Talk:Post-Covenant War conflicts

Necessary?

Why do we need a whole new article with this? Isn't this simply just another conflict with the covenant remenent? That SINGLE line regarding "A whole new war" sounds way too much like marketing. I wouldn't read it for canonical implications. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree. Myabe we should wait on creating this page until the game actually comes out.--Weeping Angel (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

A page encompassing the post-Covenant War conflicts against 'Mdama's Covenant and the Prometheans isn't a bad idea per se; I just tend to take issue with these names we're coming up with - or are forced to come up with. On one hand we have to keep the title purely descriptive, but this results in awkward names which sound like they would be better off in a bad fanfiction (this might also tell something about the direction the fiction is headed, but I won't go there). Since the page Human-Promethean war was created, I've been trying to come up with a better title for the post-war conflicts, with little success.

As for this article, I proposed we take the capital letters off the title to drive home that this is still a description (in the vein of the many references to wars in The Forerunner Saga), but this is really only part of the problem: more strict and encompassing application of such a policy wouldn't allow for titles like Second Battle of Requiem of for that matter the capitalization of the word "Battle" in any battle article, unless that engagement has been specifically named in an official source. So it's a double-edged sword really, and I wouldn't go so far as to change our titling standards in battle articles - slightly speculative as they may be - for the sakes of presentation. This particular article, however, I think might benefit from a title change to show that the war hasn't been officially named, in contrast to the original Human-Covenant War.

I just hope 343i comes up with a nice, preferably succinct name as quickly as possible - something like "Reclamation War" springs to mind. However, I've been less than satisfied with the way they name things: for example, by insisting on calling Jul 'Mdama's faction simply "Covenant", they're forcing us to use a fan-made descriptor to distinguish it from the original hegemony. Descriptors are not a bad thing by default but they have an annoying tendency of spontaneously gaining unintended capital letters and sticking as proper names in fan vernacular, even within this very wiki (Covenant remnant is probably the most notorious example). So even if we did remove the capitals off this page's title, there would no doubt be people rendering it as a proper name - at the very least capitalizing the word "human" if nothing else. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

As a suggestion, why don't we rename this article as a "conflict" instead of a war, like the Human-Covenant Conflict. From what we've seen thus far, the religious cult we labeled as the "Covenant Remnant" have not the necessary resources for a full blown "war". Reason I suggest this is that the UNSC has only dedicated a few ships at a time (at most a battlegroup) to a particular campaign with the enemy (i.e. the Requiem Campaign) and it seems to be the same with the battle at Draetheus V. -Killjax (talk | contribs)

It seems more like a new war than a simple conflict. The "whole new war" part seems to mark the beginning of a war between Jul 'Mdama's Covenant and the UNSC. The battle of Draetheus V is probably one of the first battles of this war. There are probably other engagements between Halo: Spartan Assault and Halo 4. The third book of the Kilo-Five trilogy will probably shed light on this part of the story. As for the battles of Requiem, they are battles that occured in this war. Basically, to me, it appears that all the battles from Draetheus V to the destruction of Requiem are in the same war. In this "new war", Jul 'Mdama appears to be the leader of the new Covenant order. Everywhere, 343i call them the "Covenant", the new Covenant order, the re-established Covenant, etc. I'm wondering if Jul could have simply recreated the Covenant, though with some differences (By tweaking the religion a little bit: no Prophets, just the Elites as leaders). You just do that and, well, it's still somehow the Covenant. Even if the union with the Prophets has been shattered, it would be easy to unify A LOT of the previous members and then continue to behave exactly like during the Human-Covenant War. We can also consider that their goal has changed as much as their leaders (It's less about the rings, and more about the artifacts and the Forerunners themselves). But even with that, it still pretty much fits what the Covenant religion is. It's just like... something smarter. There isn't much information about the Separatists, so it's hard to determine how many Covenant factions exist (The Arbiter's faction, the Servants of Abiding Truth...). I think the Servants of Abiding Truth probably allied with Jul's new Covenant, and as for the Arbiter, he probably did not, however if he and his faction learnt what ONI did to them, it would be hard for them to trust again the humans because of their lies (and the Arbiter's faction would probably shatter). TL;DR: The new Covenant are less "Covenant remnant" and more "Jul 'Mdama's Covenant".

