Archive:Requests for Merger/Covenant Loyalists - July 2010

Debate has ended. - I, Forerunner request that "Covenant Loyalists" be merged with the "Covenant Empire" article. My basis is that the Loyalists and Covenant empire are interchangeable. The Covenant didn't simply create a new military called the Loyalist forces to fight the Sangheili, it was just the Covenant military, but with the Sangheili roles replaced. Just because you are loyal to your people doesn't mean that you need another article.--  Fore  run  ner  14:18, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

End date is 10 August, 2010.

Support (12/5)

 * 1) - as per request.--  Fore  run  ner  14:18, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) - Still the same Covenant, just without the Elites.  Smoke Sound off! 14:21, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) - Copy+Paste! -  Sketch ist 15:42, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) - I'm surprised we have two separate articles in the first place. -   Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  16:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) --  Specops306    Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   00:11, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) - I agree, and the term Loyalists used for the Brutes and Prophets is rather insulting to... others in history. I will say no more.   Kougermasters   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  09:26, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) — A term used when we thought that the Separatists were more than just the Sangheili, and a bit archaic now. I also suggest that we merge the "Separatist" page into the "Sangheilian Armed Forces" article.
 * Isn't it still implied that the Unggoy and others under command of the Sangheili remained on their side even when the civil war broke out? It's hard to imagine grunts turning against elites, plus, we saw them as allies in Halo 2 even after the schism began. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 19:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) - I have changed my vote after consideration, but oppose with CommanderTony's suggestion.  EtErNiTy92    Revolution!  07:06, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) - Yes, we shouldn't have an unnecesary page.- FatalSnipe117 19:12, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) - Makes sense. --Jugus  (Talk  | Contribs ) 19:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) - essentially the same just without elites.  Col.   Snipes  4  50  16:13, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) - essentially the same just without elites.  Col.   Snipes  4  50  16:13, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (1/0)

