Talk:Hyrulean Civil War

I've transferred the "theory" portion of this article here, in it's entirety. IfIHaveTo is correct; currently, the text below is mainly uncited speculation, and many of the concerns raised here are valid. For any of this information to form part of the article, it would need to be proven to be fact by correctly citing using relevant quotes from the game; I have included those which I know to be of relevance in the article, please add others if they exist. Alternatively, a brief summary of this theory (correctly cited) could be included in it's own section. --Adam 15:24, 19 December 2007 (EST)


 * I think this does a major disservice to those who might like to engage in research about the topic. And a "brief" summary is not going to present all the facts that have been generated in support of it, as facts are the only basis for the whole theory.  I think putting it back in the article under its own theory section as it is would be FAR more beneficial to the community for those who may know something about the war that we don't and have only forgotten it and need it triggered in their memories again.  I don't think a theory section within the article would be detrimental at all, but as long as the theories are based on fact and not outlandish fiction, I think it would be a great addition to the article, which for being an encyclopedia article contains little useful or interesting information if presented only with the little hard fact we do know from Ocarina of Time about the war.  What's the point of even having an encyclopedia that people can add things to if you're not going to let them take what we do know and try to put it together to make sense and draw connections between the games as Miyamoto originally intended?  People come to an encyclopedia to discover things they didn't know previously, and if you just put the minimal amount of information there as they saw it in the game, they have no need to even visit the encyclopedia to look at something they already knew to begin with.  And I really don't understand what you mean by "correctly cited" because it's almost impossible to "cite" a video game unless you merely tell where in the game it occurred, which is what was done here.  It's not like a book where you can go and just cite the page number, edition, date, etc.  And if someone has played the games (as many who visit this encyclopedia have) then they should know where in the games the listed facts are.  But that's about as good as you can get citing a video game, beyond that I don't know what else you expect us users to provide.  Link87 16:32, 19 December 2007 (EST)


 * I'll be brief:
 * We operate a slightly less strict policy than wikipedia. However this still applies to any encyclopedia.
 * The below represents one possible theory. Others exist. For them not to be presented along with this one in the article gives it false credence and biases the reader.
 * This theory belongs on a forum, as I have suggested here.
 * No reply necessary - this is not a discussion. --Adam 17:28, 19 December 2007 (EST)


 * And I'll be brief as well:
 * Technically this "is" a discussion as per the title atop the page.
 * Yes, this is one theory. It would be nice for everyone to be able to share any coherent theory on the pages themselves, not solely this one.  That was my suggestion.  To censor any attempt to connect the dots between the games defeats the purpose of the whole encylcopedia.
 * Perhaps theories are "debated" in forums, but any coherent findings should be reported to the overall world. No one likes to dig through the actual "debate" that goes on in forums to find out the outcome.  That is why I suggested allowing those with coherent theories to have the opportunity to share it with the findings of others.
 * No reply necessary to this either because as far as I'm concerned, this wiki has been corrupted by the same good ole boys system that afflicts almost all of them. I will go to the games for information if I want it, since this "encyclopedia" obviously doesn't want to share new information. --Link87 18:50, 19 December 2007 (EST)


 * If this "disgruntled user" is still allowed to have a say in the matter: What we mean is that you could at least add some quotes to your findings. Like, when you said the Twili tried to claim the Triforce, I had no clue what you were talking about. I only remembered them as using/needing/wanting the power of the Fused Shadows. I spend ten minutes (this hurts: "that doesn't like to go to the sources to look up the information for him or herself" - as reader, I shouldn't have to do extra research on my own) trying to find the quote that you likely used as source. And what do you know?, you were correct! But still, I had to do work to be able to proof your theory to myself. That is not service. Add quotes and keep facts from speculation. Your theory is pretty interesting, but please put in undr a theory header so people can easily see the difference between speculation and fact. If you have decided to leave because we couldn't come to an agreement (hey, we managed to come to an agreement on the Master Sword items. There's nothing corrupt here, just people who would like to keep things unbiased), then I'm sorry it had to be this way. Just know that pointing fingers and calling names is a sad, sad thing.


