Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

a recent interview helps clear up some other detail [1]. 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)
http://www.bearmccreary.com/blog/?p=1760#more-1760 as explained by the series' composer. 83.135.215.104 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a great link. Suggest we add it as an external link once protection expires. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 5 April 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 Wikipedia.

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:

--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...
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 Wikipedia, 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)

Andromeda is the nearest 'big' galaxy. There's plenty of stuff in between. Leo I Dwarf is 0.8 Million Ly from Earth, Phoenix_Dwarf is 1.4 million LY - both near enough to be "1 Million" for 'rounding' purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.42.246 (talk) 15:29, 28 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)


The article should yes, but not in the context of what happened in the actual article. Create a production notes section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.158.46 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor issue, but the text says "naked singularity". In this show, it is either a regular black hole or impossible to ascertain. Adding the "naked" part added unnecessary confusion. 90.203.9.196 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is because it was called a "naked singularity" in the dialogue in the show ("Daybreak" part 1). Scientifically inaccurate as far as we understand it, but that's the words they used. John Darrow (talk) 22:24, 4 April 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's Use Common Sense rule, you are also now in violation of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia better. In this case, the rule against OR and requiring RS are preventing us from making Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia better in this case? Is it your allegation that adding OR information without a RS doesn't make Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia isn't one. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia 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, "[Wikipedia's] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 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 ), 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 it appears in the episode around the 11-13 minute mark [2] Click 1999 and watch my judgment is sound Kane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 07:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
We understand what you are trying to say, but what you must understand is that we need this information to be verified in a reliable source, such as a magazine like Starlog, on a website like E! or IGN or a professional blog from a primary source (e.g. Ronald D. Moore's BSG production blog). User generated content like personal blogs and forums are not reliable and cannot be used. Additionally, making your own comparisons, even with data provided from reliable sources, is also not allowed as it is original research. I am sure that this will be revealed in on of those sources shortly, so please just be patient. Jeremy (blah blah) 03:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding my voice to the chorus here, I agree that we cannot add it until someone explicitly says that its from C&C; they did that for the Serenity flyover in Caprica because it was explicitly stated. As editors, we are not citable, and we must confine the focus of our Great Big Brains™ to the task of seeking out those who are citable who happened to notice that as well. Until then, we are up a creek without a paddle. Fear not, the corpse of the series is barely cold. Once the lubbers from Reviewer Land pick their jaws up, they will go over the series finale in exquisite (and likely excruciating) detail. Patience is a virtue, and we are not supposed to be in a hurry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd image

Is there a limit to fair use pictures on a page because I thought two episodes (specifically an episode in two parts) would just lead to 2 pictures respectively. If it's too much, can anybody provide me evidence? Thanks. The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside references section removed

I'm removing the following section for the second time and porting it here until some verifiable citations can be found to accompany them. The section reads as follows:

Outside references
While ranting in a confused state, Sam says, "slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of perfection." This makes use of the start "Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth" and finish "Put out my hand, and touched the face of God" of the poem, High Flight, written by the aviator John Gillespie Magee, Jr..
Before entering coordinates to the FTL computer, Starbuck recites the line 'there must be some kind of way out of here' which is the opening lyric of the song "All Along the Watchtower" as sung by Jimi Hendrix. The song is a recurring theme throughout the series and the Hendrix version is played at the end of the episode.
Among the robots featured in the final scene are a Sony QRIO and an Actroid.

When it was first reverted, the reasoning was that the references were verifiable. However, no references were added. As synthesis aren't allowed, our own personal observations/intuitions/knowledge cannot be brought to the fore. Therefore, I have removed it to the discussion page until further citation work can be performed, thus strengthening the statements and thusly the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That information is undisputed and verifiable by following the links. Those articles will verify the existence of the works referenced. I am going to put it back, becuase without it, the article lacks the much needed real-world context. Please do not remove it again. — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am going to ask you to self-revert, please. When - and only when - citations are added to them will they be allowed back in. You are an admin, and you need to stop edit-warring, and now. We are here discussing the matter, and until we find a consensus, we do not reintroduce uncited information to the article. That is the essence of WP:BRD. If you would like to continue discussing the matter, I am willing to work with you. However edit-warring (you are at three reverts for the day) isn't going to do the trick.
Again, please self-revert, instead focusing your attention on finding a consensus (or even better, citations). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Blindingly painful as it is, I agree that the material is irrelevant. The lines aren't 'the code' to unravelling some mystery in the plot of the episode, and thus, not significant in that way. One is a mishmash of lines which only someone familiar with the source material would recognize, and is sufficiently different so as to show only the hand of the script writer, or allude to the nature of the character. The other is just a line tossed in, and as refugees of Earth, hard to find fault with it being in there, but it's otherwise not notable. If you can find some article attaching significance to either relative to the episode, if they were salient to plot or character development, then in, but lacking citations regarding their notability, not worth including. that last thing about the technology's just trivia. ThuranX (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As well, leaving in those sorts of sections tend to breed cruft. The bit about the musical theme from the 70's series playing isn't cited either. I've removed the uncited stuff after waiting for it to be self-reverted. If someone wants these trivia bits back in, find citations for it. It shouldn't be introduced without references. We are not citable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:24, March 30, 2009 (UTC)
Is every single statement in the plot summary references to some outside source? Of course not. It comes from the episode. The information listed, is from that episode. You can see the robot at the end with the Sony logo on it. You can hear "All along the Watchtower" throughout the series. You don't need references. Dream Focus 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that this article has been chosen by some editors as an experiment in being totally anal, robbing the article of it's much needed real-world context, I have no choice but to nominate this article for deletion. As these removals are (in my view) completely WP:POINT, the only response open to my is make my own point. — Edokter • Talk • 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • On the content issue, I'm a little curious as to why the information in the "outside references" section couldn't be incorporated, at least minimally, into the plot summary anyhow. At the very least, "All Along The Watchtower" is an extremely important central focus of the "final five" Cylons, as well as Starbuck, and it was pretty evident as she was entering the jump coordinates that she was transcribing that song into the coordinates through her "I see the notes as numbers" comment. The reference to "High Flight" is pretty slim, I'll agree, and a mention of Sony robots could possibly be made. Just some thoughts from an outside view, make of them what you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Fox (talk • contribs)
Do they want to know what minute and second into the episode the references appear? In comic books sometimes they ask for a page number for a reference. Not sure how else to do it. Dream Focus 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Excepting the behavior discussed below, the larger, non-behavioral-based issue still remains that this information isn't cited. We do not allow uncited info in other aspects of the wiki, and yet we are being asked to do so here. I understand that some of you feel how very important All Along the Watchtower is to the episode, but you have yet to provide a single source to support that significance. I have said it before, and I am surprised that I need to say it again: we are not citable sources. Our opinions have no place here. At the risk of sounding dismissive, if that is indeed what you are seeking, find a fan forum and post there. This is an encyclopedia built solely upon citable references.
And no, DreamFocus and Tony, we are not saying that we are not hearing the Hendrix tune, or need to know when it occurs in the episode. We are saying that we - as contributing editors - are not qualified to put any significance to it. We are also not allowed to draw any connections between Cylons and cute little RL robots out there. And the High Flight thing absolutely needs citable connection by a reliable source. This is Wikipedia 101: you do not add info without a source. Ever. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
And yet, Edokter still doesn't feel the need to try and build a consensus, reverting back to his preferred version. Is there something in the admin handbook that says 'fuck seeking consensus, I'll do what I want'? Last time I checked, one builds a consensus first before adding contentious information. And yes, adding uncited info is indeed contentious. If Edokter doesn't think so, he needs to seek mediation, RfC or something. Admins can get blocked for edit-warring, too. Add to that the pointy and own-y behavior, a block is pretty much a foregone conclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Y'know, I see now why I usually stay the hell away from the fiction battlegrounds around here. Anyhow, here's a review of the final episode that discusses the music and its relevance to the resolution of the series. Another comment here, though this one might be a little towards the edge of reliable. And a little more about the song. Comment about the notes being the FTL coordinates. This mentions the robot. So there's some cites, found in 10 minutes with Google News. Have fun. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. I am sure the uncited text can be reworked to reflect these. Why this sort of search wasn't conducted in the first place is kinda boggling. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Because you demanded for those cites to be incorporated immediately. Let's be very clear. Your actions were just as wrong, and in my view, directly intended to attack me. I will not apologize for your behaviour. You should have known better to discuss first per WP:BRD rather then revert a second time. Then we could have a civilized discussion about the content, instead of you simply reciting the rules. That is disruptive, no matter how you look at it. Unlike you, I see the bigger picture; your actions could have damaged this article in ways that you simply cannot see, and my pointy nomination was solely intended to demonstrate that. Since you still have not addressed that issue, I can only conclude that you cannot or will not see any ohter viewpoint then your own. Demanding statements from me and keep reverting until I do is not the way to deal with other editors, especially me. I will not apologize for that. The fact that other editors also reverted you only enhances the already disruptive pattern that you display.
Unless that cycle is broken, you and I will never work together. I can only hope that will not be the case. But you really need to see the bigger picture and not engage in edit warring over verifiable information under the guise of 'following policy'. You cannot expect to become an editor in good standing if you keep getting into this kind of conflicts. If you follow one little, unwritten rule, I can guarantee you a long and productive life on Wikipedia: Don't piss off ohter editors (especially admins). Can you do that? — Edokter • Talk • 17:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. I would have gone and searched myself, had I not been so rudely interrrupted by this whole affair. Much appriciated. — Edokter • Talk • 17:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, are you blaming me for your bad behavior? Self-control implies that you are in control of yourself; if you aren't, you have no business being an admin. As well, if you are not prepared to follow the rules that you were sysopped to help protect, you should not be an admin. Edit-warring your preferred pov, seeking to delete the article or protect it when you don't get your way is not the behavior of an admin.
Any information added to this encyclopedia needs to be cited. Period. That isn't my rule, Edokter, it is one of the main policies of Wikipedia. Yes, I am going to insist that we follow policy every single time. If you are unwilling to respect that point of view, you - again - should not be an admin. That you call following policy a "guise" means you simply do not have the temperament for the mop. Allow me to be clear: I don't care why you felt the need to game the system to make a point; the thing is, you should not have done it, and you still don't see how much you blew your credibility here. I think you are mightily mistaken as to who owes an apology here, but I can assure you, it isn't me. And frankly, while I do not go looking for trouble, I don't give a fuck if you are an admin or the Queen of England, when you are wrong, you are wrong. The only reason why I might be more upset with you than I would a normal user is that you are an admin, and should readily know the difference. So no, I am not going to back off simply because you are an admin, and I don't appreciate the veiled threat of a less than "long and productive life".
The bigger picture is that this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia has sources. Your opinion as to what is important, notable, etc. pales in comparison to actual sources. You have reverted at least five times in less than 2 days; you could have used that time during those two days to find reliable citations, as Tony did for some reviews in less than ten minutes. You weren't "interrupted"; you were asked for sources at least twice, and you didn't bother to seek them out. That's just lazy.
Now, I am content to stop the little interpersonal dramahz occurring here, and await the outcome of the AN/I complaint against you. This multi-planed discussion is tiring. so let's just refocus on the article.
Do you have any external, reliable citations for the statements contained in the sections you keep adding? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly no intent of self-reflection. Let us not forget what happened in the beginning; you removed something, I reverted. After that, YOU started to edit war, not me. That is the only relevant fact here. — Edokter • Talk • 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My motivation

My first reaction to the Outside references section being removed was it being a WP:POINT action on the part of Arcayne. Seeing how I was the main opposing party to the reference to the Kodiak being included for lacking a reliable source. Having a history toether, I was quite suprised to see him end up here and make the same argument I was making in that issue. While it may seem the same, there are differences; The Kodiak is a fictional ship that has no notability on it's own; the references deal with real-world items.

