Lore talk:People J

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Jarl Hanse[edit]

I've noticed that the only source claiming that Hanse was "capable" and the "obvious" choice as High King is the First edition of the Pocket Guide. Since that version of the Guide is literally crammed with overt Imperial propaganda, I'm thinking that Hanse's qualifications are disputable, and he was perhaps merely the choice preferred by the Empire. Anyways, I'm just suggesting that when Hanse is referred to as the obvious choice or a capable leader, we should include something like "according to Imperial sources" in the sentence to implicitly acknowledge that the source is, perhaps, not making an objective assessment. Minor Edits 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the First Edition of Pocket Guide to the Empire was terribly and blatantly biased. Therefore, I see it only logical and accurate to note that this statement comes from Imperial sources. --Kalis Agea 20:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is true, but PGE1 is the only source for a lot of information, and if we start selectively ignoring some of it then we're opening a really big can of worms. The version suggested by Minor Edits makes sense though. rpeh •TCE 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman Jim Stacey[edit]

I want to make an entry for Gentleman Jim Stacey; since he is mentioned in the Oblivion book Myth or Menace?, I think he has enough historical distinction in the TES universe for inclusion here as a snippet. Several lore pages mention him and just link to his Morrowind, page, but I think we can do better.

I'm just wondering: should I treat "Gentleman" as a title and put the entry here, or should it appear on Lore:People G? Minor Edits 04:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, his name definitely is Jim Stacey, and the Gentleman part is just a title/nickname. That's how I interpret it anyway, although his name is quite unusual for a Redguard. And on another note, I agree with you, this is definitely a character that deserves his own lore page. -- kertaw48 10:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Definitely. Otherwise we'd end up with all the Emperors on the "E" page. rpeh •TCE 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)