Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:44, 27 March 2009

Template:WikiProjectBSG

Television Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References

a recent interview helps clear up some other detail . example Moore explains that spirit or "Head" Baltar and "Head" Six weren't exactly angel or demons. Epicwins (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but angels does seem to be what Gaius wants to call them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.109.22 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So what, Moore created both. What he says is cannon, not what you think he meant. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely, whatever appears on screen is more canon than something someone said in an interview. So if they are called Angels in the show then they are called Angels. Though that doesn't mean they are anything like the Judeo-Christian Angels, they are simply Angels in that they are Agents of the BSG God. --194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the final scene the Inner Baltar tells the Inner Six the force behind them does not like being called God. Additionally RDM is quoted in an E! interview that it the force is not a higher power but another or side power. The rest is up to the viewer, but that opinion cannot be included in an article. Eventually the SF press will publish articles about the ambiguities in the ending and that can be included. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really do not care what Mr. Moore says. "I am the foreman of Tara, and when I say it's quittin' time, it's quitting time. " Mr. Moore may have intended them not to be angles, but what he wants and says doesn't matter to me. I decide for myself what they are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.94.34 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jump Coordinates

Any idea on their significance, if any? 1123- Fibonacci, 6536- add up to 20 for episode 20, and 5321- are the first four primes in reverse order. Phail Saph (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

They correspond to musical notes, as Starbuck said. — Edokter • Talk • 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when is 1 a prime number? If you want to detect a pattern in it, it's more like 4 reversed fibonacci numbers... 78.43.89.124 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right...good catch -Phail Saph (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1 isn't officially called a prime number, but you could make an argument for it, for an unofficial definition. The only whole numbers by which it's evenly divisible are itself and 1, which is the general definition of a prime number.

Although it might just be a coincidence. I suspect that 6536 adding up to 20 is just a coincidence, as it seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Edokter: we know that Starbuck said they correspond to musical notes. But that doesn't mean they actually do. The show isn't real. The writers might've just made up some numbers and said they correspond to musical notes, when they actually don't. Can anyone confirm that they actually do correspond to musical notes? If so, which notes, and where do those notes fall in the song, and how are they converted to the numbers? - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar ending to other works

James P. Hogan's "Inherit the Stars" has a similar ending. At the conclusion of that novel we learn that, 50,000 years ago, refugees from a destroyed planet (between Mars and Jupiter) had settled on Earth. As in Galactica, those refugees "took over" the planet from primitive man (which jives with actual history; modern man did appear rather suddenly). Their decendents, too, forgot their origins. Andrew Kantor

Angels un-noticed?

I'm not sure that the populace of NY don't notice Angel Six and Baltar, in the final shot there's a man who very definitely looks at Six for a second - as they walk away with their backs to the viewer he's slightly ahead of them to their left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.68.55 (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's the fault of the actor. I don't think you should try and find any more in to this than was already shown in the episode. --Helt91 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean, if the "angels" were really supposed to be visible, then every guy in that scene would have been turning his head to get a look at Helfer, IMHO. I think it's just one extra that messed up, and it either wasn't spotted or the producers didn't think it was worth re-filming just to fix it. Chilly Penguin (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Angels were invisible to people, then people wouldn't look at the Angels. If the Angels were visible to people, then people still might not look at the Angels, because they weren't really doing anything to draw attention to themselves. So just because people didn't look at the Angels, that doesn't mean they were invisible to people. But it doesn't really matter anyway. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

the angels , are they not simialr to the Seraphs from the orginal series,should there be some mention of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redem444748464 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes on additions to the article

Hello all, I know we are all excited about the finale, but could we please show some restraint when adding new info? Alot of these additions are violating the guidelines of Misplaced Pages.

Here are some examples:

• The Homages to the original section - while we all took something from the ending, but all of this data is all synthesis and original research. For instance, in the first episode of the miniseries, it is established that the original BSG theme is the reimaged 13 Colonies national anthem. One could easily make a postulation that the music was not a homage to the original series but sendoff to the last Colonial naval vessel.
• The term angels - Ron Moore and the BSG production team uses the term "head" Six & Baltar when describing the two of them. In several recent interviews he also goes on to call them agents of a higher or other power - but not angels, again using the term is synthesis based on Baltar's speech.
• The Kodiak look-alike - Please don't add this in unless you can prove that the effects team actually modeled the ship in question after the one in Command and Conquer, otherwise this just supposition.