My nomination may have been me making a point, but at least I had a point. Several things could have happened. The worst that could happen was an army of TV deletionists coming in and !vote delete on the count it was nothing more then a plot summary; a rationale that gets many articles deleted, and a very real possibility for this article. The least I could hope for were comments establishing the need for that content. Of cource I don't want it deleted, but I hate the idea of this article being abused for the power trip of some editors who hope to score a few point by "following policy". The proper thing would be to go search for citations, not to delete the whole section outright, with the risk of this article not surviving at all. My only intent was to make people realize that.

The episode is notable enough as the series' finale to even reach FA, provided editors do not try to derail the article in it's infancy. So, whatever content issue may arise, it will be discussed here before any action is being taken, especially when the intent is to remove verifiable information. I will not tolerate any attempt to thward improvement of this article. If there is a problem with the content, discuss it first and point out exactly what the problem is, instead of blanket-removing the information. Now... I invite anyone to help in making this a good article through means of positive collaboration; the others are kindly asked to go elsewhere. — Edokter • Talk • 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was exactly the wrong thing to do, Edokter. Not only did it game the system, but it was pointy as hell. Such doesn't breed a cooperative atmosphere between your contemporaries here in article discussion. Noting that we had prior experience together made your actions even more unacceptable as a means of resolution.
You note in your defense of being Pointy that at least you were making a point. I submit that you needed to look a bit more diligently for the other point of view. Asssuming the worst, as the following statements by Edokter seems to indicate - "[article] abused for the power trip of some editors who hope to score a few point", "try to derail the article in it's infancy", "attempt to thward [sic] improvement" - that the last thing being assumed is Good Faith.
You additionally note that "the proper thing would be to go search for citations", yet you failed to follow that bit of advice yourself. You haven't added any citations, likely because you think that we need to forgive the article's lack of such simply because it is in "its infancy." This is an encyclopedia, we don't do that here. If you wanted to tool with the article, that is what you have a sandbox for. You do not add uncited information and cross your fingers that someone else will do the heavy lifting. Perhaps the reason you didn't add citations yourself is because they do not exist in a reliably sourced format as of yet. Not sure why you feel the need to rush, but that is also not what we are about. The citation, once added, isn't going anywhere. We can wait for it.
No one is trying to derail the article, Edokter, and I frankly find it depressing that your immediate reaction is to leap the very long distance to that conclusion. The best way to write a new article is also the best way to build any structure; you make sure your foundation is firm to begin with. That means trivial, non-notable or other information is not added to the article "in its infancy". This was pointed out to you on no less than three occasions (here and on your usertalk page), and yet you chose to revert back to your preferred version which, as I recall was precisely the same sort of situation which caused your previous flap over doing away with the rules to benefit yourself.
I find your behavior in this matter extremely disturbing, even more so because you an administrator and should know the difference between acceptable and unacceptable forms of dispute resolution. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Arcayne, you are excused. — Edokter • Talk • 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for acting mature, Edokter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, goodbye. — Edokter • Talk • 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside references section removed - Redux

It seems like a reboot for this topic is needed somewhat, if for no other reason to escape the dramahz that corrupted the first attempt at this section. Let's try this again, but without the name-calling and chest-thumping nonsense.

These sections were previously removed, as they lacked notability as well as external sources:

Original Battlestar Galactica References
  • As Anders pilots the fleet into the sun, several chords of Stu Phillips' original Battlestar Galactica Theme is heard.[1]
Outside references
While ranting in a confused state, Sam says, "slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of perfection." This makes use of the start "Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth" and finish "Put out my hand, and touched the face of God" of the poem, High Flight, written by the aviator John Gillespie Magee, Jr..
Before entering coordinates to the FTL computer, Starbuck recites the line 'there must be some kind of way out of here' which is the opening lyric of the song "All Along the Watchtower" as sung by Jimi Hendrix. The song is a recurring theme throughout the series and the Hendrix version is played at the end of the episode.
Among the robots featured in the final scene are a Sony QRIO and an Actroid.

In the ensuing edit-war over the subsections, no citations were added. The source listed in the Original BSG reference is simply a reference of the episode, which brings into play the problem of synthesis; it is an editor (likely a fan familiar with the original series' theme music) connecting the music to the original series, and not an actual external source doing so. While I think an argument could be made for notability, we do not add our personal observations - it is part of the bedrock of our policies.

Additionally:

  • The Magee quote about 'slipping the surly bonds of Earth' is also a textbook example of synthesis; connecting two separate pieces of info together in the mind of the editor, and not via a reliable citation.
  • The quote from Henxrix' All Along the Watchtower is trickier but again, it is an example of synthesis. While Tony was kind enough to provide citations for the usage of the Hendrix tune, in none of the provided citations does it use Starbuck's quoting of the text as connection. The quote is tied to the music only in the mind of the contributing editor.
  • Simply, the robots were not identified in the episode, and identifying them is both non-notable - it is the thematic implication that they are robots that is important, and not their models - as well as synthesis; the models names of the robots is being made by the contributing editor, and not via an external source, as is needed.

In the absence of citation, these subsections are essentially trivia, and that doesn't serve the article. As we are an encyclopedia, we require citation and verifiablity - neither of which we currently have. Having removed it earlier from the article, I sought to preserve it here until proper citations could be found. To date, they have not, and yet the information is still being reverted in. Could someone explain their reasoning - using our policies and guidelines - as to why it should remain? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the buddytv ref states "Yet worse than angel debate is the mystery of “All Along the Watchtower.” The song that her father taught her to play held within it the jump coordinates for Earth." The SF Universe ref states "Then Starbuck realizes that the notes she’s memorized are actually the FTL coordinates for Earth, or what will become Earth." So I believe that does provide a tie-in for the song. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The bit about the music is actually in the credits, which is not synthesis. The credits of any movie perform several legal rolls: they establish ownership and copyright, acknowledge other copyrighted works used within the work, meet the contractual obligations the studios have towards members of all the various show business guilds who made contributions to the work. In regards to the other works, any use of the materials created by another must be fully credited in the closing credits of the work (or in the printed materials of a play). In the credits, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Dylan, Mr. Hedrix and all of the lyricists, composers and musicians whose works are used within the episode is mentioned as being used in the show, so it is not OR.
You might want to search the credits for the other copyrighted literary references as they must also be quoted if used; I do not know if this is true for works in the public domain, but they might credit them anyway.
This information can be used without violation of WP:OR and WP:Synth with the |minutes= field present in the {{cite episode}} template. The problem is that you cannot use your own personal DVR as the time stamping device; you must use the production's time stamp found in DVDs, within production notes or on digital media (iTunes, SyFy's web site). --Jeremy (blah blah) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have since seen the reference to the Hendrix tune and, as it is cited, withdraw my concerns about its inclusion. I think we should endeavor to avoid using citevideo if we can - it caused un told amounts of headaches, trying to cite the sounds of children's laughter during the credit roll of Children of Men (so I know from whence most of you are speaking; I've been there in your shoes). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Use common sense. You can watch the episode, and look at the robots. You can then Google for an image of the robots they claim they were. Thus you confirm their identity. Simple. If you mentioned that someone owned a red car, would you need a third party reviewer in a publication to tell you the color was red, or that the vehicle was a car? Perhaps listing the year those robots came out in the real world, will help determine what year the last episode was. And before erasing the information again, form a consensus. Lets do a straw poll now, shall we? Dream Focus 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that is a faulty logic argument, DF. We aren't questioning whether the color of the robots, we are questioning the identification of said robots, made by you synthesizing the images with the results of your own, personal web search. A closer approximation of your example is that we need a citation noting that the car is a 1972 Dodge Charger, not just your say so via websearch approximation. In short, we need third party referencing - not "confirmation". You are not citable; you are an editor whose job it is to find sources to support any statement you make, because common sense is not that common. As for your notability argument that identifying these robots would assist in identifying "what year the last episode was", could you explain - in the context of the episode - how that is in any way pertinent? Throughout the series, specific dates have never really been utilized.
Lastly, I think a straw poll is a bit premature, given the recent flare-ups and edit-warring. Perhaps a bit more discussion is called for - beyond your point, that is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
When dealing with fiction, it is common to reference obvious real-world events and items if they complement the article; not every tidbit of information needs citations from a scholary source. The WP:Original research policy is intended prevent self-sourced theories, not mere observations and obvious verifiable facts. Subjecting this kind of information to RS will practically prevent fiction articles from becoming more then a plot summary; which is worse. As WP:Verifiability states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". (Bolding from policy page.) It also states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I have not seen anyone actually challenging this information, which means that WP:Verifiability is met, and that WP:Reliable sources (which is a guideline) does not apply. That means that WP:RS has been mis-applied here. If you have any factual problems wiht the information presented, or the verifiability of that information, you should state those problems; simply reciting WP:RS is not enough and does not constitute a challenge. — Edokter • Talk • 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, but you missed the last part of the relevant sentence, and the following sentence (italics mine):
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
That is to say, verifiability requires that the statements being added can be verified via an external source. The problem isn't a lack of reliable sources, Edokter; its a a complete lack of sources, reliable or otherwise, that provide the information you seek to add. Additionally, I do not see how the names of the robot models, et al.' complement the article - its trivial. Had it not been trivial, a point would have been made within the episode to name them. It is not for us to second-guess the makers.
Additionally, you missed the problem of synthesis. Anytime that we take two pieces of material and bind them together to prove a point, we are synthesizing the data. From our Synthesis policy: "editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C." This in essence eliminates the other points of the added/removed sections. They are synthesized material, not supported by external citations that say precisely what you are advocating. Without them, we cannot advance the viewpoints ourselves.
I understand that you feel that we should be a lot more charitable towards new articles. to allow them to squeak by without citation, in order to give articles "in their infancy" a chance to advance; this is why there was all the dramahz about how its removal wasn't a genuine effort to improve the wiki. However, the best way for the article to advance (and it follows, the wiki) is to start out with the right info, properly cited. If it isn't yet available - as it often isn't for new things like films and books - we wait. We are an encyclopedia, and there is no rush to get product out the door. Encyclopedias advance, and Wikipedia stakes a name for itself, a credibility, out of being accurate. Accuracy and speed are often different animals in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no syntesis is simple referring to other works, as there is no theory being postulated. And the crux remains that the information isn't actually challenged as being unverifuable. Trivial, perhaps, but that is allowed. But the robots are a significant real-world reference. The poem is published, so it is verifiable. The robots have had major media coverage, so they are published as well, and references can be found on their respective articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am challenging its notability, and not just its synthesis; I thought that has been abundantly clear through all of this. And no, while trivia is tolerated, it isn't put in with a wink and a nod to the rules. The only reason it is tolerated is that its understood that it can be incorporated into other sections, but even then, they are allowed with citation. The robots - as a thematic element - are important; their model numbers are not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is an incorrect assessment of our synthesis policy. If you take info from group A (say, the model names/numbers of a robot) and something from group B (say, the primary observation of robots in an episode) and connecting them. We don't get to connect them - the theory being that the items are indeed connected is what the external sources are for. These source are the ones that are supposed to connect the two different pieces of information. We assemble the info; we do not get to manufacture it. The poem is published, yes, just like the robots have media coverage but - and this is vitally important - they do not have coverage in terms of this subject (the BSG episode). Therefore, connecting it is indeed synthesis. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You really need to reread WP:SYN, Arcayne. While I admire your fastidiousness, you've drawn lines above and beyond what that document does. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Please confine your comments as to what, precisely is incorrect about my interpretation of our policy, and not me. Address the point, an d not the pointer. I revisit SYN all the time, as it sometimes changes slightly in meaning. That said, I believe that I understand the synthesis policy as it currently is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. The key difference between your position and mine, as I see it, is the key of "advancing a position". Do these things advance a position? If so, can they be neutrally reworded to become merely observations? If the answers to the preceeding questions are "yes" and "no" respectively, then the material should be sourced to secondary sources or removed. If the answer to the first question is "no" or the second question is "yes", then citation to primary source material (including multiple primary sources, such as the extra-BSG lyrics or poem) does not run afoul of WP:SYN. Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The refined straw poll below addresses those points still uncited and running afoul of our synthesis and/or notability policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the information be kept? Outside references section consensus from strawpoll here.

