- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Oku
- Nominated by: Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:04, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: One for the WP:Aliens crew
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
JangFett (Talk) 23:14, August 27, 2013 (UTC)- Assuming Bob's satisfaction. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 00:21, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 00:30, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to support. ~Savage
23:52, August 28, 2013 (UTC) 
CC7567 (talk) 21:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Object
Savaged…
Just some minor stuff. There's no hard rule on this, but we tend to avoid calling species "aliens" in their own articles, since it gets confusing. I know you mean alien in the sense of non-Human, but since the article describes them in the context of their own homeworld and environment, it sounds strange. In other words, might be worth pruning the word in this case. This applies to the body as well.- You're correct that I used this term to definitively differentiate them from Humans/Non-Humans. Both Galactic Gazetteer and CSWE specifically refer to them as an "alien" species, and I fear that relying only on the description of them living on a frigid terrestrial planet among a tundra environment is not necessarily enough to hammer this point home with certainty for every reader, despite their being white-furred. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
I'd still urge you to remove it, since it goes against every other sentient species article I know of. In one sense, I find it misleading (they're not aliens on their own homeworld). In another, it's redundant. That is, if we refer to them as a species, we are saying that they aren't Humans already. In other words, I think "The Oku were a white-furred species of primitive sentients" conveys all the information we need on its own. ~Savage 11:47, August 26, 2013 (UTC)- I've thought about this one all day, and I think you're mistaken in that you're looking at this from the perspective of the species itself instead of in relation to the rest of the galaxy. They are still aliens, even on their homeworld, in the larger sense of the Human-dominated galaxy. Humans are no less a species than the Oku, so just identifying the Oku as a "species" does not by itself differentiate them from Humans. I sympathize with your interest in trying to keep sentient articles uniform, but I think this subject is unique. If we don't call them aliens, there is nothing else in their canonical description that definitively distinguishes them from Near-Humans. You're relying on a personal definition of what distinguishes alien species from the Human species, which I don't think it's fair to assume every reader shares. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:17, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
No, "species" alone is enough to distinguish them from near-Humans, since near-Humans are non-Human species in their own right. There's a lot of confusion about what near-Human means, and I have that article on my back burner as desperately needing attention, but near-Human species such as Arkanians and Sephi are, indeed, unique species and not subspecies or races of the Human species. In other words, I stand by my assertion that the word "alien" is redundant here. Let me know if you'd like me to dig up stuff on the near-Humans-are-not-Humans bit. ~Savage 02:25, August 27, 2013 (UTC)Wait, I think I misunderstood you. You mean that "alien" is essential to distinguish them from near-Humans, who are not aliens. I think that's not the case (near-Humans are aliens), but I'll dig some references up to be sure. To address another of your points, I don't see how calling them a species is not enough to distinguish them from Humans. Calling the Oku a species does indeed distinguish them from Humans, as it does from Wookiees and Lutrillians and Ranats. I don't see how it couldn't. (Sorry if this conversation is starting to seem like splitting hairs. We are all writing for a fan-made Star Wars encyclopedia, so perhaps it's in our blood... :) ~Savage 03:16, August 27, 2013 (UTC)- From The New Essential Guide to Alien Species Glossary, the definition of "Near-human": "These species are genetically related to humans and are usually classified as humans." That doesn't sound to me like Near-Humans, at least not all of them, are aliens. If the term "alien" in this article helps to distinguish in even the smallest way Oku from Near-Humans, which seems to be the case here, it must be kept in there for the sake of clarification. This doesn't look to me like redundant terminology. It looks to me like removing the term would be sacrificing essential information from the article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:12, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, our Near-Human article needs lots of work. :) My last problem with the word is that it's POV in-universe. Check out the lead quote to our alien article, and you'll see that the term is considered a pejorative by at least some people in the galaxy. However, here we have our rule that if the OS is POV, we can use the POV terminology. So I'll strike this one, even though including the word "alien" makes this article unlike every other sentient species article on the Wook and rubs me as wrong as is (near-)humanly possible. :) This isn't an attack on you by any means; I appreciate your cool-headed and logical responses to my repeated objections here. ~Savage 11:58, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said, our Near-Human article needs lots of work. :) My last problem with the word is that it's POV in-universe. Check out the lead quote to our alien article, and you'll see that the term is considered a pejorative by at least some people in the galaxy. However, here we have our rule that if the OS is POV, we can use the POV terminology. So I'll strike this one, even though including the word "alien" makes this article unlike every other sentient species article on the Wook and rubs me as wrong as is (near-)humanly possible. :) This isn't an attack on you by any means; I appreciate your cool-headed and logical responses to my repeated objections here. ~Savage