As for naming the war itself (between Jul and the UNSC), it's hard to find a correct name, as for now maybe we should remove some of the capital letters as suggested. I'm also totally for merging the article Second human-Covenant war and Human-Promethean war. As I said, I consider the conflicts happening on Requiem as a part of the war Jul is waging against the UNSC. The return of the Prometheans is merely part of the war, Jul is still pretty much the leader in this war (during Spartan Assault, half of Halo 4's Campaign, and in Spartan Ops - and I'm not even taking into account the next Kilo-Five novel). The Didact temporarily became the leader, but that was just for a very short time (so he should still be mentioned as a leader, but not the first one).Imrane-117 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

A solution

To the article title, that is. As discussed above, and as witnessed in practice, the current title is hardly ideal for many reasons. It's long, it's ugly and it's clumsy in that it fails to wholly convey all aspects of the conflict, just like "human-Promethean war" did. That and it's one of our most notorious modern-day instances of the URF syndrome, which tends to be an inevitable consequence wherever we use a descriptor rendered in lower case: people both here and elsewhere fail to wrap their heads around the fact it isn't an established proper name and so you come across people using names like "Covenant Remnant" somewhere off-site (though that particular case might also have to do with Halo Nation's capitalization of that title... ugh.)

I got fed up with this title long ago but the problem always was the lack of a better alternative. I've entertained the idea of using the name "Reclamation conflict" for a while but it always felt like it was teetering dangerously close to fanon. But I realized that might not be entirely true, or at least that it's hardly any more offending than what we currently have. My reasons:

It is descriptive, even more so than the current title, despite appearing somewhat abstract at first. The "reclamation" is a legit in-universe event or a series of events which is at the centerpiece of the postwar Halo universe (including the name of the new game series), and any significant conflict is intrinsically tied to it in many respects, not the least of which is the Didact-Librarian dynamic. It relates to the reasons and motivations behind the hostilities instead of listing a rigid set of participants, thus making it more encompassing than any vs. combination of factions we could come up with, barring something like "Human/Lifeworker-Covenant/Promethean war", which I never hope to see. As for why use "conflict" over "war", it sounds more neutral and inclusive and perhaps better conveys the less defined nature of the event.

It's also very succinct, and it's easy on the eyes while being strictly descriptive. And if I had to choose whether the average fan on the Waypoint forums calls it the "Reclamation Conflict" (because the capital letters are bound to happen anyways) or the "Second Human-Covenant War" (by extension calling the original war the "First Human-Covenant War") I definitely choose the former. As long as we use the article title caveat and perhaps a note, it should be fine. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:55, 8 November 2013 (EST)

I completely agree, it would be way better than what we have now.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:07, 8 November 2013 (EST)

You have my support.-- Rusty-112 Admin ^comm 22:25, 8 November 2013 (EST)

I too support renaming it the "Reclamation Conflict" at least until an official name from 343i is given. --User: JJAB91

Article has been renamed.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:14, 27 November 2013 (EST)

Omiting the NCA

I'm confused. I was under the impression that this conflict was about the trouble Humanity was facing as they prepare to reclaim the galaxy and technology the Forerunners left behind, hence the title Reclamation conflict. If so, why are we focusing on the NCA and tying their actions at Ealen IV and Oth Lodon to this conflict. We should leave out the NCA as they pertain solely to the post-war Insurrection. Lord Susto 23:59, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Well to be fair when we added the Battle of Ealen IV to this conflict most of us were still under the impression it was Jul's Covies behind the attack.Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 00:40, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Fair enough. I was just scratching my head why it went so far that even the attack on the infinity from 2553 was also included in as well. I'll begin changing some stuff.Lord Susto 00:57, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

It seems like 343i are building up the NCA as an ally of convenience to the larger parts of the Covenant remnant who are hostile to the UNSC, and that their actions are tied thus into the larger conflict. I would be very hesitant to remove them from being mentioned here, since it also feels like 343i are planning to ramp up their presence in future media, and by consequence the role they'll play in galactic history. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 03:15, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