  • Keep the information. I don't believe it needs any additional references, do to common sense reasons I listed above. I believe it is all notable and belongs in the article. Dream Focus 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as patently obvious. For example: 1) Starbuck said that line, 2) that line appears in Watchtower, and 3) Watchtower has been featured in the series. Those are three independent facts. Saying "Starbuck quotes..." might make it synthesis, but the similarity is plenty verifiable from primary sources. Same argument applies to the Anders/poem stuff. As far as the music goes... It's auditorily obvious that those chords, derived from the original theme (which has previously been used in the reimagining) played at that point. If there's a good faith challenge to any of these, I'd like to hear it... not just "that needs a cite" but rather a challenge of the form "Those [lyrics/chords/whatever] come from X, not Y". Failing that, those comments pass the obviousness test. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Patently obvious to who? You are the one connecting the tune to the Hendrix tune; to someone unfamiliar with Jimi Hendrix' music (odd, but there are many who aren't), the music heard, or the sdtk of the episode would have just been the music of the episode, not Jimi's music. The same goes for Magee's poem, or the original theme for BSG. The point is -and always has been - that we cannot connect info because we see the connection. It must be because someone citable has done so. That is the "good faith challenge" - you have to prove that someone citable has thought of the same thing. That is actually the obviousness test: neither you not I are citable, and neither is our logical connections of what is patently obvious. That's just how Wikipedia works. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Patently obvious to a hypothetical reasonable man--I love using him, because no one can ever nail him down. :-) In all seriousness, this discussion is largely mooted by the sources I've added to that section, stating what I perceive to be blindingly obvious. Stating serial facts in an article sourced to primary sources is not synthesis. The synthesis line is crossed when we connect the dots for our readers without RS support. (JClemens) 04:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, they aren't mooted. Citing to the video doesn't resolve the problem; pointing to the video and saying 'that's what that is' or 'that's what that means' is still you timestamping where you synthesized infro from elsewhere. While the issue of Hendix' All Along the Watchtower has been adequately sourced, the bit about the use of the original theme is synthesized (and crappily sourced.."SyFy? Really?"), the identification of the robots, and the connection of the paraphrasing of Magee' poem. They are still in need of sourcing.
Understand that I am not saying tyhat they can never be in. While I think most are non-notable and trivial, that can largely be determined by consensus, as notability can be somewhat vaguely interpreted in favor of inclusion. Synthesis is a different animal altogether. No amount of consensus should overrule our synthesis policy, as it turns an encyclopedia into one of those crufty fan-inspired wikis and fan-forums with the best guesses and reasoned conclusions by people who are not citable or notable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You'll note that I've not referred to the issue of identifying current robot models in any of my above rebuttals to your position. I believe that, of the issues under discussion, that is the one where sourcing is the most appropriate to avoid issues of synthesis. My arguments are now pretty much advocating keeping the lyrical/poetic parallels, since I won't particularly defend the robots, and because I've already sourced the musical references. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Source the information or remove it. If no reliable source has seen fit to mention something, one has to consider seriously that that particular something may just be too trivial to be included in an encyclopaedia (which as a tertiary source is supposed to be a collection of material published in secondary, and to an extent primary, sources). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, otherwise every single iota of information in this article, and every other article for that matter, should also be cited from somewhere. I think that Wikipedia is already extra-encyclopedic and shouldn't try to limit itself to a strictly encyclopedic viewpoint. The horse is already out of the barn, in my viewpoint.--MARQUIS111 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So your argument is essentially that, if you are in a world of shit, why bother wiping you ass? Come on, Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia; being "extra-encyclopedic" is something to aim for, not shrugging and caring not a whit that it is not the best it can be. Pardon me, but that viewpoint is pretty depressing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Arcayne. I think I left some ambiguity in my previous words; my viewpoint is more like: Wikipedia is extra-encyclopedic in the sense that it is more than an encyclopedia (meta-encyclopedic, maybe?), and I celebrate that reality and potential. It's good in my eyes. Being just an encyclopedia is great, but Wikipedia is already way beyond that. I don't think it can be changed, and I am not entirely sure it should be changed. I believe most articles in Wikipedia contain more information than can be drawn from whatever citations are present; this state of affairs may not be the majority of cases, but it's prevalent at least. That doesn't bother me.--MARQUIS111 (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I guess there was, Marquis. Hello to you, too. :) I agree that Wikipedia is more than just a dsimple encyclopedia, but by the same token, it should never be less than an encyclopedia. The line - so to speak - is in whether our opinions should be allowed as citable connection. As most of us here are not experts, the resounding ansewer in the past has been 'no', and should remain so.
I think the disconnect between our points of view is that some feel I think every little thing needs to be cited; that's inaccurate. While I think the listing of the robot models is utterly non-notable, I see the bits about the use of the original musical score, as well as that of Hendrix' tune and the paraphrasing of the Magee poem to be extraordinary pieces of the puzzle, and as thus need to be cited. We aren't talking about what shade of blue Adama's uniform is, or whether the homeless man smells or not. We are talking about info that has been separated from the rest of the article by subsection, implying its importance and notability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. In this situation, we aren't being provided with any citation, and are being asked to simply let it slide. I find that an intolerable attitude. I am sorry that I initially lumped you into that mindset; it is clear that I was mistaken. and had misunderstood your meaning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Source the information or remove it - as per every single one of my previous points about synthesis, triva and OR (not to mention SheffieldSteel's well-reasoned points). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Source - It has been by opinion from the beginning. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Mentioning AATW is the culmination of a large plot device and should be included. Erikeltic (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we've already arrived at that, as there is the presence of citation to support it (therefore, it should not be used to formulate your opinion). The other parts do not have citation. Are you contending that the robot model numbers are vital to the understanding of the episode? If so your reasoning is flawed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I could care less about that. I was voicing my opinion about AATW. Erikeltic (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That isn't part of this straw poll; it's information has been verified by citation, and is thus not part of the straw poll. Care to re-evaluate, being a new visitor to the article? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Refined straw poll

Since some of the info has now been cited, it might become more beneficial to address each of the uncited points. As the previous straw poll shows a virtual dead-heat, there is likely some lumping of the now-cited Watchtower and original BSG theme references and the remainder. As the Hendrix song and 1970's series theme is cited, I am not including it in this straw poll:

Use of the Poem by John Gillespie Magee, Jr.

1. "While ranting in a confused state, Sam says, "slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of perfection." This bears strong similarity to the start "Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth" and finish "Put out my hand, and touched the face of God" of the poem, High Flight, written by the aviator John Gillespie Magee, Jr.."

  • Remove or source - including such runs afoul of our synthesis policy, in that we are connecting a paraphrasing of a line of dialogue to a poem by someone else. It is an editor making that connection, and not a secondary source. We need citation to include it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Primary sources are sufficient Disclaimer: I'm the editor who toned down the wording to what it is as of this straw poll. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment While this is prima facie verifiable, I would be happier about keeping it if (a) it could be rewritten to avoid editorialising (who says the resemblance is "strong"?) and (b) a link was provided to the original poem - assuming a non-copyvio version can be found. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Good idea--so done. Interestingly enough, what Sam is quoting may actually be a Ronald Regan quote. Subtle political dig, maybe? Who knows. THAT would be Synthesis. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Note - If the author was an American, the poem should still be under copyright in the US as it hasn't been 75 years since his death. Thus, the show's credits should contain the accreditation of authorship to him and its owners' copyright status. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • He presumably wasn't, as he was an aviator with the RCAF in WW II. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, I revise myself: he appears to have been either British or held dual citizenship in the UK and USA. His article doesn't say, and I'm not sure it ever became an issue, as his only lasting fame is the poem. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Rather not the point, me hearties. I've just reverted a citation placed within the article under this bit that verifies that the poem indeed exists. That isn't what the sort of citation we are seeking here. We need a citation where someone notable (ie, someone who can be cited) has made the comparison to what Anders said and the poem's similarity. Nothing else will do, as us editors noting that similarity is indeed synthesis. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
              • The article discusses the lines from the poem. A reliable secondary source (USAF) which verifies the poem says what the article says what it says is not out of place. Granted that it is currently under discussion that cite may be insufficient (although consensus per this straw poll has not established that) without additional secondary sourcing, but that does not justify removing an RS before the discussion is concluded. WP:BURDEN has been met. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • He was an American, the poem was in a letter sent to his parents who had it published in a local paper after his death. The Library of Congress has the original copy as part of its permanent collection, so the US copyright holds. Since the credits are a legal statement, they are citable as a reliable source - if the do contain the notation.--Jeremy (blah blah) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. No one is arguing that the poem exists. What is in contention is that no one - no one - has found a citation that links what Anders said to the poem. THAT is the citation we are seeking. Adding a citation that the poem exists seems disingenuous, an end-run around the required citation. Therefore, JClemens, WP:BURDEN has not been met, Just putting a citation to the poem does not satisfy the necessary criteria for inclusion. Even if we were using BURDEN, the citation being reverted back in repeatedly still fails the requirement for usage: "The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." The contended statements are NOT supported by the citation. Maybe await the outcome of discussion before adding inappropriate citations.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The credits would link the usage of the poem to the show, that is not OR as the credits are a legal document (I have stated that elsewhere). Stating where in the show and which character stated them is not original research since the producers have already acknowledged they used it, which is an allowable use of a primary source. --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You do not need a someone to tell you he said that, since anyone watching that episode can confirm it. If there is no reasonable doubt that the information presented is true, then leave it alone. Every single sentence in the article does not need a reference. You heard him say it, and if you search for those words you can find what they are from, a link to that source to show people the poem. Dream Focus 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No that is original research, since it is you connecting two points together. You took the words and sought out where they came from which is the basis of WP:OR and WP:Synth --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll say what I posted before; recognition is not OR or synthesis. The fact is verifiable, so there is no synthesis involved. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It actually is, Edokter. When you hear the dialogue, you are not synthesizing. When you are aware of the Magee poem, you are likewise not synthesizing. The synthesis occurs when you link the two together as being related. Now, we do allow reliable sources to make that connection, but only because they are reliable sources. You, unfortunately, are not a reliable. citable source. Because you are not, your connection of the two is not allowed. Our synthesis policy on this connection - using two cited facts to infer an uncited relationship - is rather clear. No one is arguing that poem does not exist, any more than anyone is arguing what Anders said. The sole contention here is that they are connected, and we need citation for that.
If you feel that this policy creates an impasse for you, please feel free to file for Mediation or some other step along the DR process; I am sure many will participate.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

4/3 update Consensus seems stuck at me saying primary sources are sufficient and Arcayne saying that we need a secondary source to connect the line and the poem else we run afoul of synthesis. Edokter seems to be taking my side, but hasn't weighed in formally, and Jeremy seems to be taking Arcayne's side, but hasn't weighed in formally either. Is there anyone else who'd like to provide some insight? If there weren't already 4 of us involved, this would be a great opportunity for a 3O. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No needs to "formally" weigh in; if a person weighs in at any capacity, it counts. I do welcome a 3rd opinion. — Edokter • Talk • 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As I suggested to Edokter a few times on previous occasions, I would participate in 3O and/or mediation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Establishing the models of the robots

2. "Among the robots featured in the final scene are a Sony QRIO and an Actroid."

