Forum:Category Proposal: Pure Human

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Category Proposal: Pure Human

The General Idea

As a Fallout wiki, it is our duty as editors to include any and all information/canon found within the Fallout universe. So what I would like to propose is the addition of a new category for those characters and factions that are recognized as 'Pure Humans' throughout the current (And possibly future.) Fallout titles. Why should we add in this new category? Because those that are recognized as 'Pure Humans' contribute a large part of Fallout lore. (Even if what makes a human 'Pure' is left up to interpretation in reality.) ^Skål!

---

Who Would Fit Into this Category?

This list is only used as an example. Be aware that not every pure human will be necessarily noted in this case.

• The Enclave
• Certain BoS members
• Vault dwellers
• Marie (The Pitt)
• Pure bred Super Mutants (Up for debate. But technically, the pure strain of super mutants could only be created using humans that had not been affected by any level of radiation. And technically, as well, super mutants are still humans.)

---

What Changes Would Take Place?

• A new category listing to place under all NPC, PC, and faction article pages that fall under the 'Pure Human' classification
• A new article page detailing the history behind the 'Pure Human' classification and its relevance towards Fallout lore. This will include a list of all known humans classified by canon as 'Pure Humans'.

---

Conclusion

So all in all, I believe the 'Pure Human' category should be implemented here, as the whole ideal is an important part of Fallout lore, as well as being a real concept that can be verified upon. (In Fallout, this is what constitutes as a 'Pure Human': A human that is relatively radiation-free and has undergone no form of pre-mature mutation/adaption due to an extended and unprotected stay in the wastelands)

---

Community Discussion

All feed-back would be greatly appreciated! If there is a general approval of this proposal, a vote will be set up on the 10th of August.(Date is still up for discussion.)

• As much as I remember putting that category, I have to agree with the principal that the Enclave only uses that term to promote themselves. However, I'm not sure if others would agree with the next thing I'm going about to write, but what if the Pure-Human could be simply named as Preserved? No Enclave reference yet it distinguishes the other irradiated humans. Energy X ∞ 16:24, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • As I noted earlier, I agree with the principle of a pure strain of humans being up to interpretation. However, the Fallout definition of pure is generalized as being any human that is radiation-free; which is why Vault dwellers - Who have been sheltered from the wasteland and radiation. - are so important to the Enclave and the Master. ^Skål!
• I don't think it's required, especially if non pure humans like Super Mutants are included. Agent c (talk) 16:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • For the most part, I'd agree with you. However, like I said, what constitutes as 'Pure Humans' is an important part of Fallout lore. And as a Fallout wiki, we should cover everything that involves Fallout lore. Also, I don't think you read my super mutant note properly. I only think that pure strains of super mutants should be noted. Such as Lou. ^Skål!
• Ok, I'm going off track here maybe, but before I came to this wiki and having played Fallout 3 I wasn't even aware there was something like a 'pure human' category. When I heard of it, I made an immediate connection to the Nazi regime and visitors will very likely make the same link. Already for that reason only I'm not in favor. Jspoel 16:40, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • To be quite honest, if someone instantly jumps to that conclusion and then goes on a rampage over it because they decided not to do their research into the matter, then that's their own problem. And anyone who's played the original Fallouts will instantly be aware of the 'Pure Human' references. Even those who started with Fallout 3 should catch the term being thrown around if they pay close enough attention. ^Skål!
• I think of our audience, 3 out of 4 people (probably even more) haven't played the older games because of their young age. You can see it in the Yes Man polls. You say it's their problem, I say we shouldn't make it a problem for them and subsequently for us. And we already has a discussion about this at the end of 2010 I think, where Gothemasticator already dismissed it. Jspoel 17:02, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • That's another of my points exactly. This is a Fallout wiki where people come to learn more about Fallout, and the history behind it. That's how I found out about Wikia in the first place, was me wanting to find out the background to game universes such as the Elder Scrolls and Warcraft series. There's been days where I've spent hours just looking through the history of a game to find every ounce of information I could on how certain events led up to where you start in the game, and how your actions can affect the future of the world I've just been engulfing days of my life into playing. So you sort of reinforce my point of the necessity to add lore and canon that is considered important to the history of Fallout. Especially so since most of the modern Fallout community are gamers who are not familiar with the original games. ^Skål!

