA^T 16:56, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Thanks for the heads up, I had originally interpreted it rather strictly along the lines of how the UESP defines original research, which seems to somewhat discourage interpretation. "Even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material)." Just wanted to cover myself. :-) Marduk Kurios (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Makes sense to me, but we're still determining how to best represent factual errors like these. It's not really a misspelling, so a {{Sic}} tag might not be the best way to correct it. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 16:58, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

The [sic] tag applies to any nonstandard presentation, including but not limited to spelling errors. 'Slips of the pen' - as this one likely seems to be - also fall under this category and may be covered by a [sic]. I'm reasonably sure the author meant to write 'First Era' but simply slipped up. 'Second Era' doesn't make sense in the context. I'm afraid I don't know of any other methods to correct this in a discrete fashion. :-/ Marduk Kurios (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Nevermind, got it sorted now. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:00, 25 September 2012 (GMT)

Incorrect Sic

I don’t think “diplomatic” is an error. The text is stating that he was both a diplomatic genius and a political genius.--135.23.124.203 06:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct, there was another incorrect sic placed on an American spelling of a word. Double p for worshipper is used on the site but it is not incorrect for a book to use it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)