  • Remove - including such runs afoul of our synthesis policy, in that we are connecting imagery of robots to editor-researched model numbers. It is an editor making that connection, and not a secondary source. We need citation to include it. As well, it creates a notability issue. Why are the model names of the robot of intrinsic value to the understanding of the episode? The short answer is that they are not, and therefore are not necessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Secondary source or remove Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I've found no RS on the robots, but plenty of credible blog posts and whatnot. I expect that given a little more time, (e.g., a month or two) someone will publish an authoritative look at what robots appeared to one of the fan-specific RSs (io9, scifi.com, etc.). Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand that. Until someone reliable does, we cannot have it in the article. Furthermore, the basic question as to the intrinsic value of the models remains unanswered. The info isn't notably important. Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove unless/until sourced. It seems that no one other than Wikipedia editors thinks this is worth writing about. That might seem like a great wrong to some people here, but Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. Until some critic or reviewer sees fit to comment on the appearance of these robots, it's just trivia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Source or remove - Since some of the images may have been copyrighted and used under license that would be a viable addition as a production note. If there is no reliable, secondary source, remove them from the article. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to plot - Recognizing a model of a real-world robot/car/item does not require sourcing. The robots are notable enough for not being every day items, and noting them simply provides a means for more information. — Edokter • Talk • 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not a choice, Edokter. You are the one making the recognition. Ergo, you are synthesizing your own, personal knowledge of the model, or searching the model, or whatever to arrive at the robot's specific models. I am still not quite understanding the instrinsic value of these robots' specificity. Were they necessary, they would have been named in the episode. They have not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • No, but they were shown. I am not syntesizing any more then if I were to say "Adama steps in his Viper". And the choice is not yours alone to make, so please do not summarily disregard any options. — Edokter • Talk • 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, you are syntHesizing, Edokter. Anyone familiar with the program knows what a Viper is, much like most folk who watch Doctor Who knwo what a Tardis is. However, information drawn on real world knowledge of material outside the structure of the episode - real world poems or machine models, etc - require citation where someone notable identifies them as such. They have not and so we cannot - we are not notable/citable sources of statement information. I summarily disregard any option which cannot be implemented when it would pointedly violate one or more of our core policies. Again, that the robots were utilized in the episode as thematic/symbolic elements is not in dispute; that their model numbers are absolutely vital to the understanding of the subject matter is indeed in dispute. Could you be compelled to explain why these model names are vital to the article, and how they are not superfluous? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
          • They are neither vital or superfluous. However, this is Wikipedia, where articles of interest are linked. The presence of those robots are interesting enough to include a link to their respective articles, for those wanting more information. It has been the strong point of Wikipedia since its inception. Why would you deny that to our readers? And I still do not see where identification on my part ammounts to synthesis. That really does not require a scholary source. I am simply sharing my knowledge, as most editors do. If the fact is verifiable (which it is) in any way, it cannot be synthesis. Identifying real-world objects is not synthesis. You really do not need to preach the core policies to me. — Edokter • Talk • 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
            • No one is preaching core policies to you; someone is simply pointing out where you have made a mistake in interpreting that "sharing your knowledge" is not synthesis. You are not citable. I am unsure how you feel that you somehow are. Unless you are claiming to be part of the BSG production staff, you simply aren't a notable personage to cite a connection between the two. If the makers of BSG felt it of intrinsic value to identify the robots by model number/name, they would have done so. It is not up to you to 'fill in the blanks'. Understand that the value of the synthesized sources is not the problem here. The problem is that someone of note hasn't connected them. Until they do, you are going to have to resolve to stew in what you feel to be a greater understanding of the connectedness of the robot models and their vast and overwhelming importance to the understanding of the subject. I understand that viewpoint, I really do. However, Wikipedia is not here to satisfy our intellectual needs to be right. Until a notable source comes around and connects them, we never will be able to do so. If that all feels like I am schooling you on Wiki policies, so be it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Verifiability is still the core policy that supercedes any other. If a fact can be easily verified, there is no synthesis involved. The WP:NOR policy does give leeway towrds the obvious, as I explained not every fact needs a scholary source. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
            • You said, "Verifiability is still the core policy that supercedes any other." This is an incorrect statement, Edokter. As per WP:V: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." It doesn't supersede any other policy. Also from the first paragraph of WP:V: " They (the three policies) should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". I am going to point out again that you are verifying the wrong fact. What you need to verify where the creators of the episode identified these robots by model name. You also need to supply a reasoning for their intrinsic value to the understanding of the subject; if the robot names were not included in the article, it would utterly collapse. Clearly, though it does not. Therefore, it isn't all that notable. Two strikes, the third being no citation of any of this. In baseball (and in Wikipedia) we pretty much call that an out. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
            • As I stated above, if those images were from copyrighted sources (Honda, MSNBC) the copyright usage statement would be in the credits. That being said a more neutral statement that the show used images of robots manufactured by those companies in the closing dialogue should meet the standards of WP:OR and WP:RS. A mention that they used SyFy's sister channel MSNBC would no be out of place as that is a known and verifiable fact they are both owned by Universal. --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Which begs the question - again - how is this information intrinsic to the understanding of the subject (the article)? As I see it, this information - uncited information at that - is more a collection of information than useful data that increases the understanding of the subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
            • They are notes about the production of the show, which is applicable to the show. It shows what information was used in the production of it. --Jeremy (blah blah) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to plot Almost no part of the entire synopsis is cited. It comes directly from the show as an event. I don't see anyone debating over whether or not there needs to be a citation that there was a National Geographic in the episode, so I don't see how two atomotons are any different than a magazine. Erikeltic (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons mentioned elsewhere. Dream Focus 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Footage of QRIO and Actroid from presentations of the robots was used in the episode. This is a simple statement of fact. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?

How about if both the above observations are sourced to fans. As in "Various fan commentators and bloggers have noted..." which can then be sourced to the blogs themselves. That is, we're not saying something is, we're simply noting Internet reactions that include these items. Both the robots and High Flight have lots and lots of coverage in non-RS. We can't use those RS to say anything about what is, but per WP:SPS, such unreliable sources are reliable when they're talking about their authors' opinions. Then, once a detailed analysis catches up with these items, as it most likely will, we can replace these with RS quotes. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we cannot do that, as it is (no offense intended) weasel wording. Internet reactions - aka blogs, forums and the rest of that crufty nonsense - have no place in this article. That it and High Flight have covrage in those arenas do not concern us, as we rely solely upon reliable sources. When a detailed analysis is offered by reliable sources, we can add it then. I guess I am not understanding this burning need to shove predigested material down the throats of the reader. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. Can you cite any policy or editing guideline that supports your position? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS states that blogs and other user generated content are not reliable sources and cannot be used to verify data.--Jeremy (blah blah) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
... Which is why I switched the assertion from e.g. "these are X and Y robots" to "Internet bloggers have observed that these are X and Y robots", which makes the statements admissable by policy as SPS about what the bloggers themselves said. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
But internet bloggers, for the most part, do not constitute reliable sources, either individually or collectively. Blogs are almost entirely excluded unless they are by notable folk, like the producers, etc. The small blogosphere talking about this isn't notable or a reliable source. We cannot use it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You're not listening. ANY self-published source is reliable for what that source says. Here's how to do it: Fans have noted the similarity of the Anders lines to the opening and closing lines of the poem "[[High Flight]]"<ref>{{cite web|title=4-19: "Daybreak Part 1" 2009.03.13|url=http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?s=65dc16eb72aeb64bfa938cf7e22b8bfb&showtopic=3183227&view=findpost&p=11486310|accessdate=2009-04-02|date=2009-03-14|author=TommyRaiko}}</ref> Everything in there satisfies WP:SELFPUB, which is part of WP:V. Is it optimal? No one has said it is. Does it satisfy inclusion criteria? No one has yet cited a policy-based reason why it's not. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a condescending comment, JClemens; please remain polite, please. Of course I am listening. You simply do not agree with what I am saying in response. I am stating that your observation of fan observations is the pretty clear example of synthesis. Additionally, it has already been stated - somewhat conclusively - that the information is synthesis, which is a fairly clear part of our NOR policy. I respectfully submit that you are interpreting/utilizing SELFPUB somewhat inaccurately. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My intent was to politely express frustration, not to be condescending, without citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (which doesn't apply, as there's no consensus here to ignore). I disagree that quoting someone else is an NOR violation, but I am always willing to listen to a policy-based argument why I'm incorrect in my interpretation. Really, do feel free to cite something--an essay, even--that says that noting generalized Internet reaction to an event is an NOR violation. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:Not - WP is not a publisher of original thought and is not a internet guide. That is a policy based reason for not including it, your are just stating what is basically someone else's OR and pointing out other sites stating these data. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
How does the inclusion of the robot models hurt the article? Erikeltic (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It distracts from the subject of the article. See writing your first article for a primer on how to write articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That was condescending. The article should include any aspect of the episode, including references to notable real-world events. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the user is new, and has indicated in prior contacts that they are unfamiliar with how articles are assembled. Additionally, also no: the article should include relevant and notable aspects of the episode. For real world events, you need citation, not your personal observation. We don't allow that here in Wikipedia. I am surprised and concerned that you are not aware of this, being an admin. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, stop playing to the man, I'm getting quite sick of it. You need not remind me I am an admin. Our interpretation differ; stop asserting your viwpoint is the only possible one. And why are you replying to Jclemens as if it were me? — Edokter • Talk • 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Er, I actually am a man, Edokter. Could you be troubled to avoid straying into personal attacks, please? As for the confusion betwixt you an the other user - mea culpa; I had been subjected to that sort of behavior from you, and made an error based out of familiarity. It won't happen again.
That aside, I am not saying that my viewpoint is the only possible one. I am saying it is prety much all thats allowed to us by the current policies and guidelines. If you want something different, seek policy change. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(←) You need to brush up on your verbs... there was no personal attack there. "Playing to the man" means you address the person instead of the issue. And your viewpoint that your option is the only one that is allowed is what's troublesome; that is, your interpretation of policy is very narrow, as is evidenced by the fact you are now trying to counter every argument made against you, and you simply do not get the point accross. Take a good look at the talk page; how many people are you trying to convince of your opinion, and how well is it going? — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I am going to ask you - for the last time - to please keep your comments on topic. If you find yourself unable to discuss the matter without talking about how I am messing up your talk page, you might want to go off and have a tea and a sit down. The best way to be ignored is to attack those who disagree with you. Please stop. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about this talk page... geez... — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So was I. It is the article discussion page, not your personal discussion page. I hadn't thought the point that subtle. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

... and for what it's worth, I will not be editing the page until such time as the protection is removed, as I exepct any other the admins involved in the editing will not. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You can not edit a page while its under protection anyway. You have to wait until its removed. Dream Focus 11:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Jclemens is an administrator here. That was the point of his comment - he can indeed edit the article while it is under sysop protection. He's going to play by the rules, tho ;-) Tan | 39 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Right. If there are any clearly uncontroversial edits that gain consensus, an admin will be able to make them. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On credits...