 * 1)  - Each faction should have their own page regardless. The United Rebel Front were Insurrectionists. Should we merge the URF and all those other Insurrectionist groups into a single page? No. Sure you could argue the Covenant Loyalists and Covenant Empire were generally the same faction, but remember that the Covenant Empire split, so the Covenant Empire was not a unified force.  EtErNiTy92   Revolution!  02:29, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * They didn't split - it wasn't like turning into two Germanys or two Roman empires. They kicked out the Sangheili - that was it. We have articles on the many insurrectionist organisations because they weren't united, but were independent groups.--  Fore  run  ner  08:37, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I argue the Loyalists and Empire are not the same. The Covenant Empire is a whole. The Loyalists are a faction representing the Covenant Empire. EtErNiTy92   Revolution!  20:23, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Covenant Empire certainly did split. To those of you who argue otherwise, may you be reminded of the name of the conflict between the Loyalists and the Separatists - the Great Schism. It isn't as though it was only the Sangheili who left the Covenant, either; it is a known fact that a number of Unggoy and Lekgolo sided with the Separatist cause, despite the fact that we don't actually see them in Halo 3. Also, it should be noted that the Sangheili were the supreme rulers of the Covenant apart from the San 'Shyuum. If the Unggoy all decided to leave the Covenant, it wouldn't be as if the Covenant had split. But the departure of the Sangheili from the Covenant Empire (who, by the way, were not simply "kicked out," since they were already fully prepared to resign from the High Council on their own) represents a destabilization of the Covenant that runs from some of the highest leadership positions all the way down the lesser military ranks. As the would-be Prophet of Truth said himself in Halo: Contact Harvest, a Sangheili revolt would completely shatter the Covenant. Other important facts include the Jiralhanae rising up to fill the positions that the Sangheili left vacant and the fact that Truth reigned as the sole leader of all the Covenant during the Great Schism, among many others. If you ask me, such radical changes to the Covenant's structure easily differentiate the Loyalists enough from the united Covenant Empire to make the Loyalists qualify as their own faction.  GodzillaGuy92  21:15, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sangheili not being there doesn't make the remnants of the Covenant a new nation. It's the same Covenant with the same leaders! Ask about why 8 people voted "support" on IRC--  Fore  run  ner  00:22, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * The same leaders? Half of the High Council is literally gone. For that matter, we don't even know what capacity the Council continued to exist in after the Covenant Civil War broke out, if at all; all of the San 'Shyuum Councilors may have been consumed by the Flood for all we know. The only leader that stayed where he was is Truth, and even then, as I pointed out, the deaths of Regret and Mercy have made him the sole leader of the entire Covenant, which definitely changes the situation a bit. Meanwhile you have the Jiralhanae rising up to take the Sangheili's place as the Covenant's military leaders, so that entire aspect of Covenant society has been irrevocably altered. The pre-Schism Covenant and the post-Schism Covenant obviously have some very major fundamental differences.  GodzillaGuy92  19:07, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The government collapsed - so what? Stalin killed off practically everyone in his government in the 30s who were in power in the 20s, it was still the USSR. The hierarchs are the leaders and hold total control - the rest of the high council served more of a traditionalist role, deciding how to settle a debate, though their leaders' decisions can contradict them, as is the case with Thel 'Vadamee's trial. They are the same Covenant with the same government. Just consider their post-schism form "undergoing government reforms". Besides, these reforms were going on since Truth became a minister - Jiralhanae being elevated in the caste system and replacing the Sangheili fleets, along with the military reforms that actually armed lower-caste soldiers. --  Fore  run  ner  20:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Thel 'Vadamee's trial, the Council voted for his execution, and the Hierarchs did not contradict its sentence. They just made him an Arbiter so that he would die in battle rather than in, say, an electric chair; don't forget that Thel was never intended to survive his missions to the Forerunner Gas Mine or Installation 05's Library ("You will die, as each Arbiter has before you. The Council will have their corpse." -Prophet of Mercy). So obviously, even though the Hierarchs are able to twist the Council's decisions a bit in order to fit their desires, it isn't as if the existence of the Council, or lack thereof, is irrelevent (remember how much of a fuss the Sangheili made about the murder of the Councilors by the Jiralhanae throughout Halo 2). With the outbreak of the Covenant Civil War and the termination of the High Council, the government changed from a theocratic hierarchical oligarchy into a theocratic military dictatorship, more or less, and that doesn't even go into all of the structural alterations that happened after Halo 3, with Truth dead and the surviving San 'Shyuum in hiding. As for the Jiralhanae ascension being gradual, that is partially true but ultimately only gets you so far. Despite the fact that the Jiralhanae were tasked with destroying Harvest (an objective that was handed over to the Sangheili directly after the events of Contact Harvest anyway), the number of Jiralhanae-controlled ships and their place in the Covenant's caste system remained almost entirely unchanged until their abrupt elevation at the start of the Great Schism. As Truth predicted before his days as a Hierarch, the loss of the Sangheili changed the Covenant nearly beyond recognition.  GodzillaGuy92  21:26, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
I want to vote neutral but there is no place for that. The reason is that even though the Covenant Loyalists are not confirmed to be different from the Covenant Empire, the Covenant was said to have fragmented into different factions. --


 * Yes, the Covenant did split into multiple factions, and the only two we do know are the Loyalists and the Separatists. However, we know for a fact that the Loyalists are the faction that stuck to the ways of the Covenant, essentially being the same thing, minus the Elites and portions of other species populations. -  Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  16:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not forget that Covenant Separatists are still considered Covenant as well. It's not that the Separatists are a different thing at all, it is just one of the now two-pieces of the Covenant Empire. In short, we should either merge the Separatist page into it as well, or none at all. I'm not going to outright oppose the proposal, but I'm not going to support it. We're assuming that the Covenant Separatists are no longer Covenant, and that the Loyalists are the only "real" Empire. I believe this mistake is derived from the fact that you only fight the Loyalists... but the Separatists still believe in the Forerunners and the Great Journey (for the most part). Covenant Loyalists are not the same as the original, whole, Covenant Empire. So we have to either incorporate the Separatists and the Loyalists in the page, or we shouldn't merge them at all.-- Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato  02:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not the same. The separatists have their own article because they are no longer Covenant - that's why they're "separatists". Though, that name is out of date by Halo 3. You seem to be arguing that no page should be deleted or merged, and seem to blame all page removals on me and General5 7 and have made several complaints regarding our sysopship. I'd suggest you choose your next words carefully and have an actually argument.--  Fore  run  ner  08:42, July 11, 2010 (UTC)