 * P.S. I do not want to be a whiner, but I'm also not very fond of the current state of the article. It's more about OOT Link's youth than the actual war. Am I allowed to make a few adjustments?IfIHaveTo 03:28, 20 December 2007 (EST)


 * If you are coming to an encyclopedia about the game, then you should have some idea of what people are tallking about. If someone asks "What is the Triforce?" and claims to have played the game, then they obviously didn't pay attention to the game very much. But that is beside the point. If we're going to have to cite and source every little thing though just because you didn't pay attention to the game (and a central piece of information from the game at that) then we'll never have a complete article one here. When someone even tells you which game to look in and where it is in the game, it's pretty sad that you can't look it up or trust the other person rather than accusing them outright of "fanfiction." I don't want to point fingers, but obviously you pointed it at me earlier to begin with.  And yes, you are right, many things should have quotations "if they are available."  If it's an event that occurred however, you can't really "quote" it. It's a little different from there being a spoken or written quote.  If there are any spoken or written quotes concerning the event, then yes by all means they would be a great addition to the article, however it's not necessary to throw it out if there was no quote available for the event.  And I "did" have it under a "theory/possible origin" header. It specified that it was merely possibility, not the 100% truth. But when you run to "big friends" every time you see something you don't like in an article (and when the author actually tries to work it out with you), that shows the signs of a "good ole boys" system in action. Point: Don't be such a (in your own words) whiner next time and don't throw a fit over nothing or make false accusations against someone unless you've calmly asked them about it. Everyone has a responsibility to help keep the pages in check, and if you see something that doesn't have a quote, then ask the person that put it there to verify it or if they don't have time to look it up, try it yourself. Helping other users out shouldn't be that much "work." But don't just remove a person's words just because you feel like it, because it does generate hard feelings. That being said, and all other matters aside, I think we can move forward and work together to help make the pages as informative as possible. And yes, you are by all means welcome to make changes if you feel you have found something that fits even better as I said before. I would love to know if you have something that fits even better. What is it that you'd like to add? Link87 11:39, 20 December 2007 (EST)


