Talk:Lion El'Jonson

How is the Lion a Jew, anyway?

Punctuation

The article's punctuation is a mess. Should be revisited

the recent updates

The article has been edited so it’s 1 step away from dark angel fapfiction, what was wrong with with the old one that presented both opinions?

How much of this recent "massive" update is actually fan-fic versus official? I know much of it is true, but when I see things being said like the Lion Sword being forged on Terra I know it has to be false since both the Lion and Zahariel had theirs forged from the teeth of Calibanite lions before the Emperor showed up (assuming his "lion" sword is the "Lion Sword") --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing seems to be full of shit if you ask me. I'll revert it- these anons always seem to have overactive imaginations. --Newerfag (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

to be fair, a lot of it was true, I just reckon someone was too enthusiastic and needed to put in ALL the info on him. The whole thing had too much spin on it to be properly informative.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I just read through the fluff in question, here's a few quotes from the books:

At his hip, Jonson carried the Lion Sword, a glorious blade forged on Terra by the Emperor's own master armourers." - Fallen Angels

It was known far and wide as the Lion Sword, said to have been forged on Terra by the Emperor's own armourers." - The Unremembered Empire

I can't find any references suggesting the Lion Sword was fashioned from a Calibanite lion's tooth, like Zahariel's. Alithia (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good research, my bad --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are all the quotes necessary?

Sure, they're not inherently bad, but I'd feel better if they at least had sources to them. Until then, I'd feel better if the quote dumping stopped, or at least given to other Primarchs instead as long as we're going to be collecting every word falling from their lips. --Newerfag (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm kinda with you on that, it seems like the recent edits on this page are a creeping attempt to put it back to what we addressed back in December. After doing a bit of hunting myself, a lot of the contentious fluff sources back to old second edition stories that I can't find, but apparently do exist. As for the quotes, there's nothing "wrong" with them, I just don't see the point, unless they are being used to illustrate something in particular. It just looks like someone wants to jot down literally everything the Lion says... For what reason? I can't tell. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. It would make sense if they were just the ones that summed his character up best, but it seems like they're being taken indiscriminately from the entirety of the Horus Heresy series. If you want to get rid of that section or cull the ones which don't seem like they're that important, be my guest.--Newerfag (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just thought that I would apologize, i was responsible for many of the these quotes. I’m fairly new at this and may have gone slightly overboard, sorry.

That's fine, and I'm glad you joined the discussion. I'm not going to purge the section, since I've already said I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with it. Something like that might have been better placed on lexicanum. While this wiki is predominantly about the tabletop aspects, fluff is always welcome, but we can and should probably include it as context for an out-of-universe discussion or as a critical analysis of a subject, rather than including fluff for its own sake. That's what makes us distinct from those other wikis which absolutely refuse to incorporate out of universe topics or statements. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Strikethroughs

I say that the strikethroughs are good here.--97.103.154.125 00:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement on the strikethroughs for the dark angels related stuff. That is the joke in that they are badly editing bad stuff about themDragoon508 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't support strikethrus on either article. But I do have another Idea. Why not just rewrite the articles as blatantly over the top propoganda, regaling the reader with how AWESOMELY LOYAL AND NOT HERETICAL the Dark Angels are. Come on, Strikethrus are a lazy, ugly way of accomplishing that point. Evilexecutive (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)::

Try getting subtle hints through audacity. Evilexecutive (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A possibility. This is a vote for the strikethrough joke.--97.103.154.125 02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think they have been too overdone. I get the intended joke and wouldn't want to ruin it, but it needs wound back. Strikethroughs should never be used for whole sentences or paragraphs; that is just too ugly and too lazy and makes sections difficult to look at. They could look considerably nicer if only single "key" words were struck/replaced which would serve exactly the same point.--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole reason you're using strikethroughs is to tell a joke, which is a meme. It's not a good idea to begin with (even the table linked says as much) and I also believe it would be better to rewrite the article as Imperial propaganda, but if you do that make sure to have a section that explains what's going on, much like the Alpha Legion article. -- Triacom (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to keep some of the strikethroughs (the meme is well-established and does fit in with the Dark Angel's tendency to "rewrite" history and try to cover-up huge excesses), but have fewer of them. The current state of the page on this matter seems quite good to me! The trouble with removing the strikethroughs but keeping the blatant imperial propaganda is that some people may take us seriously, and then start adding in what really happened: we risk having the same problem with memespewing newcomers in another few months.--Talon of Anathrax (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Primarchs box

ON lions page, and only his page, it lists him as a Traitor, is this part of the in joke with his legion, traitor or not or a mistake?

Nope. Just some loser vandalizing the template.

More Trivia or am I late on the party with this...?

While doing some reading on Lionel Johnson (the author) I found a lot of older articles that seemed to put the question of his homosexuality in doubt. These articles seemed to question the legitimacy of the "rumors" and pose that he had never had never been homosexual (most likely because of the legalities in England behind it and wanting to remove the "shame" of also being labeled a criminal?). Regardless of the truth, this parallels the ambiguity behind the Primarch's loyalties nicely, especially the bits about telling Curze that loyalty is it's own reward and he feels no need in openly disclosing his loyalty. Maybe not worth adding into the trivia, but I found the further similarities intriguing.

