Talk:Blooding Years

Assault on Vadam

Since it's implied that the war will continue, should the "assault on Vadam" have its own page as a battle? Col. Snipes450 15:26, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

I'd vote for it, but I'm not an admin. The Civil War started after the Brute rebellion and also raged in other states.--Thijsbos 18:32, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

Doesn't seem necessary right now, given how little info we have on the rest of the conflict; a page on the battle at Vadam alone would mostly be a duplicate of the information in this article. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Yeah I figured, just thought I'd ask. Col. Snipes450 02:11, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Arbiter Loyalists

Should a new article be made for the Arbiter loyalists as a new faction?.—This unsigned comment was made by 72.80.103.245 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

We don't really have enough information at this point to warrant having an article.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 17:48, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Well i've researched this faction and the only information I could find was this: 1.)Known Belligerents- Thel'Vadam(Arbiter), Cadan 'Ilmir, the unknown ship pilot(the one who escorted Kilo-Five in Ontom before they entered the Foreruner temple), Levu 'Mdama and the Elder of Lacalu Keep. 2.)Known Infantry- Numerous Sangheili and Unggoy(since they work for Sangheili). 3.)Known Equipement and Vehicles- Anti-air battteries(In the State of Vadam/Vadam Keep), Banshees, Comm intercepts, and radar. They could also possibly have Wraiths, Ghosts, and Phantoms. 4.)Known Arbiter Loyalists locations- State of Vadam(Vadam Keep), State of Acroli with Lacalu Keep(except Nes'alun Keep),Hilot, and Chaura. 5.)Known Ships- 5 cruisers and one escort ship, 4 of which are Axiom(Destroyed),Devotion(Destroyed),Far Vision(Destroyed),Swordsman(Operational), and Unknown escort ship(Fate unknown though possibly still operational). 6.)Political Information- Leader-Arbiter, Language-Sangheili and Capitol-Vadam Keep/State of Vadam. 7.)History- Formed after the Human-Covenant War, the Arbiter Loyalists are the forces loyal to the Arbiter, Thel 'Vadam. The Arbiter Loyalists follow the Arbiter along with the rules of the peace treaty between them and the UNSC/UEG. During the Sangheili civil war, the Arbiter Loyalists fought against the Servants of Abiding Truth and their allies. During the Assault on Vadam, the Loyalists were sustaining losses due to the Servant's of Abiding Truth's massive presence surrounding Vadam Keep. However, the tide turned when the UNSC Infinity arrived and began to fire on the rebel forces. The rebel forces, sensing defeat, began to retreat from Sanghelios with the help of ONI, which destroyed some of Vadam's ships to retain the stalemate between the two factions. The assault ended with most of the rebels' forces destroyed while some managed to escape to New Llanelli. The Loyalist forces were left with a Pyrrhic victory with cities damged throughout the Northern Hemisphere of Sanghelios. Is this information enough for its own article, and could the siege of Nes'alun Keep be added to this article?19:16, 15 December 2012 (EST)

Nes'alun keep

Should we consider the "Raid/Massacre at Nes'alun keep" a part of the civil war, and if so should we include it on this page? It was between forces loyal to the Arbiter and 'Telcam, and the battle mostly occurred because of the civil war. Mortal Dictata seems to imply that it was a part of the civil war as well. - NightHammer (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2014 (EDT)

I'd say put it here. I get the feeling that a lot of the fighting was mostly grudges against real people than any sort of ideological reasons (Raia herself states that many of the forces helping the Servants don't really have much in common beyond hatred of the Arbiter). We also may want to consider broadening this to include other battles, such a the run ins between Thel 'Vadam's Covenant and Jul 'Mdama's Covenant, and whatever information we have from the 11th hour reports. Otherwise, we're just talking about the Siege of Vadam, not the civil war. -- SFH (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (EDT)

Yes, I agree. The page should be used for all major Sangheili v. Arbiter conflicts, not just Arbiter v. 'Telcam conflicts. - NightHammer (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2014 (EDT)

Name

Technically isn't this conflict taking place just on Sanghelios? Wouldn't a more appropriate name be "Sanghelios" Civil War? Lord Hierarch (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2014 (EDT)Lord Hierarch

Infinity, "a ship more powerful than any during the Human-Covenant War" - I disagree

Hi All,

I noticed there's a statement in the second Paragraph of the "Assault on Vadam" sub section which reads "Thel 'Vadam was in talks to visit the UNSC Infinity, a ship more powerful than any during the Human-Covenant War."