I've looked through the ending credits on Hulu for both parts of Daybreak (multiple times, with the pause button... sigh), and I don't find Magee's name credited for the poem on either... but at the same time, neither did I see Hendrix or Dylan credited for the "Watchtower" appearance. I'm afraid it doesn't look like we can draw any firm conclusions about what is or is not referenced from the presence or lack thereof of credits saying exactly what was used where. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to look for it via Hulu as well (damn but they spin the credit roll fast). I tried some other methods as well, but no mention was made in the credit roll when viewed slower. We can in fact note Hendrix' song, All Along the Watchtower, as it has been cited by secondary sources. And, due to your research in the section below, we can also mention that the robots are representative of humanity's technofetishism (sounds like a made-up word to me - lol): that is the only notable use I can foresee for even spending more than a sentence on them. We cannot as of yet use the Magee poem or the robot models, as in the first case we do not have a citation noting the connection between the two, and we do not have a notable reason for including them that would be of intrinsic value.
Note that this list of uncited material started out quite long, and we've pared it down to a few remaining items. So long as everyone keeps a civil tongue in their head and continues to work within policy, I am pretty sure we will get through this. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Robot references

(presumably RS, since this came from Google News) [3] "As they debate this question, slowly disappearing into the crowd, the camera pans to a TV in a shop window playing a vid of Sony's latest line of humanoid robots. As the bots dance, merging into a montage of present-day robots, "All Along the Watchtower" starts playing and we fade to black." So, we have a secondary RS for "Sony humanoid robot" but still no RS hits on actroid or qrio in specific. At the very least, that should support a toned-down reference without specific models included. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1. QRIO is the only humanoid Sony robot. 2. Actroid is self-evident from footage, as that footage is taken directly from the same presentation that is referenced (and shown) on the Actroid article, and this footage is referenced in the episode's podcast. — Edokter • Talk • 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we can now mention the presence of the robots, since the reviewer used them to describe the symbolism of humanity's technofetishism. However, we still cannot identify them by model. It would require us to connect information that we, as editors, are not notable or citable enough to add. Good work on finding the source, JClemens; instead of arguing, you did some work. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with arguing that existing references to primary sources are marginal but adequate while at the same time searching for better ones. If you'll look at my contribution history, you'll find that that is actually a pretty consistent Modus operandi of mine. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The models are so painfully obvious, it does not need a cite. Actually, requiring a cite is an insult to the readers. But let's wait for a 3rd opinion. — Edokter • Talk • 23:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, they are painfully obvious to you. Until they were mentioned here, I had never heard their model numbers/names before. And I consider myself a bit more well-read than some. The average reader - the person we aim our articles at so as to avoid being crufty little fanboys - is proably unlikely to know them as well. Additionally, the robots' models are not vital to the understanding of the episode: that they are is far more important to the writers of BSG than what their cute little names are. Sure, we can await Third Opinion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The robots are seen and the fact is that they are a QRIO and an Actroid. A QRIO and an Actroid appear in the episode, it's as simple as that. No citation is needed. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no reasonable doubt of the identity of the robots, so no reference is necessary. Since no one seems to doubt the truth, there is no reason to waste time arguing about proof. The spirit of the rule is to keep out incorrect information. Wikipedia policy is to follow the spirit of the rule, not the rule itself, to use wp:common sense, and ignore all rules if necessary. Dream Focus 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point you to the five standards of notability which is one of the principles on WP: when we add information to an article, that data must meet these standards or the data can and will be challenged. Since it requires a synthesis on the part of the contributor posting the data, it is original research which is not allowed (number one of the notability guidelines.) Additionally the argument you put forth has been discredited, it is an established precedent that you do not use IAR as a way to settle content disputes. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Ron D. Moore had a cameo in the finale is obvious and Imdb.com lists him as "Man with Magazine", but there isn't a citation tag anywhere within the wiki regarding his minor on-screen role. See this interview with Ron D. Moore http://vimeo.com/3724908 Specifically pay attention to 1:07 - 1:17 where Moore says in reference to Caprica, "...play different allegories to contemporary society..."
That is what makes the robots at the end relevent. The Actroid and the QRIO both appear in the episode and are used as plot devices to show how man has already begun to evolve to a future not completely unlike his distant past. However, because neither the Actroid nor the QRIO can get screen credits from IMDB because neither is a person doesn't seem like a good reason to exclude them. IMDB doesn't give Pal a screen credit as Lassie either. Does that mean he wasn't in the show? Obviously "Lassie" is a much more cited program, but it also wasn't release 3 weeks ago.
Furthermore, the entire synopsis of this episode is an original work for Wikipedia (as all episode synopsises seem to be). That plot described here wasn't lifted from a citable third party other than the show itself. In fact, citations 3 & 4 are clips and the clip in #3 has nothing to do with the statement Baltar made about "seeing angels." So if the entire plot description can be based on two very basic and general clips that don't even show the events being described, how on new Earth can it be such a huge "distraction" to mention the fracking Actroid and Qrio at the very end? Erikeltic (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The notability guideline applies to topics having their own article. I quote: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." Notability is not an issue here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You didn't link to the 5 principles you linked to the notability guidelines.
This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
This is one of those times where you need to treat it with common sense, and an exception. And you can mention ignore all rules, when there is a reason to do so. Being on the bestsellers list doesn't make a book notable by the current notability guidelines, and sometimes go up for deletion, but common sense usually prevails, and they are kept. I recall this happening with one of the Dragonlance novels recently, it having no reviews found anywhere, so no notable third party coverage. But being a bestseller, convinced the majority of the people it should be kept, and so the article was. Common sense, over wikilawyering. Dream Focus 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that when an American Quarter Horse appears in a film, we're allowed to call it an American Quarter Horse. This is the same thing. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And especially so if it's being used to make a statement that enriches the show. Besides, I don't see anyone requiring a citation for the National Geographic that was mentioned in the plot. Erikeltic (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No, unless it is implicitly stated in the work about the breed (you picked a lousy example, as the general population would not know an American quarter horse from a thoroughbred), and there was no verifiable source, you would have have to perform research to come to that conclusion, which is not allowed. You state is that this is an obvious thing, but how many people in the general population would know the fact? It is a rather geeky piece of trivia (I'm a consummate geek, so I can say that 8-P) that most people would not know with out doing research. It is still OR, and that is not allowed - no wikilawyering, just a statement of policy.
On another note, I was not referring to the five pillars, I was referring to the standards of notability. However, I will point out the first pillar:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.
Everything I have been saying is right there, and you cannot parse that. Also, this is not a discussion on deleting an article, it is about naming a particular set of robots in a TV series that is not named in that series, in any production notes or anywhere else. If you want to make a statement about a book, you can do that as it is verifiable using the {{cite book}} template which would point the reader to the location in the book where the fact is found; you can't do that in this case, as there is no such statement anywhere to link to. What you are doing is presenting a fact that you "know" to be true, but cannot prove that data with a verifiable, secondary source that is reliable. Basically, you are taking two images and making an opinion that they are the same and inviting others to do the same, which brings us back to OR and synthesis.
The comment about a Dragonlance book being kept in an AfD due to common sense is an improper allegory to this situation. The actual book has many things that make it notable that can be verified from reliable sources. That is common sense, but it is when you try to make observations about that book that are not present in the book is when you run afoul of the OR provisions. Let us say there is a dragon in the book that's description is very similar to one found in the first book. The author of the second book did not identify the dragon as the same one as in the first book by Hickman & Wies but you make a claim that the dragon is the same dragon on the basis the descriptions are the same. That is a synthesis because another contributor could also say they are just the same species of dragon while a third could say that new author is just plagiarizing the original book. In application of this reasoning to the BSG:DL2 situation, what's to say that one of the robots is not a cheap knock off from China? Maybe it was a project by a kid at MIT who wanted his own Sony robot, but couldn't get because it was a prototype and they don't actually sell it yet? That is why we cannot make the claim unless there is proper sourcing to be had to validate the comment we are making. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
We're talking a bout a real-world object, not a fictional dragon. We name real-world objects by their name all the time, just like cars. Naming a robot does not involve any research, and is easily verifiable ([4]). — Edokter • Talk • 14:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You arguments are absolutely ridiculous. Please follow consensus and don't delete the robot's names when the article is open for editing. Dream Focus 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Two points:
  1. Edoktor - Nice link, where in the press release does that state it was used in the episode?
  2. Dream Focus - What consensus? look at the straw poll above and tell me how many "keeps" there are.
--Jeremy (blah blah) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is asking for citations to mention the National Geographic by name. How is naming the models of the two robots any different? Erikeltic (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It's even clearer when you consider that they used presentation footage in the episode. The footage in the episode is demonstrably the same as the footage from the presentations. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The NatGeo says NatGeo on its cover so there is no need, plus the logo is copyrighted and is mentioned in the credits. The robot doesn't say anything...--Jeremy (blah blah) 18:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No, actually it doesn't read National Geographic. The only thing you can make out on-screen is what appears to be the very top of the letters Natio with the traditional yellow cover. It's enough that the viewer knows that it is a National Geographic, just like the robots.
Here is a clip of the final 5 minutes of BSG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ug4qqxBl3I The time in question for the National Geographic is 3:58 and the robots appear at 5:06. Erikeltic (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I see names of those who have argued to keep it, haven't voted up there in that confusing mess. I guess since we aren't going to convince each other, we should just all vote in the strawpoll, and go from there. Dream Focus 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No, DreamFocus, the straw poll will be just as useless as the prior two have been. I noticed that those calling for 3O or Mediation have yet to do so. Why the reticence?
And the hurdles that one side or the other of this discussion seem to be stumbling over regards notability and synthesis. Allow me to help clear some of the muddy waters stirred up by folks with easily bruised or inflamed egos.
Notability indeed refers to articles, and not so much about content - that is often a mistake made by folk (even yours truly). Notability when referencing information added to an already existing article must conform to the idea of whether it adds to the understanding of the subject matter of that article, or whether it detracts from or is trivial to that subject. That there are robots at the conclusion of the episode, from the plastic-covered robots to the lifelike silicone RealDolls (or whatever that female-looking robot was) is not at issue. That they were an important thematic component is something which I am reasonably sure is also not at issue. What is at issue is whether identifying those robots - when they have not been cited by model - is trivial. I think it is, as identifying them doesn't increase understanding of the episode. Really, it doesn't, and I have yet to hear anything approaching a reasonable argument as to why they should be in there - and no, the plaintive excuse of 'but I know what they are' is not enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a warehouse of useless trivia. Naming the robots is akin to pointing at an object in the sky and calling it a flying saucer. It is only a flying saucer to the primary observer; here at Wikipedia, we require cited sources calling it such as well. Without said sources, it isn't anything. The robots have not been verified by secondary sources as being vital to the storyline, and frankly, its Nerdrotica to keep thinking that they have more value to the article than they do. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well that's an easy one... if they weren't vital to the story, the robots would not have been included in the finale. See my notes above and the clip if your curious what that means. Also, it's not akin to calling an unidentified flying object a flying saucer. It's akin to me pointing at a 747 in the sky and calling it a 747 when you only see an airplane. Erikeltic (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
But we're not pointing to the sky, were writing in an encyclopedia. We require a bit more than some one saying "Look what I see!" --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you'd better dump the rest of the synopsis and every other episode synopsis from every other TV show listed on Wikipedia because writing anything here (including that the episode included a National Geographic) is no different than stating that the episode included an Actroid. Erikeltic (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Erkeltic, at the risk of being redundant, no one is saying that the image of the robots isn't part of the episode. What we are saying - rather pointedly, I may say so - is that the model names of the robots is not part of the episode, any more than the other two types of robots used in the episode. Had they been important, their model name would have found a way into the episode, and yet they have not. It does not fall to us to fill in the blanks that the directors either chose not or forgot to add. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In the episode where Starbuck drove a Humvee, no one called it that during the episode, and if no reviewers mention it, would you have to change that article to simply refer to it as a vehicle, instead of mentioning the name of it? If a film started off with a poodle getting run over by a car, could we call it a poodle? Could we even call it a dog, if no one said it was a dog, instead saying just an animal? And how do we know its a real animal, and not just one of those robot dogs dressed up in fake fur to look like one? It could be some alien shapeshifter, for all we know. Dream Focus 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Now that is going to the asinine extreme, that is where you use common sense. A car has a company logo and a model name on it, easily identifiable. Dog breeds can be misidentified, was it a Poodle or a Labra-Doodle? they look alike... Generalization is the best way to go, unless there is a valid reason for being specific.--Jeremy (blah blah) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's take it easy in the descriptives, everyone; no need to call something asinine. Jerem makes a valid point, though. Generalization makes sense when specificity do not contribute to the encyclopedia-ness of the article. It isn't a collection of information. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

