Talk:Insurrectionist

Untitled
Who are the other two leaders? One of them is Colonel Watts right?
 * It isn't stated, so it's up to speculation at this point. --Dragonclaws 18:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

United Rebel Front of halopedia
there seems to be a group for every organization from the UNSC to the flood so who wants to make one for the united rebel front


 * I think there's not enough info on them to make a group about them. Also, the "of Halopedia" part is getting kind of old. If one is created, I suggest using "United Halo Front" or similar. -- Dragonc laws ( talk ) 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I at least think the United Rebel Front (URF) should added to the Known Groups section of the article. No need for it to be a separate article. Just the title and a little bit of information about the group. Xamikaze330 13:03, 3 October 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330


 * The thing is, it was a mistake to ever think it was a real group so much as a description of various groups working together for the common goal. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 13:27, 3 October 2011 (EDT)


 * I was lead to believe it was a real group! I believed it was and is a real group! Where has the URF ever been mentioned anyway? Wasn't it mentioned in one of the Halo novels in the first Halo trilogy boxed set? Like The Fall of Reach maybe, or First Strike? Or maybe it was mentioned briefly in Contact Harvest? Where? Xamikaze330 17:48, 3 October 2011 (EDT)Xamikaze330


 * Just Ghosts of Onyx. See this discussion for more information.— subtank  19:44, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Still around?
Got a question, is the URF still around during Halo 3? -- UNSC Trooper File:unsctrooper_small.jpg|14px]] TalkMy Work 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the URF has been soundly defeated. In Halo: First Strike, there is a part that says "...symbols of a rebellion the UNSC no longer had to worry about". How come that isn't mentioned in any of the articles? Don113 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing conclusive has been said of that faction's fate. -- E D File:ArmyROTC.gif|15px]] 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Halsey narrates it as they walk past rebel flags. However, this may just be a general reference to the Covenant threat. Note that this is before they meet up with the rebels in the asteroid field, so this could just be foreshadowing. --Dragonc laws (talk ) 00:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ILB era?
When was the URF mentioned in ILB? --Dragonc laws (talk ) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Against merging!
I am against merging, with insurrection page, as there are many factions of insurrectionists, but the United Rebel Front is maybe the best organized and well equipped.

Possible merge to Insurrectionist
Having recently re-read Ghosts of Onyx, I came to the realization that we might've misunderstood the whole nature of this supposed "faction" from the beginning. The only time a "united rebel front" is mentioned in Ghosts of Onyx (on page 36), it is written in all lowercase, indicating it's not the name of an organization so much as a general description for organized resistance as opposed to the more scattered, unaffiliated rebel groups.

Seeing as Contact Harvest, The Cole Protocol and subsequent sources identify the primary insurgent faction as "Insurrectionists" (always with a capital letter), and the only time "united rebel front" appears is a single mention in Ghosts of Onyx, it seems more likely that the faction we're calling "United Rebel Front" is actually the same thing as the primary Insurrectionist faction while "united rebel front" is merely a one-off descriptive name; "Insurrectionist" wasn't coined as a common term in canon until Contact Harvest. We know the rebels at Eridanus and the Rubble Insurrectionists are the same group (or at least affiliated) because of several links made between them in The Cole Protocol.

If the actual name of what is clearly the most prominent and resourceful rebel faction was indeed "United Rebel Front" like our articles claim, then I'm pretty sure it would've been mentioned in the novels more than once, not to mention capitalized. Obviously, when this article was first created, Halopedia's policy was to capitalize every word in article titles, so it's understandable something like this might've slipped by. Unless I've missed something and the faction is legitimately called "United Rebel Front" somewhere, I propose we merge this article with Insurrectionist for the sake of clarity. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (EDT)


 * As I recall, Robert Watts is stated to be one of three leaders of the "United Rebel Front" - suggesting that it is the organization's proper name - in the Encyclopedia. However, I agree that "united rebel front" seems much more like a descriptor than an actual name. It's hard to imagine that an insurgent group would publicly call themselves rebels; typically, insurgents identify themselves as liberators, freedom fighters, or something similar.