As far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no concrete proof that the Infinity is more powerful then other ships fielded by either the UNSC or Covenant pre 2553. I do recall this approximate term coming up in Traviss's The Thurday War however this was only ever made by human commanders and I believe can be discounted as flawed human opinion and ego as UNSC commanders could not know the full capabilities of a Covenant warship of equivalent size to the Infinity having never captained one.

While we haven't seen a direct confrontation between the Infinity and an Covenant warship of equivalent size, Esculation issue 6 depicted a single Covenant space station which was approximately 1/5 the size of the Infinity crippling it with energy blasts before it was ever able to get off a single shot in response.

If the Infinity really was "more powerful than any during the Human-Covenant War", then what happened at Oth Lodon simply should not have happened.

As a result of the latest canon I think we should remove this section as in my opinion if the Infinity cannot take on a static Covenant space station 1/5 of its overall size, what possible chance would it have against a Covenant warship of equivalent size which can also maneuver out of the Infinity's firing ranges?

What everyone else's opinion?—This unsigned comment was made by 2.127.101.192 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

I believe the statement is referring to the Infinity being more powerful than any human ship fielded during the war. While the statement is more or less correct, it seems a bit out of place in the article.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 11:43, 1 October 2014 (EDT)

Hmm...not 100% sure of that considering the Infinity's combat performance to date. (Boarded 3 times, psychically disabled twice, crippled once. Think I'd feel safer commanding a battle of a Marathon-class Cruiser, probably not as much firepower but you at least know the engines aren't going to suddenly develop a mind of their own and disable the rest of the ship...in the middle of a battle)

Would anyone have any objections if I amended "a ship more powerful than any during the Human-Covenant War" to "the UNSC's most advanced warship since the Human-Covenant War." —This unsigned comment was made by 2.127.101.192 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

The whole statement comparing Infinity to other ships has already been removed. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:06, 2 October 2014 (EDT)

New name

I agree with Jugus, we should rename the article since it appears that there is multiple civil wars going on, not just against the Arbiter. - NightHammer (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2014 (EST)

I agree as in addition to the Servants of the Abiding Truth and allied clans attacking the Swords of Sanghelios we also have clans taking the opportunity to attack other clans in conflicts that are for the most part unrelated to the SOS vs SOAT conflict.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (EST)

I disagree. There have been plenty of multi-sided civil wars throughout history that have been referred to in the singular. The obvious example of a civil war, the American Civil War, is something of a rarity in terms of how clear-cut the sides were.--The All-knowing Sith'ari (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (EST)

Even then, there were still people, especially out in the mid-west, who drew themselves along pro/anti-slavery partisan lines but were not affiliated or overseen by the "official" players in the war, the bushwackers and jayhawkers, guerilla border-raiders. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 20:54, 1 January 2015 (EST)

I support the change. The plural implies there are several conflicts that haven't been shown thus far, but they do exist. I'm not entirely sure, since we'll probably have new conflicts related to Sanghelios in Halo 5. But for now, better align with Waypoint. Imrane-117 (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2015 (EDT)

I don't think it should be changed. Although there are several wars going on it is only the one world that the wars are taking place on, therefore it would be civil war. -- Topal the Pilot (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

Either the article name needs to change or the content. The article implies that the the war is between the SoS and Neru Pe 'Odosima. There were multiple civil wars taking place on Sanghelios and several other colonies, concurrently and in Halo 5 we see the Arbiter dealing with Jul's supporters on Sanghelios, which are part of the Covenant and not the Neru Pe 'Odosima. --The Master Builder (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2015 (EDT)

They are over

One of Jul's Covenant mentions how his group were the followers of the 'Abiding Truth'. Additionally Thel states that once Sunaion is taken the entire planet will be under his control, which makes it sound like the conflict ends with the Battle of SunaionCouncilor 'Rumilee (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Abiding truth could just mean they are following the Covenant's religious views, and winning the battle on the planet doesn't mean he won the war, remember some of the Sangheili wanted to regroup at Hesduros and the ones who did might still be fighting the Swords. Alertfiend - Team Chief 03:08, 19 November 2015 (EST)

You can overhear some Swords in Enemy Lines muttering about defecting to Sali 'Nyon, who may continue the civil war. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 03:17, 19 November 2015 (EST)