High flight rewording proposal

Current state: While ranting in a confused state, Sam says, "slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of perfection." This bears similarity to the start "Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth" and finish "Put out my hand, and touched the face of God" of the poem, ''High Flight'', written by the aviator [[John Gillespie Magee, Jr.]].<ref>{{cite web|title=High Flight|url=http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/highflight.htm|accessdate=2009-04-02|publisher=[[United States Air Force]] Historical Studies Office}}</ref>{{cn|date=April 2009}}

Proposal: In part one, Anders's prattle while functioning as a [[cylon hybrid]] includes the line "slip the surly bonds of Earth and touch the face of perfection." The poem ''High Flight'' by aviator [[John Gillespie Magee, Jr.]].<ref>{{cite web|title=High Flight|url=http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/highflight.htm|accessdate=2009-04-02|publisher=[[United States Air Force]] Historical Studies Office}}</ref> has similar opening and closing lines.{{cn|date=April 2009}}

This essentially solves nothing but makes it abundantly clear that the citation belongs to the poem, and not to the assertion that the poem and Anders' lines are connected. Can we implement this as a new baseline and move forward with the debate about the remaining {{cn}} tag? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we aren't in doubt that the poem exists. We never really have been (though someone who does should pipe up if they do). The crux of the problem is that there is no citable connection between the two. It is an editor noting the similarities and tying them together, which is a textbook example of synthesis. I am going to assume good faith that the addition wasn't a disingenuous attempt to then say 'hey, you wanted a citation, so there's a citation' in a cynical attempt to sidetrack the discussion. It doesn't belong, because we aren't verifying the existence of the Magee poem - we need to verify the connection between the episode dialogue and the Magee poem. Attempting anything else is wasted effort. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that there's currently no consensus for either your interpretation or mine, why not move forward with a cite for the primary source, in a way that makes it clear that the primary source cite isn't citing the relationship? All-or-nothing silliness is what got the article protected in the first place--it's time for a new approach. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't feel I am offering an interpretation; it is our synthesis policy. There is no point in citing the Magee poem; no one is doubting that it exists. We cannot include it - and I am at something of a loss as to why you aren't seeing this - because we cannot make that connection. We are editors, not citable writers. The connections we make are, by specific intent of Wikipedia design, of no value. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course you don't. Neither do I--we each are convinced we're correct, hence trying to find compromise is about trying to reduce the badness of what we each see as a wrong answer, while continuing to assume good faith on the part of the others involved in the dispute. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with Arcayne on this portion. Anders' statement is not a direct quotation, but is very similar to the poem up for inclusion. Because of this and because there isn't a cited reference to the poem in the production notes or anywhere else, it shouldn't be included because that's too big of a leap for us to make at Wikipedia. (Much like how I wanted to point out in Life on Mars that March 2, 2009 was when the show was "officially cancelled" and the date in the final episode was 3/2/2035). My position remains the same regarding the naming of the robot models. Naming them is no different than naming a Humvee or the National Geographic. Erikeltic (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Even though the name of the vehicle (I think) is seen, and the magazine is partially named, I don't necessarily consider them vital to the episodes either.I would be in favor of replacing them with non-named specifics; even if cited, only a fair-to-middlin' case could be made for the National Geographic usage. Either way, the names of these things aren't as much of value as their purpose to the episode.
And I assume good faith regarding your actions, JClemens; you seem a good egg. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On Original Research

The fundamental question on the use of High Flight is this: Does using two primary sources side by side fall under allowable usage of primary sources, or disallowed synthesis?

Primary Sources? "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." (emphasis mine)

Synthesis? "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (again, emphasis mine)

My take on the harmonization of these facets of the Original Research policy:

  • Description does not advance a new position; if it did, then WP:PRIMARY would be at odds with WP:SYN.
  • If one description does not advance a position, then two descriptions from primary sources, absent a conclusion, cannot advance a new poition.
  • One key aspect of the primary sources policy is the ability of a non-specialist to verify the accuracy of the observation. If the textual similarity between Anders' lines and High Flight cannot be evaluated by a non-specialist, it would clearly be impermissible. Since it is clearly within the realm of a non-specialist, its permissibility is not impaired. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was waiting for someone else to respond before addressing this. I'll wait until morning before doing so. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone would... :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a stab at it... Your assertion violates the first pillar of WP, and by extension the first part of the notability guidelines - the reader should not have to do any research to extract the content. In your interpretation, the reader would have to research the poem and compare the two to reach the conclusion that the two are the same.
Of course I could be reading your statement incorrectly. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, you completely missed the point of my position. Read the argument in terms of my proposed wordings for this section sourcing the line to one primary source, the episode, and the poem lines to another primary source, as cited to the USAF page: two primary sources, compared with a note that they appear similar. Nothing about that violates the first pillar, since the similarity isn't a position, but an observation which can be validated by a non-specialist. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the observation is in fact a position - that you feel that they are related. That requires us to synthesize the poem, and our observation of the episode into something that notes the similarities. In short, noting the similarities, in the absence of external citation, is a function of synthesis in that it advances a new position that they are connected. We need a source that says it, not our observation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but descriptive claims are not conclusions, per WP:OR, and no one but you has taken that position, Arcayne. Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are misinterpreting our original research policy. When you make connections between two different things, it is you presuming there is a connection. We do not get to make those connections, and rely solely upon secondary sources to make sad connection. Everyt time this has come up at the OR noticeboard, it is has been confirmed as such. If you wish to readdress it there, I am all for it. Just point me to the link once you post there. Lastly, I'd remind you that consensus (which you really don't seem to have here) never, ever outweighs policy and guidelines. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I keep noting that the Lucy Lawless stuff keeps getting added back (to whit, that she isn't there). This is extraneous information; there is no reason for it to be in, any more than we can note the absence of Tom Zarek or anyone else. The episode is what it is. Let's not try to turn it into a compendium of All Things Galactica. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge you don't think it's notable. If this were anything other than the show finale where every other cylon character had appeared, I'd side with you. However, it is precisely that reason--that this is the show finale where every other cylon character appears--which makes this notable. Per WP:NNC, article editors are allowed--nay, encouraged--to find a consensus that such info does or does not belong. I haven't actually heard a cogent argument from you that provides a reason for exclusion--notability applies to articles, not to facts within them. Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
NNC isn't the issue, JClemens; when i say it isn't :notable", I mean that the factoid is not of note (sometimes, folk confuse WP:NOTE with being notable, usually two different things); that it is of no consequence to the subject of the article. No one within the article notes 'hey, anyone notice that X isn't here? Seems to be important that X should be here'. As that hasn't come up, even in production blogs, we are not allowed to second guess the importance of anything, even if the article was about something other than the last episode. Doing so is the essence of synthesis, a topic that has come up repeatedly in tv episodic articles, and at least twice in this article. The place for mentioning that Lawless' character stays behind is in the episode where she does so, not one after the fact. That she isn't mentioned at any length in this one doubles the reason for excluding mention if it.
The reason you hadn't heard an argument from me regarding the Lawless mention is simply because it is pretty much at the bottom of the consideration issues we have been contending with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Music production blog

Bear McCreary has an excellent synopsis of the music used in the episode as well as a history of the various musical themes used through out the production of show on his production blog. I was able to source several production notes from his experiences writing the music for the episodes. If someone takes the time to read this article, I think you should be able to add other significant production notes.

The source meets the standards for inclusion (see primary sources policy) because of his position as a member of the production staff. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately, we have secondary sources that allow the inclusion, which pre-empt the usage of primary sources. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting resolution

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Per Arcayne, I've added myself as a party to the case. Others may feel free to do so as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll mediate, I'll just need a day or so to be sure I understand the dispute, then I'll start an area for the mediation to occur. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Right on. Thanks for stepping in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Part one: robots

It seems like - and I am trying my level best to maintain good faith here - that we seem to be at loggerheads regarding the robots issue. I thought, after numerous disucssions and noticeboards, that it was crystal clear that the robot models were pretty much inconsequential to the article. They haven't been mentioned, identified or referred to anywhere, and they constitute precisely zero value to the article. So help me out here: can someone cite where the robot models have been mentioned? Can anyone cite why their identification by model is of vital importance? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While they may be of little value to the article, they are invaluable to the encyclopedia as a whole. In fact, that is what Wikipedia is built on; connecting articles. Someone seeing the episode may want to know more, and this article will help them find more. That is what "sharing knowledge" is all about. They are also very real-world connections which fiction-related articles often lack. Claiming original research on the models is in my opinion (and not to be taken personally) a quite anal stance with regards to WP:OR policy. That policy was ment to prevent wild, self-concocted theories in scientific areas, not to prevent naming the animal by it's proper name. — Edokter • Talk • 21:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
While you are correct that the facets of our OR policy are constructed to prevent concoctions like the 'Jeezus is a space alien vampire' nonsense, but they also serve to protect the Wikipedia from editor-provided editorializing that skews the encyclopedia one way or the other. By citing specificity, we ensure that what we are noting is indeed important and worthy of note. You will note that we are called editors and not writers; it isn't my purpose to poke a hole in someone's ego when I point out that our opinion isn't usable here. It is because contributing our observations, our various bits of learning, etc. are not of suitable quality to be included alongside those folk who are notable and reliably verifiable. I am not saying that your insistence of the robot models should be mentioned makes you a jerk; it doesn't - it just makes you devoted. Unfortunately, devotion isn't one of the criteria we use to evaluate information for inclusion.
I'd also point out that no one of note has saw fit to include the robot models. That should say something about how some things are important to the article, whereas others are not. If you truly feel that the knowledge of these robot models is worth "sharing", expand the articles on those subjects. Here isn't the place for it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing is the process of preparing language, images, sound, video, or film through correction, condensation, organization, and other modifications in various media. A person who edits is called an editor. In a sense, the editing process originates with the idea for the work itself and continues in the relationship between the author and the editor. Editing is, therefore, also a practice that includes creative skills, human relations, and a precise set of methods.
You still seem to miss the larger picure about how Wikipedia gains it's information. Yes, I see it fit to include the models, because 1) I share my knowledge of verifiable information, 2) no original research is required, and 3) it improves Wikipedia as a whole by connecting to subjects through the method of wikilinking; one of the strongholds of Wikipedia. By imposing WP:OR with this kind of rigor, you not only do Wikipedia a disservice, and therefor it's readers, it aslo shows the lack of understanding of Wikipedia's bigger purpose; namely that of sharing knowlege. — Edokter • Talk • 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You are entitled to your belief, Edokter, but where you feel I err on too-stringently enforcing policy, you aren't even speaking of it. Your definition of editing is somewhat different than what we actually practice here at Wikipedia. I believe that we cannot allow ourselves the arrogance of putting ourselves on the same level as those whom we see as reliable and citable. Not doing so more truly serves the wiki. My apologies, but your insistence that you can speak authoritatively on a subject and make connections in defiance of our OR policy smacks of an arrogance unbefitting an administrator. You are not citable, unless you are an expert on robotics or pop culture. If you are one of these things, pipe up and show us the street cred. Otherwise, your opinion as to the connectivity of two separate facts (and the promulgation of the idea that the robot models are intrinsic to the understanding of the episode) is simply of no value here in Wikipedia whatsoever. Note that I am not saying that you are not of value, Edokter; I am saying that your personal opinion on what belongs in the article is not.
You keep making the same arguments, and I keep pointing to the flaws of them. To your first and second points I say again: your sharing of your knowledge of verifiable information constitutes synthesis. If anyone reliably citable thought the robot models were important, they'd note it. They haven't, and thusly we cannot either. You are taking the argument of the robot models and the argument of the robot model usage in the episode and are forging a new argument that these model names are intrinsically important to the article. As for your third argument, please understand that the "sharing" of which you speak of arrives from the ability to bring a massive amount of citable information to bear through a large number of people conducting the same research on the same subject but from different angles. I know a lot about, say, Doctor Who, but I don't pretend to know everything. Working with others who have different parts of the inclusive body of knowledge on the subject, I learn more about the subject, and hopefully, they do too. That is the "sharing of knowledge" facet of Wikipedia, and not you sharing your personal/individual insights about a subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing that which is part of the episode, and that which is not part of the episode (you referring to D'Anna). The ACTROID was in the episode. How can you argue that D'Anna's absence is unimportant and shouldn't be included because the character didn't appear in the episode, while at the same time you argue that robots that did appear in the episode were just as unimportant? They were there. Erikeltic (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry if my replies seemed contradictory; in point of fact, they were not. Yes, the robots were in the episode. They were important to the episode as robots. The Actroid and the other robot models (no one seems to be able to name the four different models used) were important as figurative, thematic components; now, before someone comments about how that statement is synthesis, It stands to reason that if the models of these robots were important, they would have been named. As it is, they were not identified thusly in the episode. Additionally, no reliable source has listed them, or noted the model numbers as being important. I am trying to point out that we are losing our focus here, relying on the unimportant - and uncited - minutiae that turns an encyclopedia into a list. No one favoring the inclusion of the robot models has offered a reason as to how these identifications are germane to the episode, or how they are intrinsic to an understanding of the subject (aside from the rather sloppy argument of 'why not?'). And Erikeltic, it has been pointed out at least a half-dozen times that we aren't arguing as to whether robots were part of the episode; we have been discussing the importance of whether identifying them is in fact synthesis (as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated above) as well as the extrinsic value of the identification benefits the article (as noted, it seems clear that they do not). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Part two: High Flight