Also, please take some time and read up on the policies on sources and citations:

• Citations
• Original research
• Synthesis
• Verifiability
• Reliable sources
• Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

--Jeremy (blah blah) 07:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not original research, nor was it synthesis. I was merely pointing out that the finale ultimately realized the premise put forth in the opening monologue of the original and that this was a nod to the original. A nod or an homage does not have to be stated by the creator as being so, indeed it is more effective if it is not stated outright. In this sense the "flyby" with the music WAS an homage (see: Homage) "a homage typically repeats a recognizable scene or stylistic element from the other work." as was the realization of the premise of the original. To not point things like this out...leaves an incomplete picture of the significance of the finale. It was then added to in a less than judicious manner (unfortunately). I'm still going to find a way to incorporate this into the article, in a scaled back manner. The source was...well itself (it was a quote!) No reason to eliminate the entire section but I understand your motivation for doing so.

Also, please take some time and read up on the policies on Civility specifically...

• WP:Assume good faith

I only point this out because you seem to be implying that we are just haphazardly throwing things in here without regard for "the rules" because we are all excited about it.

IRelayer (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And just to let you know, your entry was synthesis - you took an existing fact (the opening and closing monologues) and drew a conclusion based upon that fact - which is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Please understand I have been exceedingly civil and am assuming good faith, and have stated it in my edit summaries. My comment was about the show itself and not the additions to the articles.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 March 2009

Let us delve in shall we?

There are several homages to the original Battlestar Galactica. At the end of the episode, when Adama launches in the last Viper, the side view showing Adama's face as he accelerates through the tube is the same shot used in the original (after this scene, the original theme can also be heard).

There are two facts here, and one A+B=C statement. The latter may be considered synthesis. It was my mistake to present it in this fashion. I should have put "references to" instead of "homages to". However this makes the two facts no less true. There is no interpretation involved. There are no conclusions drawn. They are the same scene. And the music played. What in those two sentences constitutes original research? Please don't say "it is original research" and go on your merry way. Explain it. The point is that those two facts deserve to be included, and they are perfectly valid, a wholesale deletion of the material is not required.

Similarly, when Anders pilots the Colonial fleet toward the Sun, the angle and background music mimics the scene that closes every episode of the original series, sans Lorne Greene's monologue.

This is also a fact. It's the same scene. We won't call it an homage. We'll call it a reference. It makes it no less true. I am not deriving anything, I am not interpreting. A simple side by side viewing of the scene is sufficient to establish the "similarity". This is not original research.

Most obviously, however, the ultimate fate of the Colonial survivors is predicted by the opening monologue of the original series,

Again, I think the wording is troublesome, and the way it was presented may be, as you have correctly pointed out, original research. But just to clear it up my "entry" did not include the closing monologue, just what you see above. My intent was to present the closing monologue in the article only and I went a step further without realizing it.

I greatly appreciate your input, but too often on Misplaced Pages, people are too eager to correct others and tend to overcorrect in a blanket and wholesale fashion without considering the intent behind the rules. You could have, instead of deleting the entire section, incorporated the facts into the article and taken the synthesis out. Instead you chose to delete all of it.

IRelayer (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand you point, but if I were to remove the original research from the section, what relevance would the monologues have to the rest of article? I don't think they could have been folded into the article or presented in other way because they really do not have much relevance to the article itself, that is why I deleted them. I do have reasons you know, but the limited space in the edit summary does not allow too much depth, so I cited the most applicable reason for the deletion, and then wrote the not on the talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You still did not address the other points I made, so it doesn't seem to me that you "understand". This is the problem we are having here. You expect others to provide specific, detailed arguments that satisfy you, yet you do not hold yourself to the same standard. Instead you focus on the one part where your argument holds true as the justification for edits that should not have been made. The fact is that you deleted things that ARE relevant to the article, and will end up being included anyway. In doing so you have created more work for you, me, and everyone else. I am just trying to point that out, it doesn't seem to matter to you though.

IRelayer (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are five standards for inclusion for information on WP, and your contribution does not meet the first one:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

If you could show me where you have gotten this information from and that source is a reliable secondary source and can be verified and it also meets the other four standards of notability it can be included. As it stands you have put forth a statement that states a specific conclusion based upon certain historical facts - the series has several homages to the original which you then proceed to list. Where did these associations come from? Did Ron Moore or another production member point these out or did you or some one else in a forum, fan site or other user generated site produce them? If it is the former, then go right ahead and add them in; if they are from the latter, they are in violation of the five standards and cannot be included.