 * "United Rebel Front" is so jingoistic that it would easily damage the public's opinion of the organization, which is the opposite of what the Innies wanted. The name seems a little bit more suitable for Graves' cell on Victoria, (which was seemingly preparing to take the UNSC head-on, if only for a brief period of time), but for other groups, like the Eridanus cell, such a name would be public relations suicide. --Courage never dies. 15:01, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree with Jugus. The Encyclopedia example must be treated carefully, since the general belief is that a lot of information was gained from Halopedia. In politics, a united front is essentially a grouping of numerous parties working together for the same general aim, which would make sense in this case as it would be sensible for the numerous Insurrectionist groups to work together against the UNSC, but not to the extent of creating an overarching organisation like the kind the term "United Rebel Front" suggests, since they'd be recreating the same thing they're fighting against.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 15:28, 25 July 2011 (EDT)


 * The "rebel" part is one of the reasons I've doubted the validity of the name for some time. I agree the title was probably borrowed into the Encyclopedia from here, seeing as it appears only once in a novel and even then it isn't treated as a proper name. I wouldn't have anything against ignoring the error-ridden Encyclopedia and go with the more reasonable solution, as we've done with other similar subjects, including the First/Second Battle of Earth issue. Besides, unless the Encyclopedia flat-out claims "United Rebel Front" to be the faction's proper name (other than merely implying it by capitalizing it), there shouldn't even be a problem. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 15:50, 25 July 2011 (EDT)


 * A quick check shows that the Encyclopedia never mentions the URF outside a few infoboxes, when it is capitalized for no apparent reason. Like I stated earlier, I agree that "united rebel front" is a descriptor, not a formal title. --Courage never dies. 15:56, 25 July 2011 (EDT)


 * Do we have a consensus? Can the merge be performed?— subtank  11:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

I definitely agree with the merge. I've agreed with this sentiment for a while, but I have difficulty going against people who seem to know what they're doing... even if there's a likely recursive effect in everyone taking what was already there as accurate, the Encyclopedia being a manifestation of such. I think the capitalized title is an artifact from when we were capitalizing every word in a title... and that framed the way we wrote about it, as if it were an official organization. --<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#3B3F42">c laws (<font color="#DE397E">talk ) 02:39, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

I've decided to "be bold" and start the merge, as it looks like we've covered everything and someone needs to break the Canadian standoff. --<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#DE397E">c laws (<font color="#6600D8">talk ) 07:21, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Well, now that I put in some work, I run across a mention of "URF" in the Reach radio transmissions, clearly pertaining to the rebels. Though, given that they supposedly depict two UNSC soldiers sharing zombie plans during a Covenant invasion, their relationship to canon is tenuous. I say the merge be continued and maybe a note about the Halo producers working off of the flawed Halopedia could be added to Insurrectionist's trivia in a bit of self-aware levity, but I'll stop and await further response. --<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#DE397E">c laws (<font color="#6600D8">talk ) 07:56, 18 September 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree. Since Halopedia is the only place where "United Rebel Front" has been treated as a proper name, it seems obvious that the person who wrote the radio transmissions got it from here and simply assumed it was accurate. We could also dismiss it as an unofficial nickname used by the UNSC; as per above, it seems unlikely that insurgents would actually identify themselves as "rebels". I say we conveniently ignore it and proceed with the merge. Maybe mention it in a trivia section as you said, as we've done with the 1st/2nd Battle of Earth issue. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 08:18, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Support