I think this page is definitely lacking a concrete identity as far as its content is concerned — I've been imagining it as shorthand for "whatever conflict goes on in the Reclaimer Saga era", which may or may not involve the Forerunner/Reclaimer stuff. This is also why it was originally renamed to the current title from the more limiting "second human-Covenant war". Given the prominence of the NCA in major events I would likewise not remove them from this page altogether (actions involving them might end up being key to understanding other, Forerunner-related events in the future), though having them here does create an awkward overlap of the contents of this article and the Insurrection page. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 03:28, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Due to the overlapping of the NCA and the Covenant "remnant" (or at least their willingness to collaborate), I'd say that the "Reclamation conflict" may not be a name entirely appropriate, similarly to the previous names. I do have the impression that there is a break in the timeline, between 2552 and 2553. I'm usually not the one who considers 343i's universe to be "different". I do see the continuity between Bungie's Halo and 343i's Halo. But from the in-universe perspective, I'm seeing that alliances are being made and broken all the time, and it's hard not to throw everything in the same place. For example, there was little to no collaboration between Insurrectionist and Covenant forces during the Human-Covenant War (The only example I can think of is from Halo: The Cole Protocol). So it was evident that we could keep two different articles (Human-Covenant War and Insurrection) because the two conflicts were not interconnected. These were "two different fronts" for the UNSC. On the contrary we wouldn't have a separate page like "Human-Flood War" because the Flood's actions would be interconnected with the main war. Moreover "Human-Covenant War" is still the official name, and the Flood/Forerunner presence only happened in the last year of the war, so it's irrelevant to adapt the name of the war to them. On the contrary, we now have a series of conflicts (the majority of them being isolated battles or skirmishes). Although this is reflected in the current title (Reclamation "conflict"), the page itself struggles to keep a separation between the Insurrectionists and the Covenant remnants. But it's the opposite that is happening in the universe, from the Venezian insurrectionist movement to the New Colonial Alliance. Of course, there are minor insurrections; the kind of things you will only hear about in the Halo 4 armory's descriptions (Terceira...). They deserve a few sentences on the Insurrection page. And so does the NCA - but in a more limited way than the current paragraphs. Look at "During the Human-Covenant War" for rebel activity in the Rubble. Not so much, eh? What I'm saying is that all of that postwar Insurrection is intimately connected to the general scheme of the UNSC and Covenant factions struggling to do whatever they want to do in the postwar era. It's not the Insurrection on one side and the Covenant on the other. Actually, Covenant terrorism is something quite significant, and it's in no way different from the Insurrection: factions trying to gain whatever they want by whatever means they have at their disposal. Except that now, every single faction is in the same basket. You can have Staffan trying to collaborate with the Covenant to attack Earth with the Pious Inquisitor, Clayton and 'Gajat working together to destroy Infinity, Kilo-Five collaborating with dissident Sangheili, and so on. Of course, you may be wondering: that's gonna be too much on a single page. Yet, look at the "Reclamation conflict": Halo 4 represents a major part of the page with its many paragraphs. This is simply because there are currently not a lot things to say on the page, so we usually detail things that should in reality be more concise. Now look at "Human-Covenant War": the Halo trilogy itself is much shorter, with each game being resumed with 2-3 paragraphs in a single part (I will acknowledge that said part looks huge and we don't need it here). The content of Halo: Reach (or Halo 3: ODST) is altogether non-existant. As time goes on, the current content of the "Reclamation conflict" will have to be shortened, in my opinion Halo 4 should be no longer than a single "part" (instead of the current ~5 ones: Entering Requiem, Infinity arrives, The Composer...). In the end (TL;RD?), it means that the Insurrection page should still be updated with short references to the postwar resurgence, but the bulk of it goes to our so-called "Reclamation conflict". Truly I would better call it "Postwar conflicts" and make it some kind of hub for every conflicts that happen in the postwar era, be it the Venezian insurrectionists collaborating with some Covenant or the Sangheili civil war. Although many of them are not explicitly connected, all postwar conflicts are linked because they are the result of the end of the Covenant War. All its participants (humans and Covenant) are struggling to consolidate their own power in this period of uncertainty. I'm 100% sure that this name would NEVER be "accepted by the fandom as official", simply because it describes what these conflicts are: postwar conflicts. And even if some weird guy begins to propagate this as "Postwar Conflicts", it still sounds less fan-made than "Reclamation Conflict". I would also like to add that despite the Forerunners' "return", we are still very much in a "postwar era", something easily understandable due to the existence of peace treaties and peace delegations as of 2558. Conflicts involving the Forerunners/Prometheans themselves represent only a few days, perhaps weeks; but overall there are years of postwar conflicts. Of course, all of that could escalate (cough, cough) after the events of 2558. But even if you count the Didact's role in Escalation, it seems that he didn't end up doing a lot of damage, and the Master Chief disappeared. Meanwhile, Infinity's crew continued to wage a lot of conflicts against the Covenant (see Spartan Ops and Escalation at least up to Issue 13). But beware of the "exciting new war" rhetoric (remember how Spartan Assault ended up being an isolated battle?). There seems to be a "Reclamation conflict", but what I see is a series of postwar conflicts that may or may not be related to each other, all of them being part of a consistent period of people struggling to rebuild themselves. All of that may very well build the ground for "the next open war", of course. Imrane-117 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2014 (EDT)