Do not forget to properly cite them so that they cannot be challenged. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You have made your point sir, however what I am trying to get across, and you are not understanding is that you might be better served in your interactions with people (not just here but elsewhere) if you weren't so paternalistic in your approach. We are not your children. You are not here to "teach us". We are all (for the most part) experienced editors, and are aware of what is supposed to be included and excluded. You don't have to pepper your language with advice like "please take some time and read up on the policies on sources and citations" and "just to let you know" because you are assuming that we don't know from the get go. You might see yourself as a crusader fighting the good fight (and you are, trust me, I have looked over your work and you do a fantastic job) against a bunch of bozos that want to ruin everything, but your attitude is sometimes...very adversarial. Even RULES are not exempted from debate or interpretation. That's why there are processes in place for dispute resolution and commentary...for the grey areas, a nod to the fact that people see things differently no matter how many rules you might throw at each other. Last thing: take a step back and don't be so fanatical. Explain the rules if you feel it necessary but in a way that is constructive and not so "you against the world". Do you get what I am saying?

IRelayer (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyrol's island

What is the deal with suggesting Great Britain as the island that Tyrol is going to, the description could equally suggest any number of islands, including Ireland, Iceland, Japan, etc. --194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He said highlands. When people say highlands, people think Scotland. - Shaheenjim (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronald D Moore has confirmed that it's Scotland in an interview with nj.com. Chilly Penguin (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Factual Errors

Distances

Starbuck jumps Galactica 1 million Lightyears to earth; Our galaxy's diameter is 100.000 Ly, and the next galaxy (Andromeda) is 2.500.000 Ly away from the Milky Way. So Galactica would end up in the big nothing inbetween both galaxies. If the 12 colonies were believed to be originally seated in Andromeda this would make the error even worse. (All starcharts they find or see on their way to earth contradict this, too, and the distance traveled would still be too short that way around.)

Note:

The one jump wasn't 1,000,000 light years. The jump was undefined. Adama stated the trip had been a total of 1,000,000 lights years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.108.170 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Colony Destruction

There is no indication the colony falls into the black hole, all you see is the explosions. I can't fix this reference because the page is semi protected... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike718 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In an interview with nj.com Ronald D. Moore confirmed that the colony is, indeed, pulled into the black hole. He does admit, however, that the "final (edit) came out a little less clear on that level than I sort of intended" because they were cutting frames out to save on running time. Here's hoping that they fix this up in the DVD version. Chilly Penguin (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the episode, not the intentions of the producer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.154.166 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should include avery aspect of the episode, including production. — Edokter • Talk • 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside References

I made a small correction to this line: "The Simon guarding Hera says to Boomer "I think you overestimate their chances." This is also a quote in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi said by Emperor Palpatine, in a similar tactical position to the cylon colony."

The actual quote was from Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and was said by Tarkin during the rebel attack on the Death Star. I've corrected the page to reflect this. Dexeron (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kodiak

Its the exact same ship and if I knew how to post a photo I would to prove it, other then that; I only have this forum(http://www.cnc-source.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7360&st=0) as proof (in it we discussed it and I posted a photo from the episode), also I would ask that you consider the odds that two different groups created the exact same ship model independently (given that the Kodiak is a distinct design, albeit not so distinct as to not fit in the BSG fleet)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is still OR --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There comes a point sir where you can tell beyond a reasonable doubt that two things are one and the same; if I could place 2, photos of the ship right next to each other one from the original source and one from the episode, then all who see it could then tell its the exact same ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Post note on the forum site I sited earlier I edited my post (second down from the top) as to place an image of the ship from the episode and the original ship in question please look at them and tell me weather this counts as being one and the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, but it is still original research by you and others. You are taking two images and saying "Look they're the same!" What you need is a cited fact from a reliable secondary source that is verifiable, which blogs, other wikis and other sources of user generated content is not. Find that stuff and you can include it, otherwise it is subject to deletion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The rules against OR and requiring RS are meant to prevent people from posting misinformation. Obviously this isn't misinformation, so those rules don't apply, and it can be posted, per this rule. To say otherwise is to violate this rule. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you sir--Collinsas (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, would you like to put that up to an RfC? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will tell you the same thing - that argument is bunk. That has been tried before and in each case the result was the same the data that was questioned was removed. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience on Misplaced Pages to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. The Use Common Sense rule is a difficult rule to enforce. But that doesn't change the fact that if I managed to find someone in that rapidly shrinking segment of the population that does have common sense, then that person would agree that the information should be allowed to be posted. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, I think the problem here is that you are not considering the argument for inclusion or providing a reasonable argument for exclusion by weighing the facts at hand based upon the merits of the arguments presented. What you are instead doing is deleting things and then citing rules that all of us are already aware of, and then hiding behind those rules when someone calls you on it. Look at the spirit of the law AS well as the letter of the law, and don't indiscriminately apply the law without considering what things are there for. You will end up contradicting yourself. Provide a substantive argument for or against inclusion, and not just "this is OR, this is still OR, please cite, this is OR". Consider the article: Jesus. The first sentences state: Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God. Islam considers Jesus a prophet, and he is an important figure in several other religions. Notice that there is no citation. Is a conclusion drawn in these sentences? Yes. Is there a consensus that these conclusions are true? Yes. Is this then fact? Yes. Does it need to be cited specifically? No. Why? Because a consensus has been reached. This is one of the main purposes of a talk page. To reach a consensus. I am not arguing for or against the inclusion of the Kodiak issue...what I am trying to get across is that, by your desire to make things better or "right" by what you think is a justifiable citation of rules, you are actually denying others the same. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your efforts are appreciated, but please attempt to consider other viewpoints and don't be so quick to slash and burn.