But didn't Thel said Sanghelios would be free and the SoS would finally unify the planet before the Battle of Sunaion? They were defeated, so I assume the civil war is over, in the meantime (as long as 'Telcam return or other faction declares war at the SoS). ]]^(stalk) 12:17, 47 December 2015 (EST)

Mdama

After Levu 'Mdama allied with Thel and the SoS I assume he is on the side during the Blooding Years, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. We know that the SoS is ruled by Thel and a large council of Kaidons, yet Levu is one of those, who allied with them and therefore has his state on the side of the SoS. Why is it incorrect adding them?[ [User:Draft227|Draft227]] (talk) 12:244, 22 December 2015 (EST)

The state of Mdama may be allied with the SoS, but we don't know if they actually helped out in the civil war. The state seems to be a smaller, agricultural state, not one that really has a surplus of soldiers to send elsewhere on the planet. --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:57, 22 December 2015 (EST)

True, thanks for remembering me. I guess they would want to be away from this war mas much as possible since it would also end the Sangheili, which Levu wouldn't want. Though, Levu allying and supporting Thel (at least in the meantime) makes him a part of the SoS, right? After all the SoS is ruled by Kaidons and the first sight we saw of that was in Glasslands.
Draft227
Talk 15:25, December 22 (EST)

Yeah, it's probably safe to say that Mdama allied with the SoS given that Levu pledged to support 'Vadam in Glasslands (though I wonder how they reacted when Jul 'Mdama led the primary Covenant faction against the SoS). --NightHammer^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:30, 22 December 2015 (EST)

Can we have a citation for the Blooding Years being ongoing?

The Battle of Sunion seemed to end it.Editorguy (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

No evidence says that it is over, just the Jul's faction is defeated. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 20:47, 16 August 2016 (EDT)

Mdama is dead, Mdama's faction is entirely destroyed, Telcam is dead, Arbiter and his faction are doing well. That is plenty of evidence to suggest that the war could very well be over.

I have presented evidence suggesting, what evidence do you have to say that it's ongoing? The burden of proof is placed upon the claim with less/no evidence. If you have no evidence, my argument overpowers yours.

It's also important to keep in mind, I'm not even editing to remove that the war is ongoing, My edit is simply asking for citations to be placed where it says ongoing. It's expected that it should be cited, the fact that a citation can't even be found for it raises a red flag. That's where you should be looking to prove me wrong, with a citation, not with "because it is".

Pages like the Great Schism have citations for the claim that the conflict is ongoing. Blooding Years should see the same treatment. Editorguy (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Dude, Dural 'Mdama is still around for all we know.173.90.163.62 21:01, 22 November 2016 (EST)

The argument isn't to change the page to say that the conflict isn't ongoing. It's simply to label "citation needed" that the conflict is ongoing. Great Schism page and other pages for example have citations for start and end dates, even if the outcome is ongoing. This page should see the same treatment.

If you want too add [Book Name/Game Name - page number - "Dural 'Mdama is still alive"] as a citation, even that would be better than AlertFiend's argument that it "doesn't need evidence because it doesn't need evidence".Editorguy (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

We do not need a citation because it is not something to use citation on, the reason why the other pages have citations is because they have end dates and they use the citations to state when it has ended in canon, the Blooding Years has not ended and it would be pointless to add a citation because we do not have a definite point on the "ongoing" status of the conflict. The reason the Great Schism has a citation is because it has been narrowed down in the "future" of Halo that is not currently the present. Personally, if Jugus, Nighthammer, etc want to add it in I have no problem with it as long as they can explain why because to me it makes no sense but I trust their judgement, and please do not strawman. Alertfiend - Warning, my comments may appear passive aggressive. (Converse) 07:27, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Sub-section: Regarding the recent knowledge that Jul 'Mdama and Avu Med 'Telcam have been killed

With both opposing factions in shambles, evidence strongly suggests that the Swords of Sanghelios has emerged victorious as the two other opponents have lost. The burden of proof now lies with proving that the blooding years are still ongoing. Perhaps new stories and lore in the upcoming months will reveal more. Editorguy (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Just because the faction's leader is killed does not mean the said faction immediately ceases to fight and exist. There are plenty examples of this both in the Halo universe and in real life. Better to wait until we know for sure.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:33, 20 November 2016 (EST)

I agree that we should wait wich is why I didn't remove that the conflict was ongoing. In the meantime perhaps we should add a "citation needed" besides the "ongoing" while we wait for information to confirm or deny it's status. Editorguy (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2016 (EST)