- From The New Essential Guide to Alien Species Glossary, the definition of "Near-human": "These species are genetically related to humans and are usually classified as humans." That doesn't sound to me like Near-Humans, at least not all of them, are aliens. If the term "alien" in this article helps to distinguish in even the smallest way Oku from Near-Humans, which seems to be the case here, it must be kept in there for the sake of clarification. This doesn't look to me like redundant terminology. It looks to me like removing the term would be sacrificing essential information from the article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:12, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- I've thought about this one all day, and I think you're mistaken in that you're looking at this from the perspective of the species itself instead of in relation to the rest of the galaxy. They are still aliens, even on their homeworld, in the larger sense of the Human-dominated galaxy. Humans are no less a species than the Oku, so just identifying the Oku as a "species" does not by itself differentiate them from Humans. I sympathize with your interest in trying to keep sentient articles uniform, but I think this subject is unique. If we don't call them aliens, there is nothing else in their canonical description that definitively distinguishes them from Near-Humans. You're relying on a personal definition of what distinguishes alien species from the Human species, which I don't think it's fair to assume every reader shares. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:17, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- You're correct that I used this term to definitively differentiate them from Humans/Non-Humans. Both Galactic Gazetteer and CSWE specifically refer to them as an "alien" species, and I fear that relying only on the description of them living on a frigid terrestrial planet among a tundra environment is not necessarily enough to hammer this point home with certainty for every reader, despite their being white-furred. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, the word "primitive" often needs some sort of context. Primitive in relation to whom? I know what you mean, but in the conceit of an in-universe article, it's worth noting that we're talking in relation to spacefaring species here, and not something else from their homeworld.- Granted. Though does the "Society and culture's" proceeding elaboration that they lived in tribal councils and used primitive technology not achieve this? I can add this in if you insist, but I just feel like saying "primitive in relation to spacefaring species" is doing so for the sake of doing so and doesn't add or lose any certain meaning one way or another. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
I still think primitive is an inherently relativistic term (and a loaded one, but that's not the issue since the OS's use it). We have examples in canon of spacefaring species who live in tribes (Wookiees being the preeminent example), and saying "they used primitive technology" also begs the question of primitive to what? If at all possible, I tend to give examples of the technology (they used wooden spears and stone arrows, or something), but I take it there's not that option in this case. But a quick "in relation to the rest of galactic society" or "in comparison to spacefaring species" would easily clear it all up. ~Savage 11:47, August 26, 2013 (UTC)- What's bothering me about adding something like that is that the source doesn't say there were primitive in relation to the rest of the galaxy or even that they were primitive in comparison to spacefaring species exactly. It just says they were primitive. They lived in tribes, used primitive technology, and thought the Figg starships were magical. That's it. Using catch-all phrasings like you're suggesting carries the implication that they were primitive to all of the galaxy's spacefaring species, but we don't know that. I think trying to qualify the term "primitive" beyond exactly what the source says is extrapolating too much, and that makes me uncomfortable. The reader should be left to his own interpretations of what "primitive" means in this circumstance without us trying to create an answer for him. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:35, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Are they not, then, primitive in comparison to the offworlders who came to their world? I think you're being overly cautious here. The word "primitive" by itself tells us nothing; it needs to be qualified. Here, as you have stated, we have them compared to visitors from another planet. That's something. ~Savage 02:25, August 27, 2013 (UTC)- It doesn't need to be qualified if it can't be qualified. You want the article to say that the Oku were primitive in relation to spacefaring technology, but we don't even know that from the source material. The source doesn't say that. It implies it at best. It only says that the Oku thought the FiggEx starships were magical and that they were primitive. I'm not extrapolating to stick undefined conclusions into the article that cannot literally be supported by the source material. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:43, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
Note that in the "Hoth and the Greater Javin" article, the planet Oku's tech level is given as "primitive", while all other planets listed in the supplement have "space" level technology (or "N/A" for uninhabited ones). It seems there is a comparison being made here. But what you said above suggests a solution perhaps both of us can be happy with. I think my disconnect is coming from the fact that the lead and 'S&C" section just flat-out call them primitive, which, again, is a word that implies comparison to some greater condition, and which the OS does juxtapose against worlds with "space" level technology. Perhaps something along the lines of "The primitive Oku governed themselves in tribal councils and utilized primitive technology. Indeed, they interpreted starships as magical devices" would work. I realize this is mentioned in the "History" section, but it bears mention in S&C as well as a key aspect of their culture. This would completely satisfy my objection. Or, you could just add "in comparison to spacefaring planets," since the OS seems to support that. ~Savage 01:10, August 28, 2013 (UTC)- You've brought up a good point with the comparison to the other entries' "Tech Level" fields. I didn't even notice that, and that gives a new definition to their "technology level." I've qualified their primitiveness accordingly to replace the "they used primitive technology" bit. Hope that works for you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:30, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't need to be qualified if it can't be qualified. You want the article to say that the Oku were primitive in relation to spacefaring technology, but we don't even know that from the source material. The source doesn't say that. It implies it at best. It only says that the Oku thought the FiggEx starships were magical and that they were primitive. I'm not extrapolating to stick undefined conclusions into the article that cannot literally be supported by the source material. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:43, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- What's bothering me about adding something like that is that the source doesn't say there were primitive in relation to the rest of the galaxy or even that they were primitive in comparison to spacefaring species exactly. It just says they were primitive. They lived in tribes, used primitive technology, and thought the Figg starships were magical. That's it. Using catch-all phrasings like you're suggesting carries the implication that they were primitive to all of the galaxy's spacefaring species, but we don't know that. I think trying to qualify the term "primitive" beyond exactly what the source says is extrapolating too much, and that makes me uncomfortable. The reader should be left to his own interpretations of what "primitive" means in this circumstance without us trying to create an answer for him. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:35, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Granted. Though does the "Society and culture's" proceeding elaboration that they lived in tribal councils and used primitive technology not achieve this? I can add this in if you insist, but I just feel like saying "primitive in relation to spacefaring species" is doing so for the sake of doing so and doesn't add or lose any certain meaning one way or another. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Since cargo cults are a real-world thing, I wonder if rather than a link and article to cargo cult we should instead go for Oku cargo cult, and make the article specifically about this species' religion? Otherwise, it's analogous to having a page here for, say, monotheism or animism, broad anthropological concepts that don't really belong on a Star Wars wiki in my opinion.- I would argue in another forum that we should maintain an article on cargo cult(s), but since the Oku are the only example of this concept in canon, I'll concede to your suggestion. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Should their primitiveness be noted in "Biology and appearance"? It seems to me the source text is referring to technological regression rather than implying that they are somehow not physically evolved in comparison to other species. If that's the case, your mention of primitiveness in "Society and culture" should suffice on its own.- In this case, I was treating their primitiveness as analogous to their barely being sentient, but I see your point. Removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Before noting they were governed by tribal councils, it might be a good idea to mention they were divided up into tribes.- Nothing says they were divided up into tribes, per se. The planetary statistics for Tokmia merely indicate "tribal councils" among the planet's "Government" field. It's an easy conclusion to make, but I prefer to let the reader come to that kind of conclusion based only on what the source material literally says without extrapolating that conclusion for him. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. ~Savage 11:47, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. ~Savage
- Nothing says they were divided up into tribes, per se. The planetary statistics for Tokmia merely indicate "tribal councils" among the planet's "Government" field. It's an easy conclusion to make, but I prefer to let the reader come to that kind of conclusion based only on what the source material literally says without extrapolating that conclusion for him. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Is there no way to date when the Figg folks were there among them, or when their population was 400,000? ~Savage 12:36, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, and I considered the same. The RPG adventure is engineered to be used in any in-universe era, so these stats are applicable to any time frame. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. We can date all this to sometime after c. 400 BBY, if the death date given in Ecclessis Figg's article is to be believed. He founded the Outer Javin Company with his wife, and Figg Excavations was a subsidiary of that. The article on the excavation company lists Figg as a founder; that may warrant a check to make sure the OS supports that (the company could have been spun off after his death), but either way, these dates should allow us to pin down more firm dates for the cargo cult's founding than the adventure seed itself does. :) ~Savage 11:47, August 26, 2013 (UTC)- It's impossible to determine a date. The original source gives no indication that the 400,000 population is even chronologically related to Figg Ex's presence on Tokmia. Again, the RPG scenario is meant to be used in any IU era. The Oku population could be from thousands of years before Figg Ex was even created, or it could be an average population of their entire history of existence. We just don't know, and trying to force a date in here would be fanon. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
So is our article on Figg himself incorrect? I just want to be certain on this: despite the RPG scenario writers' intention for it to be useable in any era, if we have a firm date for Figg's life, we can and should mention at least those dates in the article, since the company named for him must have been founded after his birth. I take your point on the population statistic, but we should be able to give vague dates for the presence of the Figg company on their world in the "History" section. ~Savage 02:25, August 27, 2013 (UTC)- I have no idea whether the Ecclessis Figg article is correct. That's not the article I'm working on. We have no indication for the time period in which Figg Ex visited Tokmia except the very generalized period of sometime after Ecclessis Figg's birth. Figg Ex didn't necessarily mine Tokmia during Figg's own life. It could have taken place at any time across hundreds or thousands of years between the Old Republic era and everything succeeding it. Force-feeding a "sometime post-c. 400 BBY" date adds absolutely nothing to the article that can't already be determined by the basic understanding of Figg Excavations' existence. You're trying to tell me in your previous objection that one can intuitively gather from the term "species" that the