Shaheenjim, I think calling Jeremy a "petty bureaucrat" isn't helping, either.

IRelayer (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point you have made, but the conclusion you reached is faulty. The facts you state are all cited later in the article. WP does not require the lead to be cited, since it is simply a summary of the article that is to come. If you delve deeper into the article you are using as an example, you will find cited references that back up these comments. Additionally the subject of the history of Jesus has been subject of scholarly research and debate for two millenniums, this subject is a little newer and still subject to debate.

The conclusions presented here are subjective in that the contributor went out and looked at data he found on the web and came to a conclusion about that data and presented it here, which is OR. On the other hand, the addition that Stu Phillips music can be heard is not subjective since the credits of the show list his contributions. Its is like the famous baked potato in The Empire Strikes Back asteroid belt scene, it has been written about many times and can be backed up by independent sources that meet the WP Sourcing guidelines; at this time that cannot be said about the ship in question but I am sure that this will change once a site such as IGN gets a hold of this. Once that is done it can be properly included. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is OR doesn't mean it's subjective. Look it up. But you didn't address my point. I repeat:

1. The rules against OR and requiring RS are intended to prevent people from posting misinformation.

2. This isn't misinformation.

Therefore:

3. The rules against OR and requiring RS aren't intended to prevent people from posting this.

4. IAR says you shouldn't use a rule for a purpose for which it wasn't intended.

Therefore:

5. You shouldn't use the rules against OR and requiring RS to prevent people from posting this.

If you object to my argument, be specific. Say which of those 5 points you disagree with, if any. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From this picture (http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetcnc.gamespy.com/fms/images/potd/2294/1237774356_fullres.jpg), you can clearly see that it IS the Kodiak from the game Command&Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Spectre01 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Time out

Yes, it is the CC Koidak, the resembense is remarkable. No we cannot put that in. Here's why: Misplaced Pages is build on the five pillars, three of them being reliable sources, verifiability and no original research. Those are policies, which everyone must follow. WP:IAR is also policy, but still governed by the fove pillars; it is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot. Common sense is not even a guideline; it only represents a state of mind.

The CC Kodiak is not on it's own; in the Miniseries, we saw the Serenity soar over Caprica. It is mentioned because the producers acknowledged it, which made it notable. But no such thing has happened here... yet. As it is, this is an observation. Until the media or the producers point this out, we cannot put it in the article. As it is now, it's a ship from a video game. On it's own it is not a reason for inclusion. Wait until there is media coverage, or the episode's podcast is out; if it mentions the ship, we can put it in. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was unable to post as I was at work. This was going to be my next point, and you stated it dead on. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the music was specific to this episode: The original BSG theme only appeared two times during the series, in the first episode of the Mini-series where it was acknowledged as the Thirteen colony's national anthem and here at the end as the Galactica is being flown into the sun. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You still didn't address my point. In my post at 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC), I asked you a very specific question. I described my argument in five points, and I asked you which of those 5 points you disagree with, if any. You have failed to respond, again. I suspect it's because you can't respond, because you know damn well that all 5 points are correct. In addition to flagrantly violating Misplaced Pages's Use Common Sense rule, you are also now in violation of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution policy, which says that instead of edit warring, you should discuss your objections, and say which part of your opponent's argument you disagree with. So I'm going to ask you one more time. Say which of the 5 points of my argument is wrong, or shut up. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am at work, I will respond later. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were going to directly answer my question, you could do that at work. It'd only take a single character. You could've just typed the number of the premise with which you disagree. But you didn't. It sounds like your response is a prelude to another evasion. Save it. I'm not interested. - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually like to follow the rules as set forth by my boss. You should take a lesson in rule following, starting with WP:Civil.