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'd like to argue against categorising super mutants as "pure humans", even the proper SM's such as Lou or Marcus. Are they humans, or post-human? I would argue post-human, as the FEV forces them to evolve, that they have evolved the stage of being Homo Sapiens Sapiens to something else. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

• Hmm. That's a good point. I suppose they are closer to meta-humans than actual humans in this case. Definitely one of the weaker points in this proposal, but I figured it would still be good to throw them in for debate. ^Skål!
• I'm going to look at this from a more pragmatic standpoint. The "races" that we use are easily defined by the settings in the game editor. By using the races that are defined by the devs, it alleviates *most* of the bickering over who is what race. All we have to do is look in the GECK. If we self-define something different, then we will put ourselves in the position of having to deal with everyone's diverse definition of the new race, whatever that may be. In this case, I'd mush rather use the "Keep it Simple" method and use the GECK defined races. The Gunny   19:32, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. I can already foresee multiple arguments stemming after the implementation of this category. For the sake of simplicity, along with my belief that this is not super important, I think we ought to skip out on adding this. --Skire (talk) 19:37, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight: We're supposed to be lazy and leave out Fallout lore just for the sake of simplicity? Last time I checked, the whole purpose of a wiki is to have an easy to find encyclopedia of knowledge over specific subjects. Yes, you're right: The noting of who is considered a 'Pure Human' in Fallout history isn't that important. But at the same time, we're supposed to be as accurate as possible, - being a wiki - adding in everything that has to do with Fallout. As for this causing bickering, we already have bickering over almost every aspect of this wiki already. Look up any of our policies and norms, and I guarantee you 90 percent of the time there was at least some sort of controversy over perspective on the matter. So I don't consider that a good excuse to not add an important detail of what this wiki is supposed to be covering. Edit: I also don't like the idea of using the G.E.C.K. as a crutch. Just because something isn't in the G.E.C.K. doesn't mean it's not worthy of looking into. ^Skål!
• Perhaps I misunderstood. I assumed you meant to replace the infobox race with "pure human" and/or create a category for the same. I have no problem at all with an article written about pure humans, with appropriate tables, lists, links, whatever to those deemed as such. But if you mean to replace the infobox race with this, then no, I'd rather not. Frankly, (and I haven't checked) I'd be incredibly surprised if we didn't already have such a page. If we don't, one should be made. I don't think it's being lazy, the information has merit and should be here, it's the question of the "where" should it be that I'm talking about. The Gunny   20:11, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright then, allow me to ask you one thing, if I may: What exactly will we again from this? You're right it's an important part of FO lore, but that's before: what do you get after? Easier navigation to find "pure human" characters? That seems a little too obscure and for me is easily overshadowed by the additional complications it might arise. --Skire (talk) 20:12, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Those fears make a lot more sense. I'll update this forum accordingly so there's no confusion on this part. But no, it's not my plan to replace the info-box character races with pure human. (Although I would like these pages to come with the 'Pure Human' category listing.) What I mostly want on top of this is an article page revolving around the 'Pure Human' classification, along with a listing of those who we know for a fact are considered as such. And yes Sigma, that is essentially all I want, is a page detailing a little more of the lore. If a user comes here looking for the history of Fallout, then I would like to edit happy knowing that we've given them as many references as possible to do so. Doesn't matter how little or seemingly unimportant the topic is. That's not up to us to decide. ^Skål!
  • Well The Gunny and I were discussing in chat, and I am currently working on a "pure human" page, almost as a subspecies of Human, for that purpose. This should satisfy the need for coverage in that area much better than a debatable category addition. --Skire (talk) 20:30, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable so far. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I've been working on an article page for this as well, so maybe afterwords we can cross-examine and go from there. ^Skål!

Well, Garoux is correct in the fact that this info is part of Fallout lore and should be included in this wiki. I don't think that is really up for debate. What is up for debate is two fold. Firstly how we impart this information to the reader. Secondly, what is the absolute definition of a pure human. And from what source do we take this information. This definition has to be based in lore, and not our own interpretation.

Now this forum is about the proposal to impart that information via categorisation. I think we should stay focussed on that part first, instead of getting bogged down in the absolute definition of that categorisation. Which might be inconsequential in people decide against the categorisation in the first place.

Now look at it, this pure human subject and associated lore is actually present in both the human and Enclave pages to a degree. Although I feel the info in the human page could do with being expanded a bit further. However, I don't think that the subject, on its own, is worthy of a whole page dedicated to itself. Mainly because it is simply an ideologie of a single faction in the Fallout universe.

As for the category itself, I am in two minds on this. Mainly because I don't feel it is important enough to actually deserve one, especially when it is a point of view within the universe itself. But on the other hand, we have had more pointless categories utilised in the past. 00:44, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Instead of a category, why not just include "Pure" next to where it says human in the infobox? That way you can even make a Pure Human page to link to in case someone doesn't know what it means. 00:01, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

My two cents - think about it like journalists. There's really no evidence that there are actually pure humans. What exists in the game is a faction that claims that there exist these so-called pure humans. Cover that in the articles. Don't then adopt the faction's stance and start categorizing or naming npcs accordingly.50.90.246.165 01:01, October 16, 2012 (UTC)