Oku are not Humans or Non-Humans. Well, this is the same basic principle. It's redundant and unnecessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:37, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to stick with this one. It's not redundant in a universe that spans millennia to narrow a timeframe down to some 500 years (from c. 400 BBY to the current Legacy-era stuff). If we can put in a time reference, and here it appears we can, it's a net gain for our readers. ~Savage 11:58, August 27, 2013 (UTC)- Bob, this wouldn't even be redundant. It would be factually inaccurate to say that FiggEx mined Tokmia sometime post-c. 400 BBY, because we don't know that. First of all, c. 400 BBY is his death date, not his birth date. The article says, "Ecclessis Figg was born [...] around the fifth century BBY." That could mean anything from 650 to 550 BBY, for all we know. FiggEx could have mined Tokmia at any point during or after Figg's life. These dates are far too unspecific and speculative to ever assert such a date for FiggEx mining Tokmia. I'm not adding something into this article that is so speculative and fanony, and I'm not debating this point further. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:34, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- One more note on this. We only have two hard dates from source material that we can apply to Figg, AFAIK. The first is that he constructed Cloud City later in his life, and the city was completed about 400 BBY. The second is that he met his wife at age 18. These seem to be from where the Figg article gets the line that he was born sometime "around the fifth century BBY." That's quite a sweeping assumption, and even that is bordering on speculation, because we have no idea how long Figg actually lived for. Rightfully, that claim should be removed from the Figg article, and therefore there is no way we can ever apply a date to FiggEx's Tokmia operation, because it could have taken place anywhere before or after 400 BBY. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:53, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to bring up the Figg "fifth century" bit. We know that Cloud City was constructed c. 400 BBY from several sources (which I can provide if need be), but the date for the founding of Figg & Associates is nowhere to be found (although we know it was during Figg's life, per GATORW p. 21). And the subsidiary of it, Figg Excavations, may have even been formed after Figg's death for all we know. It's frustrating to not be able to put some date on the presence of FiggEx, but I'll concede that point. At any rate, one more thing bears clearing up, and this in relation to the population figure given for the planet Tokmia in "Hoth and the Greater Javin." Are you sure this is supposed to be an all-eras supplement? It is written from a New Republic perspective, and p. 13 even includes a bit on "ideas for scenarios set in the Rebellion or New Republic eras." ~Savage 01:10, August 28, 2013 (UTC)- This is what I've been operating on by saying this info is applicable to all eras. Rough and Tundra: Adventure Settings and Scenarios for the Greater Javin includes this line: "[These] adventure scenarios are intended for use during the Rebellion era but can be modified to work in any time period." Since both of these supplements were written by the same authors at the same time covering the same Greater Javin material and published on Wizards.com on the same day, I just always sort of treated them as linked. At any rate, I was at least partially mistaken, since Rough and Tundra says its content is intended for the Rebellion era, and I agree with you that Galactic Gazetteer is written from a New Republic era. Some entries refer to the Galactic Civil War in past tense, and the latest referenced date seems to be about 12 ABY. I will add a note to the population figure reflecting this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:11, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether the Ecclessis Figg article is correct. That's not the article I'm working on. We have no indication for the time period in which Figg Ex visited Tokmia except the very generalized period of sometime after Ecclessis Figg's birth. Figg Ex didn't necessarily mine Tokmia during Figg's own life. It could have taken place at any time across hundreds or thousands of years between the Old Republic era and everything succeeding it. Force-feeding a "sometime post-c. 400 BBY" date adds absolutely nothing to the article that can't already be determined by the basic understanding of Figg Excavations' existence. You're trying to tell me in your previous objection that one can intuitively gather from the term "species" that the Oku are not Humans or Non-Humans. Well, this is the same basic principle. It's redundant and unnecessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:37, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- It's impossible to determine a date. The original source gives no indication that the 400,000 population is even chronologically related to Figg Ex's presence on Tokmia. Again, the RPG scenario is meant to be used in any IU era. The Oku population could be from thousands of years before Figg Ex was even created, or it could be an average population of their entire history of existence. We just don't know, and trying to force a date in here would be fanon. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, and I considered the same. The RPG adventure is engineered to be used in any in-universe era, so these stats are applicable to any time frame. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:54, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
One last thing: does the OS refer to their cargo cult as "bizarre"? The word seems POV to me, so I thought I'd ask. ~Savage 11:51, August 26, 2013 (UTC)- Yes. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd advocate dropping it as violation of our NPOV rules, but I won't oppose based on it, since the OS is POV in this instance. ~Savage 02:25, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not dropping it, because it can't be a violation of NPOV if the source itself uses the term. There's a distinct difference there. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:39, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd advocate dropping it as violation of our NPOV rules, but I won't oppose based on it, since the OS is POV in this instance. ~Savage
- Yes. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:02, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 21:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)