As for the five standards of inclusion, lets me say it again so you will understand:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

I have been saying this over and over and you still will not listen. When you draw a conclusion that is not backed by a reliable secondary source you are engaging in original research. The common sense article is an essay and not a policy guideline. Using common sense would dictate that if the data you are presenting does not meet the five standards you must not include it.

As I have also stated, the pictures do appear to be the same ship, and as Edoktor and I have both stated until this is confirmed you cannot include it. Read my post above to see that I have also said once there is significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that can be verified, you can include it. Hell, I will even put it in myself and properly cite for you when that time comes. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that your boss said that you're allowed to go on Misplaced Pages, read someone else's post, and give the response "I am at work, I will respond later." but that he said you're not allowed to go on Misplaced Pages, read someone else's post, and give the response "2." Perhaps he said you're allowed to say "I am at work, I will respond later" but you aren't allowed to make long posts. But a long post is not required. All I've asked you to do is post the number of my premise with which you disagree. You could've done that without a long post. But you didn't. As I expected, you have failed to my direct question, again. Since you refuse to observe Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process by discussing your objections and saying which part of your opponent's argument you disagree with, I'm readding the material to the article.

As for your "point" we're all aware of the rules against OR and requiring a RS. We all know that this material violates those rules. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, as I have explained several times. Common sense does not dictate that if the data you are presenting does not meet the five standards you must not include it. Not when the five standards weren't intended to prevent you from including data like yours, and especially now when there's the IAR rule. I'm aware that you think it can be included once it has a RS. No one is disputing that, and I'll ask you to stop wasting everyone's time by repeating things that are not disputed. The question is whether it can be included before it has a RS. And the answer is yes, as I've explained, in an argument so perfect that you weren't able to explain which part of it was wrong. - Shaheenjim (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is an unambiguous no. We can add it once it is sourced, not sooner. Otherwise it remains unverifiable. Please stop reinserting it until a source becomes available. If you want to put the infotmation somewhere, go to the Battlestar Wiki, they would welcome this information. — Edokter • Talk • 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edokter. My comments were to Jeremy, but I'll address you separately now. In your recent edit you said "IAR does not apply here." In your comments above you said "WP:IAR... is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot." Elaborate on those statements. Where did you find the guidelines you're using about when IAR does and does not apply? My understanding is that it applies in any case where the rules prevent you from making Misplaced Pages better. In this case, the rule against OR and requiring RS are preventing us from making Misplaced Pages better, so it seems to me like IAR would apply. If you're aware of some other requirement for application, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Or is it your allegation that the rule against OR and requiring RS do not prevent us from making Misplaced Pages better in this case? Is it your allegation that adding OR information without a RS doesn't make Misplaced Pages better, even if the information is obviously and undisputedly true?

Also, the rules OR and RS would object to this. The verifiability rule does not. The information is obviously verifiable by looking at the pictures that Collinsas provided. - Shaheenjim (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IAR does not apply because adding this information does not improve Misplaced Pages. And while looking at a picture may seem to verify that the ship is Kodiak, noone can verify the origin of that image, so it fails verifiability. Adding OR information without without a source is never an improvement. And yes, we do put verifiability over truth. — Edokter • Talk • 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that this information is not obviously and definitely true? Or is it your position that adding information that is obviously and definitely true doesn't improve Misplaced Pages if it's OR and doesn't have a RS?