 * I probably have been here for only three months and in that little time (so much for the old boys, big friends theory), I have NEVER asked for anyone's "help" (if that's a proper way to describing someone else's opinion because two individuals don't seem to be able to agree). I'd like to refer to the Talk:Rito page. I've been having a discussion for weeks now about how to present the Zora-Rito theory. The difference is that every edit we made of each other's text is that we looked at the changes the other made and adjusted it to that. You just kept reverting my edit, rather than looking at any useful edit I might've made (and there were). And this caused me to not have to bother to try to adjust my edit to yours, because it always was the same and I already judged it (twice even). To avoid an edit war, which is in no one's interest, I asked for another person's opinion. Someone who has some authority, is online daily and certainly is not guaranteed to agree with me (Talk:Zora, Talk:Link of the Gorons), as you seem to think.
 * I'd also like to ask what you think an encyclopedia is. Isn't an encyclopedia where you look if you DON'T KNOW something? No, you don't have to explain what the Triforce is (although any quote to "proof" it is a plus). But everything you state about it is better off sourced. Sure, a lot of pages are currently lacking proper sources. Hey, this wiki is far from finished. That's why everytime I make an edit, I try to incorporate "proof". I may have overdone it in some, but I doubt you can ever have too much proof. This is not pointless. If people would know all this stuff, then why would they come here? I have played almost every Zelda game. That's over ten games and obviously, I haven't played some in quite a while. If I'd read anything here regarding a game I haven't played in a while, I am bound to find something "new" either because I haven't played the game in a while and forgot, or because I missed it (I myself have never gotten the Cremia hugging Link cutscene in MM and only learned about it recently) or because I didn't pay proper attention at the time of the quote/cutscene. It is part of the service an encyclopedia has to provide: proof that what is written is correct. Telling where to look is not good enough if without much extra effort you could hand the proof to them directly. As for trust, please, that's not the issue. The other person talking might have a wrong memory or missed something as well. Trust is nice, but proof is better, for both parties (Like with the Rito discussion, the other party was trying to convince me Medli was of noble blood. Sure, it is not impossible, but seemed rather unlikely to me due to a certain quote. When I presented that quote a while later, he started to doubt as well. He just had no memory of that quote, so obviously, that did not affect his theory. And I experienced this when finding the quote about the Twili. Trust is not the issue. we are all humans and we all make mistakes. Proof keeps mistakes to a minimum). No, you cannot quote cutscenes, but regarding your theory, don't try to make me believe it's all based on cutscenes without text. Add quotes where you can. [www.zeldalegends.net] has some excellent text dumps and quote facts if you need a source. That's where I get most of my quotes. If you need help on how to incorporate quotes or other proof in a text, I am more than willing to help. But I am not you and your theory is not mine. I cannot add the quotes for you as I don't know on which ones you based your theory. I am pretty sure I said to you on multiple occasions to add quotes, so don't say I didn't and immediately ran to get reinforcements.
 * Lastly, regarding the theory header: yes, you put it under a theory header. However, there was nothing else. A whole article can't be only theory. There are facts that can be proven and don't need to be under a theory header. Those facts should've been/should be the main body. After that, a theory section starts making sense. Take the Impaz article for example (admitted, it needs some improvements). Is it good as it is now, or should we reword it as "Impaz is the descendant from Impa from OOT. This is almost 100% certain, because her name looks like Impa's. She also lives in a village called old Kakariko. Impa lived in a village called Kakariko in OOT as well."? - See the difference? The current article tries to stay neutral on the matter, giving facts first and theories later. That's the way to go. My quick written example starts with a theory and uses the actual facts to back up the article, pretending to be a neutral article filled with only facts. But the first part is not fact! Not even with those arguments. And to be honest, my own example annoys me. It is biased in a way that if I'd see this, I'd rewrite it immediately to make it more neutral.
 * Some minor advice now that you have decided to stay (which I am happy about. This wiki can use all the help it can get.). Try to spell out the names of games. I know, this sounds stupid, but I personally think it's rather ugly to suddenly see "OoT" or something like that in an article, especially if the rest of the article is well-written. This is not an attack, just a request/advice to make articles more appealing. Also, try to avoid words as "definetely" or words that suggest any personal involvement in a theory. Words like "suggesting", "implying", "many/some think", "it is often regarded by fans (though not all)" are more neutral and a lot nicer to read. Lastly, check your links. You've linked in your theory to both "Hero of Time" and "Link", but those links end up on the same page (as Link is the Hero of Time and we don't give each incarnation an own page). Try to avoid that. Also, check any word that might be a possible link. Like "one banner" could very well become a link to the "Hyrulean Royal Family", as that is what those words are refering at.
 * I don't think I have any theory regarding the war prior to OOT. But I don't think I need to to be able to judge someone else's. Your theory is pretty good, it has some cracks, but it's good. Or at the very least, interesting. But please understand that even though you consider it the product of logical research and thus very likely, it is NOT fact. Again, even though you put in under a theory header, you used words as "While the war's history is not entirely clear, its history can be pieced together with careful study of the texts and cutscenes that appear throughout the series. What is definitely known" (not specifying where "definetely known" ends). Those words should not be used in a theory, ever. I don't have a "counter-theory"; do I need that to judge your theory? There are a lot of theories in this wiki I do not agree with, even though I have no counter-theory. Then again, this isn't my wiki where my opinion is the way to go. The difference however is that (most of) those are written in a neutral way, free from any suggestion of personal involvement in creating the theory, and are not the article itself. That's all. Now, if you want, shall we quit this discussion (provided you have no questions or remarks) and start a new one? About how we could fuse your theory in this article in a way everybody can be happy about it? I could even help find a few quotes if you want. IfIHaveTo 13:41, 20 December 2007 (EST)


 * Well put! No more bickering, time to move forward by rewriting this theory in an acceptable style for the wiki. --Adam 13:51, 20 December 2007 (EST)


 * In answer, I believe an encyclopedia is a place where people go when they want to know something they "don't know," not something they already know. And as stated before, the facts were placed before the theory, until it was removed unnecessarily. And as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing in the theory that appears to coerce anyone to believe it, but if you feel it should be reworded, be my guest.  I could care less how it is worded or cited as long as it is able to be seen and able to generated possible new ideas for it.  And as I said before, keep in mind what I said about running crying to administrators before you really should later on. And I have never presented the theory as "fact," as stated below it says "(although not certain)".  And just as you said before, you didn't like the article itself only talking about Link's birth, which is the only concrete fact we have on it.  Therefore, if you want to diversify the article and generate some things on "the war" itself, you're going to have to think outside the box, hence theories such as mine.  And I welcome other theories to be posted alongside it, as I said I'd like to see other peoples' theories as well in the event that I find a piece that fits better to modify my own with.  That aside, yes we can quit this discussion and start a new one.  And yes, that would be much appreciated if you found some of the quotes (and I shall try to do the same if I get time).  How would you like us to begin re-writing it?  Link87 14:58, 20 December 2007 (EST)