I agree that we should probably treat the Insurrection's postwar resurgence as separate from the Insurrection itself, which is considered in most media to have ended as a major conflict in 2525 and finally died down during the war. Whatever human rebel activity goes on after the war is happening independently from the original Insurrection and more importantly, it's happening in a fundamentally different environment with former Covenant species running about to complicate things. I kinda like "postwar conflicts" as a context-specific descriptive term, though as an article name it's somewhat vague. Post what war? Perhaps "Post-Covenant War conflicts" would be more suitable? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 13:30, 14 September 2014 (EDT)

Sure, why not. It would be more precise. Imrane-117 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (EDT)

@Imrane: I really like the "Post War Conflicts" idea, (Or "Post-Covenant War conflicts", perhaps). It seems like we don't have the central theme that 343i has been promising yet. They billed these next few games as the "reclamation saga", but we don't really have that theme yet, and until they actually show it to us, these are just an array of conflicts that happened after the Human-Covenant war. --Weeping Angel (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2014 (EDT)

Commanders of the war

Isn't it a little strange to add every ship captain that had partaken in fighting to the commanders section of the info box. For the non-Covenant faction it could surely it can be boiled down to: Lord Terrence Hood, Admiral Margaret Parangosky ,Admiral Serin Osman, Arbiter Thel 'Vadam, Chieftain Lydus. Also do Kilo-five/Osman really need to be included in the Covenant remnant side? silently arming a faction for a few months before all out war isn't exactly apart of their side. 89.168.23.47 13:44, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

I would argue that Parangosky and Osman deserve to be listed on both sides. As for Kilo-5, their actions have certainly benefited the "New Covenant" more than the UNSC, albeit in hindsight, and I think it's appropriate to list them as hostile assets, at least for the moment. They should also probably be listed under the UNSC's assets aswell, to reflect the ambiguity. -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 06:26, 19 September 2014 (EDT)

Perhaps ONI should be included on both sides? I haven't read the third Kilo-5 book but I figured with a genocidal mad man like Jul being the established opposition to Thel and the Forerunners siding with them there is far less emphasis on their project of instability. 89.168.23.47 08:51, 20 September 2014 (EDT)

Re-Name (closed)

• Post-Covenant War conflicts

Reason:

"Despite the marketing, much of what's been going on post-war isn't about Reclamation except maybe in the most abstract sense. And it's not like all that is one single conflict either."

— Jugus

Support--Killamin7 [Comm|Files] 09:33, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Support Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 13:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Support - NightHammer (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Support - Our vengeance is at hand. (Talk to me.) 17:26, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Support - Weeping Angel (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Support - Bronzey (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Support - -- Qura 'Morhek ^{The Autocrat of Morheka} 21:17, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

The Insurrection's inclusion

Now that the page has been made more encompassing, should we separate post-war human rebel activity from the original Insurrection and instead list that only as part of the post-war conflicts? Listing them all on both pages, at least in detail, can become cumbersome and there was a point made in the previous discussion that the post-war resurgence of the Insurrection isn't really happening in the same sociopolitical climate as it did in before the Covenant War (and in a reduced capacity during the war). On some occasions we have traditional all human-on-human violence which is practically a continuation of the same but then there's cases like Clayton working with 'Gajat who's in turn tied to 'Mdama, which blur the lines a great deal.

I'm personally in favor of having a general summary of postwar rebel occurrences on the Insurrection page but moving the more detailed elaboration to this article. "Post-Covenant War conflicts" would also be listed in the "conflict" field of post-war insurgency engagements rather than "Insurrection". What do you think? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 02:01, 26 September 2014 (EDT)

That sounds good to me.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 13:11, 26 September 2014 (EDT)

"Sangheili-Jiralhanae War

Okay, this description has several problems with it. First of all, The Return never implies that the Great Schism is flaring up again after a recession in 2559. In fact, it makes it sound like both sides are losing heart for the conflict. Secondly, the name implies that there's one single and all-encompassing Jiralhanae faction against one Sangheili faction, which is most certainly not the truth. Thirdly, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest the Sangheili are conducting a "genocidal campaign" against the Jiralhanae; the lore at this point all suggests that both sides of the Schism just want the other to stay far away from them. Certainly there are some on both sides in favour of genocide, but certainly not all, and probably not most.