And you can easily verify the source of the images by watching the TV shows from which they came. In that sense it'd be exactly the same if it did come from a RS. - Shaheenjim (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, no matter how true it is, it needs to be verifiable. Right now, it isn't due to the lack of reliable sources. It is as simple as that. Now please stop pressing the issue. — Edokter • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed a comment that violated WP:Civil from Shaheenjim. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me to verify the images, fine then here are 2 videos; 1) is the GDI intro from TS the kodiak first appers at the 2.10 mark, and 2) is a clip from daybreak with the kodiak in it.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpIKvUIKiTM

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHL-wKkNtBo&feature=player_embedded

--Collinsas (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All that material is fan-submitted, so unfortunately unusable. Just be patient; I'm already reviewing some potential sources, so there is hope yet. — Edokter • Talk • 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

E! has an interview with RDM, you might look there as well. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One guy censors dissenting speech that was a response to that guy's ally's attempt to suppress dissenting speech. Oh, the irony. Not to mention that deleting someone's comment is a pretty uncivil thing to do in the name of civility. Well sorry Jeremy, but this still isn't a dictatorship, despite the fact that apparently you also wish it was. I've restored my comment, and I'll direct it to you now too.

I just explained how you could verify it, despite the lack of a reliable source. If you have a problem with that explanation, you should say what it is, specifically. And you didn't answer my questions from my first paragraph. And I will not stop pressing the issue. If you don't think people should be able to express opinions different from yours, then move to a dictatorship. Misplaced Pages isn't one. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy either. I have explained the importance of verifiability through reliable sources multiple times now. If you do not want to accept the way we work here, you are free to leave. — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That very page to which you just linked says, and I quote, " method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion." I'm pretty sure that article was not intended to be used to suppress discussion, which is the purpose for which you seem to be attempting to use it. I have no problems with Misplaced Pages's rules. I merely object to your misinterpretation of those rules, and fortunately for me, you aren't in charge, so that's no reason for me to leave.

It's true that you have tried on multiple occasions to explain the importance of verifiability through reliable sources. It's equally true that you failed. On multiple occasions I have explained that there is a problem with your reasoning, and asked you a direct question about it which you have been unable to answer. If you have a problem with my explanation of your problem, feel free to state it. But if you can't find any hole in my hole in your argument, then you have no case. - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You still have not provided a reliable source. No ammount of reasoning in the world is going to change that. For the last time: Any fan-submitted information is not reliable, therefor it cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk • 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I didn't provide a reliable source. But my position is that we shouldn't need a reliable source in this case. Therefore, whether or not I've provided a reliable source is irrelevant. Now, if you want to dispute my position, you're free to do so. But when I asked you a question about why you dispute my position, you were unable to answer it. That doesn't make your case look particularly strong. I'll ask my question again: Is it your position that this information is not obviously and definitely true? Or is it your position that adding information that is obviously and definitely true doesn't improve Misplaced Pages if it's OR and doesn't have a RS? - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me throw out some random thoughts that might help the discussion.

1. The ship in that picture certainly looks like the ship in that other picture. Unfortunately, I don't know where either picture came from, so I cannot say anything further with any certainty.
2. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that one is an image from BSG and one from C&C. The similarity between the two models tells us that either the Kodiak model from C&C was used in BSG, or that an artist working for the BSG production team created a model based on the Kodiak model. Perhaps the polygon count or resolution / bit depth of texture maps (or other image components) was incorrect and had to be altered. Perhaps this work had approval from Westwood/EA - or perhaps they just had access to concept sketches, game footage, the game itself... we don't know. We also don't know the intentions of the BSG art team. Without a reliable source commenting on the issue, we cannot say for certain whether BSG features the Kodiak, or a copy or conversion or rip-off of it, or a tribute or homage to it. Choosing one statement from the various possibilities and adding it to the article is the essence of original research.
3. The standard for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. It is pretty clear that one side in this dispute has truth on their side, and the other, verifiability.
4. Ignore all rules should never be cited to win a content dispute. Any good faith content dispute by definition involves two or more people who cannot agree as to which course of action improves Misplaced Pages, which is the key to IAR's applicability.
5. I do not believe that I am a petty bureaucrat or a kid.

I hope that this helps. The best course of action I can see is to seek out published sources discussing this. If necessary, contact the BSG people and ask them for an official comment on the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

you do understand (I say this because I had in the original ref as well in the article and here in my pervious posts), the kodiak first appered over 10 years ago, and nether video I posted was edited in any way (aside from time on the part of the BSG clip the Kodiak,and well trying to keep a civil tone, why do'es it matter if the videos were fan submitted if nither have been tampered withted ) appears in the episode at the 11-13 minute mark, if the you tube clip doesn’t suffice I can post a link to C&C movies.com that is run by the owners of the C&C property, other then that all I ask is for you to re watch the episode to see that the clip is not a fake either

http://games.ea.com/cncmovies/tiberium.html Click 1999 and watch my judgment is sound Kane

• Unassessed television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Unassessed science fiction articles
• Unknown-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles