# Talk:Warg

It seems to me like this page is partially a WP:OVERLAP with the aforementioned article. I believe that perhaps it should be restructured to be entirely about the fantasy creature, not the mythological wolves, which would simply be referred to as "wolves" in English per WP:USEENGLISH. If there is insufficient notability for fantasy wargs to justify an article, its scope could be changed to become a new Wolves in fiction article instead.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wargs are undeniably derived from Germanic (Old Norse) vargr, Tolkien having studied that literature as a philologist, and the very brief coverage of the "Etymology" and "Norse mythology" is entirely justifiable here - indeed, the article would be sorely deficient without these elements. The rest of the article is about Tolkien's wargs, certainly the core of this topic; and it would also be extremely odd not to mention George R. R. Martin's wargs, or to omit the brief mentions of "worgs" in Warcraft and other games. From this article's point of view, therefore, the topic is highly coherent and its organisation more or less inevitable given the appearance of wargs in differing cultural environments.
From the point of view of "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology", it is entirely apposite that that article should view wargs as a special kind of fictional wolf, and cover it accordingly, i.e. some overlap is not only inevitable but required. If your question is whether warg is independently notable, the multiple reliable sources listed in "References" should swiftly answer yes. As to whether "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" is well-structured, or provides too much coverage of the "Warg" topic, that is a matter for that article. I will note, however, that its "Germanic" section contains only 2 citations; that it does not cover modern usage (Tolkien or otherwise); and that 5 of its 6 paragraphs are wholly uncited.
As for List of fictional wolves (aka "Wolves in fiction", the text gives little detail of any of the wolves mentioned; does not mention Tolkien at all; and only cites a minority of its many entries.) So perhaps there is less overlap than you suppose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
To put it simply, I am insinuating that this article is using WP:SYNTH to connect unrelated, mythological ancient wolves to the modern concept of the fantasy warg simply because you believe they are similar. Nowhere in the article does it say that wargs were directly based on  Fenrir, etc. While the name is, of course, the same, the connection is purely assumed. I am surprised that the SYNTH issue was never mentioned in the Good Article Review, as I'd assume it would be an immediate disqualifier.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey, cited in the article, explicitly connects Tolkien's wargs with the Old Norse. The medievalist Marjorie Burns similarly makes connections with Odin's association with wolves, and indeed praises Tolkien's innovative use of the ancient materials. I've reworked the article to emphasise these links and sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I did consider the issue in the GA review.  I was initially surprised when I read the article to realize that Tolkien's usage was treated as a literary instance of the mythical creature, but I decided it was OK -- when a writer includes a "pixie" in their fantasy novel, after all, we don't question whether the pixie is really the same thing as the folkloric pixie.  Inclusion in the article then just depends on secondary coverage, which does exist.  I see the article has now been reworked so that it's primarily about Tolkien's creation, with the Norse material secondary.  I don't think this was necessary.  If a reader wants to know the Norse myth, what article would we expect them to read?  Surely this one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, and I'm glad you like(d) the article as it was. I note that the usage "warg" in English is certainly due to Tolkien. As it happens, the various Norse wolves are covered on English and on Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedia in articles on named beasts, such as Fenrir/Fenrisulven. I think this is probably as it should be, as the stories about Fenrir and, say, Sköll, are entirely dissimilar in character. The article is certainly the better for the Marjorie Burns material, so any further recasting will still be substantially more Tolkien-rich than before. I feel it's in good shape now, but it'll be interesting to hear what other editors feel about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I think it is absolutely improved from its former state by making it primarily about the Tolkien creature. However, the "Other authors and media" section should be removed unless they can be linked definitively to being based on Tolkien's creature and not just using a similar name. It is not proven they aren't just WP:OR trivia at the moment.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
As an addendum, I found two sources that directly connect Tolkien and the creature/being in question, so that section is safe, but the band is still in doubt and may need to be removed as I see no proof of a connection besides the name.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Well I'm glad of that. There is also a well-documented connection between Varg Vikernes and Tolkien (he called his one-man band Burzum, he used the pseudonym Count Grishnakh, and had a musical project Uruk-hai), which could possibly be mentioned here or elsewhere. I'm a bit doubtful of the multi-level hatnotes, perhaps we can simplify them a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree about removing the hatnote linking to Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology. Technically it is not required per WP:USEENGLISH, but it would be useful for those confused that the actual Norse word for wolf takes them to a fictional character. There appears to be an ongoing confusion between the fictional wolf-demon-thing that was introduced by J. R. R. Tolkien and mythical wolves of Germanic mythology.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I think it may be best to simply move Varg (disambiguation) to Varg, as there is no reason for it to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here. If there is agreement on this it could eliminate one source of debate about the hatnote.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Um no, Varg redirects here; and as for the folklore hatnote, you actually admit it is not required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's agreed that wargs are Tolkien's creation, then there is certainly room for Jackson's adaptation of wargs lower down the article, and indeed of Martin's and other people's, but none of their visualisations should take pride of place in the infobox. I've therefore moved the Jackson image back down beside the Jackson text, where it belongs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I am doing spotchecks for some GAs I promoted without spotchecking, and some issues came up:

