Talk:Hutt Council

This article has been a Featured Article of the Holocron. It is an excellent example for other articles to follow.

Successor Question

For this article to be fair, it should reflect BOTH organisations which claim to be the heirs of this faction. - Drak`ora Sabosen 13:07, 2 November 2012 (GMT)

If Percilia Kajidic agrees with this change, I'm fine with it, but does Percilia's Hutt Grand Council claim to be the heir to Angobba's Hutt Council faction? I believe Percilia's group claims unbroken descent from the fictional Hutt Grand Council in the Star Wars Expanded Universe and not from the in-game Hutt Council faction led by Angobba that was destroyed in Year 5. Percilia's Hutt Grand Council would need to rewrite/retcon its existing backstory to include the events surrounding Angobba's defunct Hutt Council. However, this change would set an important precedent for other Holocron articles: Angobba's Hutt Council was an actual Combine Member Group (CMG) and its documented history as related in this article were in-game events that actually occurred. (Some players in the Hutt Cartel were members of this old CMG.) In contrast, Percilia's Hutt Grand Council has no IC-affiliation to Angobba's old one other than using its name. If we adopt this approach, the new unrelated "Pentastar Alignment" may claim to be the official successor to the old "Pentastar Alignment" even though it isn't and we would have to retcon the history of the old "Pentastar Alignment" to account for all future unrelated successors. This would apply to all factions who share similar names from the Star Wars universe. -- Rupert Havok, 2 November 2012

I definitely think that a standard policy for this should be developed, as disputed claims are a part of the SWC story(The most notable being that BOTH the GE and NR claim to be the heirs to the Galactic Republic, and as did the "Old Republic".)Whether or not an organisation is a successor to an org of the same name is an IC question, and should be treated as such. But you have a point in that if HGC wants to make a claim that they are they are the legitimate heirs to the old hutt faction, then they must reconcile this with the history of the old hutt faction. If you make a faction that has the name of an old faction, you must make sure to state that: a) Your faction is new , b)This claim is contested, and c)You are the heirs for the following reasons:(reasons). Until someone from the faction(or factions) in question comes along, a good take on this would be for an editor to add something like:"The Hutt Grand Council's position on the legitimacy of the Hutt Council is unknown, and their claim to represent the Hutt Race is contested by Hutt Cartel.". In my opinion, doing it almost any other way is unfair to people who have put/are putting time and effort into all three groups. - Drak`ora Sabosen 18:37, 2 November 2012 (GMT)

To my knowledge the current Hutt Grand Council makes no claim to be the heir of the Hutt Council. The only claim of the current Hutt Grand Council is that it is the ruling political body of Nal Hutta and the Hutt species, which ties it to the original, canon Hutt Grand Council c. 15,000 BBY by way of tradition; in other words, the current Hutt Grand Council and the dissolved Hutt Council are only related insofar as each could legitimately claim to rule Nal Hutta and have the support of the majority of Hutt Clans and PCs. ~ Popara The Hutt 19:57, 2 November 2012 (GMT)

We are not the old, we are the new, we even have a different name. We make no claims to be related to a defunct group, we make a vague reference to the species falling into dark times i.e. lack of leadership/organization. The shoe was empty, it is our job as players to promote the game and its IC universe, and that is what we are doing. What claims we do make, we back up. Percilia is Governor of the Hutt homeworld, so when we say we are the authority of that world, we can back that up. In fact I believe that argument alone means we do not need some disclaimer saying our legitimacy is in contest. As Popara said above me, we also have the support of a majority of Hutt PCs, and their respective clans. Regardless, since it would seem we are being made an example, we will rewrite our history, and update the page accordingly. Forkallo Gejalli Masi 04:02, 6 November 2012 (GMT)

Heya guys. I conversed with Forkallo on IRC on this subject. Apparently, there has been some misunderstanding or confusion. Both the Hutt Cartel faction and the Hutt Grand Council faction have no problem with each other's current/respective histories. Neither group feels the other should alter their Holocron articles. Both groups are satisfied with the previous status quo. To my knowledge, this proposal is Drak`ora Sabosen's own suggestion that he has put forward independently of either faction. Also, as Holocron guidelines are typically based on editor consensus, the next usual step is to solicit community opinions from Dreighton, Tylger, Qatar, Xanyarr, Xesh, Raith (and Drak`ora), etc., on this subject. Personally, I'm not sure if the Holocron guidelines should compel any faction to alter its history in its article. According to the Rules page, these histories can be completely fictitious. I imagine Tylger and Qatar might have some interesting perspectives about this. -- Rupert Havok 18:51, 6 November 2012 (GMT)

A faction is welcome to fictitiously claim whatever it wants, sure. A faction's holocron page, however, doesn't belong to them. The Holocron is supposed to be an in-universe encyclopedia of sorts; as such, the content of every page is supposed to reflect accurately public perception and scholarly understanding of its topic. That both groups in this case agree with the status quo should be taken into account, but if public perception or expert opinion differs that should also be reflected in the article. It does bear restatement though: I am fine with it as is. ~ Popara The Hutt 18:21, 7 November 2012 (GMT)

Sorry for being late, I only saw this now. I think Drak`ora Sabosen, Rupert Havok and Popara The Hutt brought up all important points to consider: No Holocron article belongs to any one group or individual and conflicting oppinions have to be reflected in an article, if possible. Looks like the problem has been solved to everyones satisfaction right now. (I noticed a few things I do not fully like about the article, but as long as I don't take the time to fix them, I probbaly should keep my mouth shut. *g*) Good job, everyone. :)--Dreighton 15:15, 8 December 2012 (GMT)