 * - As per the near-unanimous consensus above. Vegerot goes RAWR!   Vegerot  ( talk )  11:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
 * - --The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 12:16, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
 * - If the above discoveries are accurate. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
 * - Dragonclaws says yea. --<font color="#800080">Dragon<font color="#DE397E">c laws (<font color="#6600D8">talk ) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
 * - Yesh. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   (Talk)  07:50, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Bringing back the URF
The other day I watched The Story So Far, a featurette exclusive to the Blu-ray version of Halo Legends, for the third or fourth time; for those without the Blu-ray version, it's available on YouTube in three parts. While discussing the Insurrection, Frankie says, "...well-organized groups such as the United Rebel Front threaten the stability of all the colonies." Upon hearing that, I remembered that the URF is mentioned in passing during the Overlook radio conversation. What really got my attention is the Oceanic armor's background card: "Used extensively during the recovery of Terceira from the United Rebel Front." Four official references to the URF, (including these and the Encyclopedia), as well as the fact that the organization's name is capitalized everywhere but Ghosts of Onyx, indicate that we may have jumped the gun on merging the URF article with the Insurrectionist article. --Courage never dies. 23:49, 2 September 2012 (EDT)


 * Or that those in canon department of 343i simply accepted these minor errors/discrepancies as canon, thus retconning everything prior. Consistency is not one of 343i's strong suit. Anyway, I guess we should bring it back since it is canon again and place a ref-note about this.— subtank   23:56, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
 * I can agree. That's probably the case.-- Spartacus,   Halopedia Administrator  <font color="Black">Talk 23:58, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
 * I'm still certain that the Ghosts of Onyx usage implied it wasn't meant to be understood as the name of an organization, but it's regardless found its way into official material because Halopedia (erroneously) used it as such. Oh well. Given the rather frequent mentions, there's no arguing against bringing it back, though we should keep the note to remind people where it came from. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree with Braidenvl. It does appear that the URF is the official name for a faction of insurrectionists. That said we must remember that in the same way all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs, all URF are insurrectionists but not all innies are URF.--Emblem 1.jpg  Rusty  -  112  00:15, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

I certainly concur with Subtank's Doylist interpretation of the facts. Clearly, someone at 343i assumed the information about the URF which the Encyclopedia plagiarized from us was canon and thus "ran with it", so to speak. However, it is clear that, misunderstanding or not, 343i now intends for the United Rebel Front to hold a proper place in canon. Like Jugus says, we should bring the article and related content back to the wiki and add a note about the real-world origins of the organization.

On another note: Congratulations on your newly acquired admin rights, guys. You'll make this community proud. --Courage never dies. 00:25, 3 September 2012 (EDT)


 * Can we assume that this "united rebel front" is a non-Insurrectionist term for a group of interconnected secessionists? A UNSC propaganda name, perhaps? I should re-read my copy of Ghosts of Onyx for the context, though. I remember during the last debate it was argued that it could not be a real name because a secessionist group wouldn't make themselves seem so militant (and, therefore, less appealing to the public).--  Fore  run  ner '' 02:12, 3 September 2012 (EDT)


 * That is a possibility. Ghosts of Onyx didn't treat it as a proper name, but one could assume that the UNSC may use the term "United Rebel Front" in reference to the widely organized portion of the Insurrectionists, similar to how one might capitalize "the Resistance". In that case restoring the whole URF article wouldn't be necessary; we could just mention the usage of the "United Rebel Front" moniker in the introductory section of this article. The question is one of interpretation, really. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 11:08, 24 September 2012 (EDT)


 * Well, it's not the first time insurrectionist have used a "unified" name, such as with the Secessionist Union or the Freedom and Liberation Party. Note also that many say "viva la Resistance" or "viva la Revolucion", thus equating themselves with a rebellious name. With names like those, the name "United Rebel Front" sounds like something entirely plausible for them to choose. Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

So, we reached a consensus on this a while back. Anyone know where the URF's information was previously at so we can restore it? Tuckerscreator (<font color="#008000">stalk ) 03:41, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
 * Found where it was. About to restore the article. Would it be appropriate to note how it was originally mentioned in canon and how it's being mentioned in more recent canon?-- 12:07, 21 January 2013 (EST)