 * The fact of the matter is that, whether IfIHaveTo had asked for my opinion or not, I would have reviewed the edits myself and made my own decision. For information, I read and actively "check-off" each and every revision which is ever made on the wiki, thereby approving any changes in terms of factual accuracy and appropriate style and grammar. And, as she pointed out above, past experience shows that we are more likely to disagree than agree. I'm glad that this discussion has been resolved; in future, please try to phrase your opinions in a less accusatory manner, as some of the phrases which you used above could be considered quite rude. --Adam 17:55, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I too am glad it has been resolved. However, I seriously doubt you're able to go through "every single" edit that occurs on the whole wiki, because you'd never be done. That is beside the point however. And information shouldn't just be deleted (which to me is far more rude) without asking the person that posted it to begin with. If they don't bother to reply or attempt to explain their words, only then should it be completely deleted. To me, I have not been "accusatory" in any manner, merely matter-of-fact. And a lot of things can seem rude in written word that really aren't (I saw a lot of what I considered to be "rude" things from IfIHaveTo directed at me earlier), so I don't think you should be singling out one party here on those grounds. I agree we should all be courteous to each other, however one must show respect to earn it. In future, I would suggest contacting the poster and asking for explanation before just deleting their entire post without seeing if what they posted really is valid. Just some advice for everyone, as it can dial down the possibilities for rudeness to arise. Link87 23:49, 20 December 2007 (EST)


 * Actually, he IS able of going through each edit. That's actually his biggest contribution: making sure the other editors stick to the rules and making sure the grammar and style of the articles is correct. He's also the one most likely to give feedback on a discussion page. That's part of the reason why I contacted him (the other being that if we had continued our edit war, he would've most likely locked the page after editing it in a way he would see fit. That would not have been in anyone's interest.) Please try to understand I was not attacking you in any way. I already explained my behaviour. I know and aknowledge that I have not been as polite as I could've been. I'm currently feeling the urge to "defend" myself with saying that you started, but I know you will say the same thing. Situations like this never start with a party being rude, but a simple misunderstanding that results in the other party feeling offended while there was no such intention (for instance, I am prepared to believe you did not mean anything when you said that "[I don't] like to go to the sources to look up the information for [myself]". However, this truly hurted. I am ALWAYS looking for sources. I ALWAYS check sources. I spend most of my edit time on checking/finding sources. I checked ALL of the sources you mentioned (and could've ment). Stuff like that can take up hours. As such, I still can't help but feel incredibly insulted by it as it is denial of all the work I've done here as well as the suggestion that I never even bothered to look at your edit but simply changed it to tease you/because I didn't like it/for whatever reason.) That said, I could care less who "started" and who said what. From my side, I apologize for any inappropriate behaviour. I only ask of you that you stop thinking this is a "corrupt wiki" where the older members work together to make sure newbies have no chance to do anything. At the most, older users are familiar with the "rules and customs" and as such are more likely to "be on the same side" (that of the generally accepted customs and rules), which might lead to a newbie, not accustomed with the community, possibly experiencing this as older users cornering him/her rather than older users simply following the rules. Again, I'd like to refer to the Talk:Zora page. As you can read, I made an edit in my first days that was not in line with the customs and rules of the wiki as well. And my edit was reverted. Instead of making the edit again (knowing from other wikis that such an edit would be reverted as well), I entered in the discussion that came into existance as a result of my edit. Instead of "ignoring" the other users (what I mean is, you have never answered to any of the points I made.), I defended my beliefs by answering each point they made before going back to making the adjustments I wanted, as the result of a deal that forced me to become familiar with and accept the customs of this wiki in order to "protect" my edits. No one here is corrupt, and as for why some edits are reverted before contacting the original editor: In some cases, there's absolutely no reason to (like the Mido - King Moblin case). In some cases, it's difficult because the person is not a member (yet) and it's unclear if (s)he'll ever come back. In some cases, the edit is against the earlier mentioned rules and customs (those things do not exist for nothing) and as such deserves a chance only AFTER a proper discussion. Direct deletion is better in a lot of cases. The edit is not lost and if it's an edit the original editor stands for and wants to stay, (s)he'll is guaranteed to come back and forced to defend the edit. In the mean time, the rest of the wiki does not have to accept an edit that is out of line with the rules.
 * I'll try to rewrite your theory and add some proper sources later today. I'll post it on this discussion page. I'm pretty sure we can work something out. Oh, and before I forget, if a source is a cutscene without text, a screenshot of that scene works fine as source for this wiki. There's always a way to source stuff, even without text.IfIHaveTo 03:30, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Done. Okay, it is not perfect, but this is the best I could make of it (Thank you Adam for providing some relevant quotes). I removed the part about OOT and TP being close to each other in time, because I think that is a generally accepted "truth". I don't think there are many who would put those games far apart, and even if they did, I fail to see how that would be an argument against the theory. So, what do you think? IfIHaveTo 09:03, 21 December 2007 (EST)
 * If I may, I would like to compliment you for the re-written form of the theory, IfIHaveTo. I have read through it, and it conveys all the things I was able to put together quite nicely, and I am glad to see you were able to source it.  As I have said, I do not care how it is worded or sourced so long as the general idea is conveyed.  And that is a good idea that you just gave me, one that I had not considered before:  using pictures of the cutscenes themselves as sources. That is an original idea to me, so thank you for that useful piece of advice which I will put to good use in the future. Also, I found the quote from Twilight Princess and posted it last night when I finally got some free time, and I didn't even realize that it specifically told about a war as well, much like the one from The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.  I didn't remember it specifically telling about a war, but it in fact did.  So I did post that to help in revising the theory.  Also, I do have a question:  Does this wiki have a forum for users like the other one?  I have not seen any on here, so I wondered if there really was or if not why?  I was going to post about a picture that's possibly from the next Zelda for Wii which features what is possibly the Door of Time, but I couldn't find anyplace to bring up the subject here.  Do you or anyone else know if there's a forum here or if not can there be one started?  Link87 09:33, 21 December 2007 (EST)