As well, I thought it had been rendered abundantly clear that connecting the poem with a line of dialogue from Anders is synthesis. However, people keep adding it back in. We are editors and not citable. Allow me to repeat that: we aren't allowed to add our own opinions as to what is connected. We use citations for exactly this reason. Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of policy is clear. That your opinion is the one and only correct interpretation of policy is not clear. We agree on the governing policy, we do not agree on the interpretation. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
After the 4/3 consensus in favor of removal, it was suggested to take it to 3O or mediation. When that didn't happen, the majority to remove pretty much takes over. I am fairly certain that my "interpretation" is anything but accurate. If anything, it has been pointed out that I narrowly interpret synthesis. While I would not presume that ego is a part of the impetus to include that information which isn't cited, it needs to be understood that this is an encyclopedia. We do not get to decide what is important to an article and what is not. For that we have sources. No sources means to dramatic license on the part of an editor to add it. I keep noticing in these sorts of articles that some editors (present company excluded) feel the burning need to toss in everything including the kitchen sink in the fervent hope that if one or two of the obviously bad choices get weeded out, that some will be allowed to stay as compromise. That cynical tactic is contrary to what our encyclopedia is about. The article is about the subject, and the subject alone. Anything over and above the subject that warrants inclusion must have citation accompanying it. No citation, no inclusion. It is just that simple. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to be dense, but what consensus in favor of removal? What majority? Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Come on, now. Read the discussions above, please. Now, if you feel absolutely sure of your position, file in the NOR noticeboard or 3O, or wherever suits your fancy. Let's see what they say. Again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I did. I see you and Jeremy vs. me and Edockter on this particular aspect. I see no consensus, which is what I said in my 4/3 update, above. Since more than two editors have been involved 3O will not weigh in on this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, seeing as you think you are right, and I know I am, we need a third option. Let's involve mediation by neutral folk. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. Good, neutral summary on the request, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Contrary to popular opinion, I am not here to break anyone's balls; I just want the best article we can have, and for me, that means citing people who have a right to be cited. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Part three: D'Anna

Lastly, someone - bizarrely - keeps adding the fact that D'Anna isn't in this episode. Why is it important to mention that she isn't in the last episode? There are lots of characters who aren't in the episode, and yet, no one saw reason to mention any of them. Now, before someone launches into some wacky fanboy blog as to how all the cylons are present but one, please add a citation from a reliable source that makes that observation - they are only methods by which we can mention such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tone down the rhetoric and speak to the content issue, Arcayne. Primary sources (e.g. the credits) record each of the cylon model's presence, save Lucy Lawless' character. Such a fact does not need to be sourced to a secondary source. The fact that her character stayed on the other earth is also sourced to primary sources. It's observation, not advancing a position, not OR, and does not need a secondary, independent, RS cite. Importance is a matter of opinion--yours differs from mine. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are wrong. We don't function on primary sources here at Wikipedia; we use secondary sources almost exclusively. If something cited by primary sources (ie your personal observation and interpretation) are contested, secondary sources must be provided. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to seek some insight into your interpretation. Importance is secondary to relevance. It isn't relevant. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we need a secondary source to say that they landed on earth? That Roslin died? What aspect of the non-appearance of a character is any less obvious than "the sky is blue on the earth of 150,000 years ago"? Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing that which is part of the episode, and that which is not part of the episode. That D'Anna isn't in the episode is not important. If it had been, someone who could actually be cited would have made a hullabaloo about it. It hasn't been, so we cannot, either. What we feel should be in the episode isn't important; we didn't make it. We don't write reviews, and adding bits about who isn't there is essentially editorializing, again, something we do not do. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Now cited, even though it didn't need to be. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the citation is a review of what he wished were there. It wold be better to incorporate the D'Anna thing into reception as part of the reviews. In a section with the other trivia? Not so much. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So be my guest and move/rephrase it as you believe best. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okey-doke, I will. I'll try it out here first. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, I am ErikTheBikeMan, and I will be mediating this case, per Arcayne's request. The dispute originally seems to have been between Arcayne, Edokter, and Jclemens over the inclusion of robot models, "High Flight," and "D'Anna" in the article. I'm not sure I quite understand the robot models argument, while the "High Flight" and "D'Anna" debates seem to be resolved.

Below, I have left a section with a few questions, three sections for the parties to provide explanations of their points of view, and a section, "General Discussion," for the mediation to take place. Any of the parties may answer the questions, though all of them don't need to if they agree with the previous responses. I would prefer that only the listed users post in their respective sections, to keep opinions clear and distinct. Any responses to user's explanations may be placed in the "General Discussion" section. Any parties who wish to add themselves may either comment in the General Discussion section or create their own subsection called "Explanation by..."

Finally, I would like to remind the parties, perhaps unnecessarily, to remain civil.

Cheers, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions

What exactly is the "robots" debate about?

Can the model names QRIO and Actroid be mentioned in the article without an RS which explicitly names those models? Edokter believes so, Arcayne does not, and Jclemens leans towards inclusion but isn't arguing this point. Edokter's arguments are substantially similar to Jclemens' with respect to High Flight: a non-specialist can verify the identity, so asserting that "this equals that" is not original research. Arcayne does not agree with the argument and believes that a "this equals that" assertion unsupported by an RS is indeed OR. Edokter also has argued that the ability to link articles plays to the strengths of Wikipedia, and thus the inclusion of the names supports encyclopedia building. There are plenty of non-RS (fan form posts and whatnot) which make the identification, but no argument has centered around their use or accuracy. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Arcayne in that the inclusion of the information is synthesis and violates the policies of NOR. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the "High Flight," and "D'Anna" debates resolved?

  • D'Anna is resolved. I found an RS (TV Guide episode summary) which mentioned her lack of presence in the episode, which satisfied Arcayne that the material should be included. We're both agreed that he can feel free to reword and alter the placement of the fact into the "reception" section as desired, and no active disagreement exists.
  • High Flight is unresolved. Arcayne believes (as above) that asserting that the line stems from "High Flight" is a conclusion that must be supported by a secondary source. I disagree and believe that since the comparison of primary sources is well within the realm of a non-specialist's evaluation, the side-by-side comparison is not a novel conclusion but an appropriate use of primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and much like the robot models, there are plenty of non-RS which make the identification--some which additionally note that the first and last lines of the poem were also quoted by Ronald Regan following the Challenger explosion, but again, the use of non-RS has not played a significant part in the debate. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ. The lack of RS (and the usage of unrelated citation) is part of the problem. Citing the poem is not the same as citing the connection made by a third party source. I believe that it was mistakenly offered with the assumption that, in the discussion regarding the need for sources, that the contributor might have felt that any source would suffice. Clearly, it doesn't. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • As the one who added the primary source cite, this was not my motivation. While it's certainly possible someone added blog sources previously, I didn't and haven't seen anyone add an unreliable secondary citation since I became involved in the article. Asserting that primary sources are sufficient and asserting that unreliable secondary sources are sufficient are not the same. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • But adding a citation that isn't sufficient - and I think its clear that adding a citation to the poem is off-target, JClemens. No one is doubting that the poem exists. It doesn't need citation. What does need citation is the connection between that and the dialogue. It isn't a matter of primary versus secondary sources, it's one of attempting to reframe the question. It isn't that the statements need citation; its that they need citation that connects them. Anything else could be seen as mistaken busywork at best and disengenuine at worst (I am opting for the former). I think I've made this point at least twice before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Your view of the necessity and appropriateness of a primary citation is in line with your viewpoint on sourcing--just as mine corresponds to my own. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Do you feel that we have over-explained our points of view well-enough to allow the mediator to weigh in? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Arcayne, Edokter, and Jclemens the only major parties in this debate?

Apparently, but I haven't seen Edokter here in a while. Arcayne and I certainly remain active. Several other participants appear to have participated before, but have ceased participating. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still monitoring, the article has been stable but I still maintain my positions and am willing to comment. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, welcome! I was slighly afraid by the time we got into mediation, enough people would have lost interest that a 3O would have sufficed! Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation by Arcayne

There remain only two issues, as the D'Anna disagreement was resolved with the inclusion of a recent citation from a reliable source. The first - the detailing of the robot model numbers as well as the connection between dialogue and the High Flight poem are both connections made via {{WP:SYN|synthesis]].

In the first instance, the robots are used in a montage sequence in the final pat of the episode. What their model number is of trivial consequence when compared to they represent. The model numbers are not intrinsic to an understanding of the episode. Were it such, we would have to name all of the four different models used in the episode. The reason that they were not was that the contributing editor who added them was aware of their model through their own personal knowledge. The connection of the visual information of the usage of the robots in the closing montage to the idea that the directors/creators felt it was imperative that these two models of the four shown were vital to an understanding of the subject. Such connections are part and parcel of synthesis. As they have not been identified by those people who are understandably far more cogent on the subject than we are, it is clear that the robot models are indeed unimportant.

In the instance of the dialogue resembling that of a poem, I would initially point out that the dialogue was not attributed to the poem in either the credits or production blogs; if they didn't see a connection, we cannot, either. If reliably-sourced folk didn't make that connection, we again cannot take that further step on their behalf.

An inherent component of synthesis is the arrogance that we know more than the folk we cite for references. True or not, such is the difference between an encyclopedia and a personality-driven blog. We are not citable; connections we make between seemingly common facts are often not so common, and it is not our responsibility to predigest the information for the reader. As we are not citable, our connections are not citable.

The argument has been put forth that if no RS sources can be found, then was primary and tertiary sources (blogs, fansites, etc.) can be used in a specific and limited capacity. I think we have to resoundingly reject that argument for three reasons. First of all, it has not escaped notice that long after the discussion over D'Anna's (lack of) presence in the finale began, a source was eventually found via a recently published, reliable source. Such was also the case for at least two other instances of uncited information.

The second reason we should avoid using shoddy resources is that just as we stress that edit-warring is a Bad Thing, and train the new users that if an edit is wrong/bad/evil incarnate, we point out that if it is truly those things, then someone else will catch it. Much of the same argument applies to facts without note: if there are important facts to note, we should rest assured that someone who we can cite will eventually point them out. We are an encyclopedia; we are not in a hurry. If certain facts are indeed important, they will come to light. More importantly, they will come to light from a source that we can use.