--Infernal Keeper (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Agreed. Alertfiend - Team Chief 23:22, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

What is wrong with the name Jiralhanae-Sangheili war? The Human-Covenant war wasn't a all-encompassing faction either. There was innsurection, Covenant Hertetic factions, ect. Yet its still called the Human-Covenant war.

Keep in mind that, while I agree that there are several Sangheili factions; Every single Sangheili was forced out of the original Covenant during the Great Schism of 2552. Regardless of what alignment they may have post-war. Every Sangheili was kicked out of the Covenant. If any stayed behind, they would have been massacared by the Brutes

• source 1: "These events led the entire Sangheili species to secede from the Covenant, forming a faction of separatists" (http://www.halopedia.org/sangheili#The_Great_Schism)
• source 2: "The resulting conflict would be called the Great Schism, and it would divide the Covenant into two, ultimately forcing the Sangheili out (of the Covenant)." (https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/universe/species/jiralhanae)

So the Sangheili species have a unanimous conflict with the Jiralhane. That is not a generalization, as every single Covenant Elite was affected and expelled from the Covenant (And if they didn't they would be massacared by the Brutes as the Sangheili Councilors were).

Also a quote from Halo: The Return

• source 3: "It was a terrible war. The Prophets provided the Brutes with powerful new weapons, hoping that they would in turn defend their Prophets against our wrath. But when the Prophets went into hiding, the lack of leadership allowed the Brutes to return to their savage nature and they soon began to fight against each other. This lack of solidarity made them much easier prey. Some of my fellow commanders continue that fight even now" (Halo: The Return)

The Sangheili-Jiralhane war IS happening. The Sangheili Shipmaster refers to the enemies as the Brutes. Not "Lydus's faction", not "Jul's faction", no splinter faction at all. He says the Brutes in general as a species. Meaning that the Sangheili are indeed at war with the Brute species. Not a group, but Brutes as a whole. If they were not at war, why do you think Lydus and Arbiter tried to arrange peace? They wouldn't arrange a peace meeting uless they were in a situation of slaughtering each other wich they are. And it is still happening in 2559 in Halo: The Return.

At one point or another every member of the Sangheili species was involved in the fight against the Jiralhanae, as their entire species was kicked out of the Covenant. This was a species wide conflict, not a faction based one. -Editorguy (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

It is a continuation of the Great Schism. Alertfiend - Team Chief 23:47, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Alright, so I'll change the title to from "Sangheili-Jiralhane war" to "Ongoing Great Schism" then. Fair enough?Editorguy (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

You do not need to add it to this article, it is already on the Great Schism article. Alertfiend - Team Chief 23:51, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Each sub article here has a link under it leading to the main article and just lists a summery, I'll do the same. But this time call it "ongoing great schism" instead of "sangheili-jiralhane war". Alright?Editorguy (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Not necessary. Alertfiend - Team Chief 00:07, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

The Ongoing Great Schism is an important set of events that happened in the Post-War conflicts. It is necessary.Editorguy (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

The Ongoing Schism started during the war and so (IMHO) not apart of the Post-Covenant War conflicts. I am sure others have their reasons but that is mine.Alertfiend - Team Chief 01:07, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

(reset indent) The Great Schism was a conflict that began concurrently with the Covenant War and continued after. As this article is soley about conflicts that arose after the war, the Great Schism should not be added ("Ongoing Great Schism" isn't even an official name so it shouldn't be used anyway). Also Editorguy, please don't make multiple edits.--Spartacus ^{Talk • Contribs} 13:02, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

Ongoing Great Scism may not be an official name. But the war between Brutes and Elites is official. It is also an important event that should be included. I think Sangheili-Jiralhanae war is a good name.

• source 3: "It was a terrible war. The Prophets provided the Brutes with powerful new weapons, hoping that they would in turn defend their Prophets against our wrath. But when the Prophets went into hiding, the lack of leadership allowed the Brutes to return to their savage nature and they soon began to fight against each other. This lack of solidarity made them much easier prey. Some of my fellow commanders continue that fight even now" {Halo: The Return)Editorguy (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

I do not think the ongoing conflicts between the Sanghieli and the Jiralhane are a part of the Great Schism. The Great Schism was a fight between the Elites (led by the Arbiter) and the Covenant (led by the Prophets). No. 1, The Jiralhane were merely the muscle the prophets put in between the elites and themselves. No. 2, the Elites were fighting the Covenant. In many ways a possible continuation of the Great Schism much closer resembles the fight between the Swords of Sanghielios and 'Mdama's Covenant than between the Elites and the Brutes, as both the Great Schism and the Arbiter's conflict with 'Mdama were largely religious in nature, whereas the current fight between Elites and Brutes is largely cultural, strategic, and based on old grudges. I do think this page deserves a section on the continued animosity, and occasional violence between the two species. --Weeping Angel (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

I agree with Weeping Angel. The war between the two species (it is confirmed as a species wide war between the Brutes and Elites) should be included as part of this article.

• source 3: "It was a terrible war. The Prophets provided the Brutes with powerful new weapons, hoping that they would in turn defend their Prophets against our wrath. But when the Prophets went into hiding, the lack of leadership allowed the Brutes to return to their savage nature and they soon began to fight against each other. This lack of solidarity made them much easier prey. Some of my fellow commanders continue that fight even now" (Halo: The Return)Editorguy (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

The Schism continued despite the collapse of the Covenant, all that is left of the Covenant are the Jiralhanae led forces still fighting. The war between 'Mdama and 'Vadam is merely a civil war between two factions, not the continuation of the Schism since they are not fighting about religion, they are fighting for control. But I understand where you are coming from. Alertfiend - Team Chief 21:23, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

The problem I have is that I just don't see how you can count the Jiralhanae as the remnant of the original covenant. From a religious perspective, they largely abandoned the Covenant religion. From a military perspective, the Elites become the dominant controller of Covenant tech and equipment, while the Brutes devolved into infighting of such a high degree that they could hardly provide food for themselves. From a political perspective, the Brutes no longer follow the Prophets, or any of the other possible leaders of the old Covenant. So in what ways are the Brutes the continuation of the covenant? Thanks, --Weeping Angel (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

The Schism started because of religious purposes, but it now continues for old grudges, just because the intent is different doesn't mean it doesn't still count as the same war. Alertfiend - Team Chief 19:31, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

But religion isn't the only thing that changed. As I understand it, the current fighting between the Elites and Brutes is not an all out war. The Elites only seem to be fighting in retaliation for the minor raids. Second, the Great Schism was between the Elites and the controlling forces of the Covenant. Are the Brutes now considered the controlling forces of the Covenant? Thanks, --Weeping Angel (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

If you and I got into a fist fight for 3 hours, even if we take breaks and we land punches with more time inbetween, it would still could as the same fight and not an all new one. Alertfiend - Team Chief 23:28, 6 October 2015 (EDT)

If we get into a fight because your boss is telling you to kill me and take over my job, and then we stop after your boss dies, but immediately start again because you stole my lunch it counts as two different fights. The distinction between the two fights is not only the time between, but the reasons for each. If the Brutes are no longer considered to be the remnant of the original covenant, then the "great schism" has ended and a new fight begone. It is a small distinction, but it is an important one to make. Thanks, --Weeping Angel (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

That's the point, the fighting has not ended, it has been going on since the Schism.Alertfiend - Team Chief 22:16, 7 October 2015 (EDT)

Its a new fight though, the Brutes and Elites continue to fight due to their rivalry, and now pure hate for each other after slaughtering each other during the changing of the guard, the masacare of the councilors, ect.Editorguy (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

It doesn't matter if the fight ever ended. What matters is that the reasons for and magnitude of the fight altered at a fundamental level. Thanks, --Weeping Angel (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

It does matter if they stopped fighting. I think I am done here, if anyone tries to put this back up on the article I am removing it because it does not belong here. p.s. look at the name of the article in case you have not noticed. Alertfiend - Team Chief 20:06, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

@Alertfiend: I understand your frustration, but I am sorry that we could not settle this better.

Given that we came to no conclusion in our debate, I would like to propose we vote on the matter. Does this seem reasonable to everyone else? Thanks, --Weeping Angel (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2015 (EDT)

I am not frustrated, I just am getting tired of explaining why the Great Schism hasn't not ended, and why it should not be added to this page, create a vote if you want.Alertfiend - Team Chief 23:33, 11 October 2015 (EDT)