FN 13 cites "Peter Jackson's film adaptations of Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings extend the role of wargs as mounts for Orcs, battling the horse-riders of Rohan. The wargs in the three Hobbit movies are more wolf-like while eastern wargs that appear in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers have hyena-like appearances." Some of this isn't in the source but is in the movie, so I think it might be best to cite the movie -- this isn't a plot section which typically doesn't need a cite.  (The same applies to the other use of this source, in the image caption.)  The main concern, though, is that the second sentence is not covered by the source.
Yes, they're more fan-description than analysis. Removed.
Struck.  I still think you should add cites to the movie but that's a minor point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
FN 17 cites "Skinchangers are sometimes greenseers, who can glimpse into the past, present, and future."  The second half doesn't seem to be covered by the source, but looking at it again I think we don't even need the sentence in the article -- it's nothing to do with wargs.
Removed.
FN 18 cites: 'Large, demonic wolves directly inspired by Tolkien's creatures also appear in the tabletop game Dungeons & Dragons as neutral evil monsters called "worgs".  The source for "directly inspired by Tolkien's creatures" appears to be the comments at the bottom of the page, which are not reliable for this purpose.  Without that connection I don't know that the rest of the sentence is usable in this article.
OK, hidden for now, I'll see if I can find a suitable source for the JRRT connection (a gaming scholar, hmm). It's a pity as nobody actually doubts that the connection exists, but there we are.
Yes, it's not really controversial.  I would think a cite will show up sooner or later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
These three cites were the only ones I was able to fully check as I don't have access to the other sources.  Given that I have questions about all three, could you provide the source text for these citations that I can't access?

FN 16 cites "In George R. R. Martin's series of epic fantasy novels, A Song of Ice and Fire, and the series' television adaptation, Game of Thrones, Wargs are skinchangers who can enter the mind of a wolf (and in Bran Stark's case with Hodor, a person), see what they are seeing, and control their actions."
I don't have this book to hand. However the claim is pretty straightforward for Martin's Wargs. The primary source for skinchangers able to control other beings is Martin's The World of Ice and Fire, e.g. pp. 6–7. A secondary source that covers the same ground is O'Leary, P. (2015). Sacred fantasy in Game of Thrones. Critical Quarterly, 57(1), 6-19. It says for instance "Bran is a warg, in Martin’s parlance a ‘skinchanger,’ who has the power to enter into an animal consciousness at will." (p.15)
Yes, the material is clearly correct; I'll AGF on the source you used also covering this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
FN 14 cites 'The critic Gregory Hartley treats wargs as "personified animals", along with the sentient eagles, giant spiders, Smaug the dragon, ravens and thrushes. Tolkien writes about their actions using verbs like "[to] plan" and "[to] guard", implying in Hartley's view that the monstrous wargs are "more than mere beasts", but he denies that they "possess autonomous wills".'
"Personified animals retain their animal nature ... the illusion of sentience created by the Wargs ... Tolkien uses words like 'plan' and 'guard' to describe their actions, in addition to the fact that they speak a 'dreadful language' and operate in colleague with the goblins. This alone may warrant the suspicion that, spiritually, the wargs are more than mere beasts... With such precedents, one might easily begin to build a case for Warg autonomy, saying that they descend from Charcaroth [sic] and Draugluin ... The Wargs never speak the language of humans; they do not act independently; they do not possess autonomous wills or build civilizations. Instead they behave like animals. They gather; they hunt; they are ridden by the goblins, a sign of subservience that would be quite expected if the Wargs were animals and utterly surprising if they were not."
FN 5 cites 'Shippey adds that there is also an Old English verb, awyrgan, meaning both "to condemn [an outcast]" and "to strangle [an outcast to death]"; he adds that a possible further sense is "to worry [a sheep], to bite to death".'
"In Old English there is a word wearh, which means 'outcast' or 'outlaw' (but not 'wolf'), and a verb awyrgan, which means 'to condemn', but also 'to strangle' (the death of a condemned outcast), and perhaps 'to worry, to bite to death'... Tolkien's word 'Warg' clearly splits the difference between Old Norse and Old English pronunciations, and his concept of them – wolves, but not just wolves, intelligent and malevolent wolves – combines the two ancient opinions."
Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There you go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
All looks good; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)