Talk:Human-San 'Shyuum war

It looks as if it refers more to the Human-Forerunner Wars, which the San'Shyuum were involved in, than to a separate incident. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 17:16, 2 February 2011 (EST)

While that is possible, I doubt that Greg would use such a confusing method to refer to something he has already named. Continuing, it did not read in a posessive form - "Human and San 'Shyuum's war", but as a name - "Human-San 'Shyuum War".-- Forerunner 17:23, 2 February 2011 (EST)

I think it's just a war that Greg came up with to reference the Sangheili-San 'Shyuum War.-- Forerunner 17:25, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Note that the "war" part isn't actually capitalized in the book, implying that it's more of a descriptive title than an actual name for the war. In light of this and our policy to use as official titles as possible, I think we should call this "Human-San 'Shyuum war". --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (EST)

My apologies; I still stand by my argument, though.-- Forerunner 17:56, 2 February 2011 (EST)

I would say that it's not a new war at all. The Didact even states that the Alliance would have likely ended and that Humans and Prophets would have gone to war had they not been defeated. That alone implies that they joined each other peacefully. We know they had a mutual interest in expanding without forerunner influence, so there is no reason to assume they had been at war. It could be a typo, or it could be a reference to the Alliance-Forerunner war. The Boer War isn't possessive, neither are the Zulu Wars. It is perfectly logical to assume that it was just another term he used for the previously mentioned conflict, he does seem to toss around many different titles throughout the text to mix things up. ProphetofTruth 13:10, 27 February 2011 (EST)