 * And stuff like that is why sources are good. One can never remember something 100%. To be honest, the theory started to make far more sense after I read the related quotes. It's actually quite good. Anyway, this wiki also allows people to put movies from youtube up, so if you upload an entire cutscene ther, or can find someone else who did that, you can also put it on a page as source. I'm not sure if this wiki has a forum. I'd say posting on the Talk:Main Page is the way to go if you have something general to tell/discuss.
 * I'm moving the rewritten theory to this article's real page then. I'm pretty sure people can agree with it now, and otherwise, the remaining needed changes can't be big and can be dealt with without much discussion.IfIHaveTo 13:36, 21 December 2007 (EST)


 * IfIHaveTo, thank you for your hard work in improving the disputed text, as always you've done an excellent job. I'd suggest that you replace the current article with the Suggested Phrasing you've given below.
 * Link87, as IfIHaveTo says, there is no forum, but Talk:Main Page can be used for general comments. If you're looking for a forum, I'd repeat my precious suggestion of the ZU forums or one of our other connected sites. On a personal notes, many of your comments above annoyed me, most recently your doubting my revision of edits. For clarification, 99.9% of all edits made here in the past 3 months have been "marked as patrolled", an action which can be performed only by an administrator or sysop. Since I am, for all intents an purposes, the only currently "active" admin here, that means me. I do it for no other reason than that someone must, and yes it does take a lot of my time (sometimes many hours each day) but that's my problem and not yours. I hope that we can now put this disagreement behind us. --Adam 13:54, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Wait... There's already a page for this? >_< I guess my Unification War page is useless then, right? --~Count Olaf~ 01:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

=Fought over the Sacred Realm?=
 * Was it ever confirmed that the Civil War was fought over the Triforce? I think the Twili War, the Civil War, and the Imprisoning War were supposed to be separate events. Of those, only the Twili War and Imprisoning War were fought over the Sacred Realm. I always thought that the Civil War was merely political in nature.Ganondorfdude11 14:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it comes from several in-game statements. Specifically that Ganondorf found information about the Triforce and became obsessed with obtaining it. And If I recall correctly it is stated that Ganondorf and his followers were at war with the Hylians before he declared his alliance to the Hylian King. Therefore Ganondorf's obvious motivation was access to the Triforce. However, given the limited information available, the Hylians might very well have thought the war was merely political, despite that the Gerudo were after the Triforce. 14:44, June 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. But did the Twili have anything to do with it? I can see correlations between the backstories of ALttP and OoT, but TP's backstory seems to take place even longer before OoT.Ganondorfdude11 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing concrete to say either way if it was the same event as the Twili one, or that that was much earlier. Some choose to believe one way, some the other. 17:21, June 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved references to the Twili to the Interloper War page so that there's no confusion and marked that page as saying that it's unclear when it happened.Ganondorfdude11 17:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)