Interesting enough, I assume. Try to sign though. Like this, but remove the bs: ~b~b~. Pilgrim of Terra (talk)

Dumping ground for clean-up

Just putting this here, because it seems more of a forum discussion and links to various sources rather than anything informative, the Gav Thorpe quote was largly taken out of context, and would really need a clean-up if it is to be put back in. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Gav did say that there would be hidden Easter eggs to be found in Deathwing: Space Hulk; the two figures show some striking similarity's (From Deathwing and the 8th edition rule book).

• The author Gav Thorpe said in a recent interview that "the Lion is dead" which is at odds with fluff given in codices and Luther's own ravings, though that statement was not unequivocal, as the answer given in the interview was specifically with how 40k Dark Angels deal with various layers of revelation within the circles of the Chapter. So the Lion's "death at the hands of Horus" and that "Horus blew up Caliban" are the first thing that Dark Angels have to come to terms with, but eventually find out that they had been lied to and that knowledge is specifically withheld from them to let them be good space Marines "here and now" rather than thinking about the existential problems of the past. So the Lion's "death" is still as uncertain as ever.

(http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/4/c/e/4ce8f98c68676bdd/Ep_133_-_Legacy_of_Caliban_wGav_Thorpe.mp3?c_id=11000551&expiration=1456327494&hwt=dc63c5caa6e74be2ced10b4aae7b3964) (fast forward to 00:37:09)

• The idea that the Lion is actually dead and gone is unfortunately backed up by "The Eye of Ezekiel" that suggests that the dying Lion gave Cypher a final important mission to complete before he died. However the vision contradicts the usual story because Luther is nowhere to be seen, and the vision also only shows Lion passing out.

"What would you have me do my Lord?"

"Troll them, Troll them all" Last words of the Lion... probably.

• A-D-B also gave this cryptic response when commenting upon the possible returning Primarchs: "In all seriousness, what we "know" about the primarchs has quite literally always been half-myth. We "know" the Lion is asleep in the Rock. Except do we, really? Is that actually true? We "know" the Khan went to X, and that Corax left to do Y, and Russ did A, and so on. But almost every primarch's fate was left intentionally mythical with no definitive answer, pretty much like how King Arthur is supposed to return to Britain at its hour of need (where were you in WWII, chief?)". http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/334451-primarch-updates. Of course, one thing 8th Edition has stressed is that "Britain" is at its hour of need now...
• Being dead doesn't necessarily mean that the Lion cant "return". The Watchers in the Dark could pull off some kind of Heretical shenanigans and bring him back as some form of wraith-like creature (think the Nazgul Witch King); alternatively, if the sword that Cypher is carrying contains part of the Lion's consciousness or spirit, then bringing it before the Emperor might mean him coming back as a Living Saint, which would be awesome.

Words such as benevolent and forgiving are words that really shouldn’t be used to describe the Emperor, throughout the course of the Heresy series we have got to see how the Emperor has dealt with those that do not live up to his wants and expectations. With his dealings with the Thunder Warriors we have seen what happens when his tools have outlived their usefulness and his casual and some would say cold disregard for the fate of Angron, his supposed son when he found out that removing the Butcher's Nails would kill him, and would end up killing him eventually “‘What would the alternative be? That I might mourn the Twelfth as though it were my injured son, and I its grieving father?” a broken Primarch could still be of use at least for a while. To quote the Emperor “I told you all that there was one sin far graver than betrayal, Failure.” this would go a long way to explain way some of the Primarchs including the Lion were so driven to succeed, they may have understood who and what the Emperor truly was saying better than we might have been led to believe; even Sanguinius greatly feared that he and his sons would be purged should their Red Thirst be discovered. Though the Emperor may have seen them as “Sons” to some extent, each one of them at the end of the day were little more than powerful weapons whose sole purpose was to conquer the galaxy in his name. And if they couldn’t do that then what further use could they be? "Savage weapons, one and all, too dangerous to be wielded without cost. That is all history will see of us. Even you, Lion. Even you." spoken by Konrad Curze upon Tsagualsa.

This section speaks more about the Emperor and the Primarchs as a whole, rather than the Lion, so have moved it here --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the massive page compression. I wholeheartedly agree that the Lion page was an absolute mess; nothing more than a giant wall of text with some absolutely hideous word formatting and overuse of dot points. Don't even get me started on the image formatting and how ludicrously small some of them were before I fixed it. You just have to look and compare the Lion page with that of Guilliman who has just as much in-depth description as the Lion, yet I have always enjoyed reading Papa Smurf's page more than the Lion's. Probably because Guilliman's history section is compressed and whatever differing ideas/theories is mostly kept under a collapsible box without stupid dot points cluttering the damned page like it is a fucking Powerpoint presentation. I mean, I was on the fence on whether or not to either delete the excessive redundant descriptions or put it in a collapsible box, but I guess dumping the less-than-important information over here seems like a good start. Derpysaurus

Thanks for saying that, I was concerned that people would immediately start complaining about my big removals of text. The page was a mess, with lots of edits done over each other without consideration for where it needed to go, so we had multiple sections talking about roughly the same thing, or running off into tangents than might have been better suited for discussion on a different page. There are still plenty of bullet points I'd rather clean up, but would need to think of ways to get them to flow seamlessly into the text. But the bulk of what I aimed to do has been done for now. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)