The last reason we should not allow the usage of shoddy resources is that if offers the false comfort to the observational user that what they are reading is solidly substantiated (an endnote number from a crappy source looks identical to that of one from a sterling source). Beyond the reader, the editor is likely to miss the bad source, and thus the opportunity to replace it with one more in keeping with our policies and guidelines. This hurts the encyclopedia, because it lends credence to the those detractors who believe Wikipedia to be naught but poorly-sourced info about politics, pokemon and porn. Leaving the information out and keeping it out without adequate sources forces the contributor to add something more than their personal swish to the article; it makes them contribute solid citation. That is what builds an encyclopedia on a solid foundation, and not one built out of bricks with "IOU better citation" duct-taped to it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation by Edokter

I maintain my viewpoint that stating the models is not OR, as identification does not constitute a theory and no original research is involved. And as JClemens points out; the infomation is easily verified, which negates OR all-together. Identifying a real-world object like a Ford Mustang is no more OR then identifying a robot. While less common the the car, the fact that is it less common only makes it more notable. Arcayne also states that the models must be sourced showing delibirate intention by the producers. However, there is no problem in including information that breaks the boundaries of this article, if such information improves the real-world context of the article, and binds it with the rest of the encyclopedia throught the use of wikilinks. — Edokter • Talk • 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added comments by Ronald D Moore in the production section, describing how he sourced the footage and describing the Actroid as "disturbing". While the model is not explicitely mentioned, it does provide us with the producers' intention for the show, and therefor establiches notability for inclusion. — Edokter • Talk • 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, wrong. It does not establish anything, as it is not explicitly noted. I went through the entire podcast, in the off-chance that it had been mentioned earlier. The podcast specifically refers to the difficulties in obtaining permissions for using the robot images. One of the robots is referred to as being freaky, and Moore's wife Terry/i is the one to whom the "Six in the making" comment is attributed. Unless a robot model is stated by a source, we cannot include it. However, since you have chosen to forego further discussion, I won't address the post any more. I remove the image, as matters related to it are still being discussed here in mediation. Please do not revert it back in, as it is disruptive to do so. Additionally, while the podcast was a good find, I've removed your synthesis of the Actroid into the statement, and more appropriately attributed it. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No matter how wrong you think it is... you are now acting against consensus, as eve Jeremy is now satisfied by the source. I reverted your removal. You are now acting against consensus, so tread carefully. — Edokter • Talk • 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I urge you to pay attnetion to the fact that this is being mediated. Have you heard from the mediator yet? No? Then stop trying to end-run the process, as you have been chastised at ANI for at least twice before that I know of. Until the mediator gives us their impression - and I'd point out that no one feels the robot models should be in the article - stop trying to game the system. You are treading dangerously close to an ANI complaint for disruption, incivility and gaming the system. I am going to advise you to get some feedback from fellow admins before you get yourself in trouble. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation by Jclemens

We're all agreed that independent RS are best. What I see happening to Wikipedia's detriment is a sentiment that RS are the only path to meet WP:V. In fact, they're not. Primary, questionable, and self-published sources all have a specific, if limited, role to play in expanding the encyclopedia when RS are unavailable. I believe this is one of those cases, where primary sources are adequate for the identification of the poem and the robots. Exclusing obvious (to those familiar with both) connections merely because Wikipedia editors are more perceptive and/or detail oriented than published reviewers does not help the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Issue that just occurred to me is that there's a too-narrow reading of WP:BURDEN going on. That is, not everything is required to have a source, and a bare assertion that something needs a source isn't a "challenge" within the scope of WP:BURDEN, which really only comes into play when someone asserts in good faith that an uncited fact is false. That is, saying "Show me where a reliable secondary source says it's a QRIO!" isn't a challenge per se, but saying "That's NOT a QRIO, that's a foozlebot" is a challenge requiring citation. This is the fundamental reason why "they sky on a cloudless day is blue" doesn't garner {{fact}} tags: because no one acting in good faith and in their right mind challenges such statements. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are misinterpreting the larger argument surrounding the use of robot model names/numbers. We aren't insisting that a source be provided that says what they are, but rather a citation that points to the importance of this rather useless bit of trivia. Indeed, what makes these two robot models important, and not the other two listed?. Why not list the cars in the scene as well? See, the point is that the model numbers are inconsequential to the telling of the stories. That they are there is more than enough to make the point. It's akin to arguing about where the toilet is on the Millennium Falcon, or what brand of toothpaste Doctor Who uses. It's the most of useless of information, providing undue weight to something that essentially detracts from the story. If they wanted us to know, they would have told us. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
They have told us, by explicitely showing us the robots. When dealing with fictional narratives, we cannot only deal with the plot; Real-world connections are signicifant in their own right, otherwise, the robots wouldn't even be in the episode. It is our job to point these out. Naming the models is extra, verifiable information that provides the reader the much needed context between the episode and the real world. This article is not only about 'telling the story. Leaving these contexts out results in 'plot-only' articles, which you will agree only hurt Wikipedia more then they help. — Edokter • Talk • 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
They have shown us the robots, they have not named them. As I noted above, they are important as components to the story, not as individuals to the story. When dealing with fictional narratives, we must deal only with the plot itself, and such commentary as meets our criteria for inclusion. Whatever real-world connections are made are those arising from those sources offering them. We do not get to make them, as we are not citable, reliable sources of content. The argument that "it is our job to point these out" is arrogant, preposterous and antithetical to the nature of our job as editors of Wikipedia. We are editors, not authors. Adding our own personal content is far, far, far more potentially damaging to Wikipedia than the exclusion of data for which there is no reliable source. I submit that if someone wished to change how we conduct our edits, the Village Pump is thattaway. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Arcayne, that argument is completely erroneous. WP:V applies to everything, which is all that I've been arguing: these items are verifiable via primary sources. I have not addressed WP:N of the specific bits of info, because notability only applies to articles, not to article content, per WP:NNC. Undue weight doesn't apply, since it only covers "this theory v. that theory" issues, not facts in isolation. In short, you're completely off the reservation in these arguments. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability does indeed apply to everything, JClemens. Maybe I didn't ask this before, but can you verify that a citable source has connected the High Flight poem? How about the robots? It's a rhetorical question, since all of us know the answer to those questions. As the sole argument countering mine is that I am interpreting our policy too stringently.
For the umpteenth time, I am not arguing that the robots are probably the ones seen in the episode. I am pointing out that Wikipedia is not an exposition of all possible details, nor is it a collection of primary (original) research. I feel like I've said this at least a half-dozen times before (and I cannot tell you how much fun that is), but you aren't citable, J. Edokter isn't citable, I am not citable. No editor here is citable. Our opinions, while likely dazzlingly brilliant in their intellectual underpinnings, are absolutely 100% useless when used to make connections in Wikipedia articles. Frankly, the utter arrogance to think that its okay to add our own personal observations should send a ripple of fear and loathing throughout the community, and every instance of this arrogance should be smited with a holy zeal. There is no room in Wikipedia for editor's opinions in articles. Period. Wikipedia does not allow for original thought, and that means ours.
Articles are not what we want to make them out to be. We shape them based on what independent sources tell us they are. They might not e the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they are all we get to cite. This is Wikipedia 101, and I am stunned that any longtime editor would even consider subverting it. And yeah, suggesting that its okay to subvert the policies 'just a little coz its obvious' is always to be considered a Bad Thing.
I will agree that notability doesn't really apply to content within articles, but Wikipedia is not an exposition of all possible details, nor is it a collection of primary (original) research. We have to ensure that we the article is both accurate and allows for appropriate weight to citable references. Giving our connections equal weight to cited references runs counter to Wikipedia's primary functioning concept, and offers undue weight to our own, personal opiniopns as to what synchronicity might or might not exist.
Make no mistake, insisting that our cognizance of a similarity between the High Flight poem and dialogue within the episode is just as good as a citable reference is synthesis, and arrogant synthesis at that. Similarly, so is insisting that the names of robots models are germane, when no one related to the production of the series or a reviewer has seen fit to add that tidbitty fluff of cruft.
I am sorry that you have perhaps misinterpreted my comments. I hope I have made them clear for you now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, V matters. Every single one of your other arguments misconstrue Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which do not apply to this issue in any of the specific ways that you represent that they do. I agree that Synthesis, original research, and undue weight are bad. What I don't agree is that you are using those terms in this debate in the same way the authors of the policies, the text of the policies, or the consensus of Wikipedia editors meant/mean them. Nothing in any disputed matter violates a reasonable and consensus-based interpretation of those policies or guidelines. Repeating yourself isn't helpful, because I've already told you that your interpretations are specious. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, I've already gone on at length about how per WP:PSTS, primary sources can be used in these contexts. They're plenty citable for the bare facts of the episode, poem, etc. You'll note that WP:CITET shows the use of a {{cite episode}} of Lost (TV series) and Stargate Atlantis. Surely those aren't secondary sources, are they? Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Those are primary sources, but when the primary sources do not provide the precise data we must rely on proper secondary sources that do. The problem we are dealing with here is that there are no reliable secondary sources that provide the data you wish to include. That is when we cross in to the realm of OR. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeremy - I am glad someone has been listening to what I have been saying. JClemens, I must say - with respect - that I feel that you are deeply misapprehending Wikipedia's willingness to use garbage citations in an encyclopedia. We do not use ourself as reference. EVER. We do not use primary citations if it can be avoided and clearly, they can be. I utterly disagree with your application of verifiability as a smoke-screen to allow synthesis - and make no mistake, that is precisely what you are doing here, though likely unintentionally. I mean, it would be bad faith to think you had tossed in the 'cite episode' template as justification for imposing synthesis. I won't presume that you were meaning it as an parallel example of something slightly connected, and simply assume you are using the wrong argument to defend your viewpoint. Clearly, cite template is used to cite something within the plot summary that might be missed. Cite template doesn't allow us to connect the dots, so lets put that argument off to the side.
Allow me to simplify matters, and move alway from the posturing, semantical stupidity and name-calling that is likely going to develop before too long. We cannot include the High Flight/dialogue link because it is synthesis. You are the one connecting it. Not a reliable, secondary source. Likewise, we cannot include the robot models because it requires us to use our ability and knowledge to name them, and in so doing proffer the idea that these model names are somehow intrinsic to the understanding of the subject matter of the article (the episode). Clearly - and when I emphasize "clearly", I again point out that not one reliable source seems to find this information to be of any value whatsoever - they are not. It is trivial, and since it is extrinsic to the article, it doesn't need to be in.
Now, we can go back and forth on this - tedious as it is - but maybe we can all simply shut the hell up and let the mediator evaluate what we have said so far. We are clearly of opposing viewpoints and because of this impasse, we sought a mediator. If this is going to turn into a Bangkok Rules argument, where we bitch-slap each other to make points, I say we bypass Mediation and head straight to ArbCom; I am not interested in semantical games when any possible defense of inclusion of this info represents a subversive challenge to our synthesis policy. It's just a tv episode, but people use these discussions as precedent for stuff further down the slope. Let's widen our focus a wee bit more, my friends.
Now, maybe we can let the mediator ask some questions or make some observations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Never, in this instance or any other, have I cited myself as a reference, and any characterization of my arguments as such is erroneous. Mere descriptions of things--like, oh, poem lyrics--are attributable to primary sources per WP:PRIMARY, which makes clear distinction between things "the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" and "interpretation". If you'd stuck to the argument that "A looks like B" is interpretation, you would not have gone as far afield in your arguments by limiting yourself to objecting to the argument I actually made.
As far as "semantical stupidity and name-calling", I'm afraid it's you that's been throwing around epithets like "garbage citations" and similar unnecessarily impolite characterizations. Physician, heal thyself. Seriously, feel free to go back and tone down the rhetoric--I don't mind, and I don't blame you for your vehemence in defense of a sincerely held position... but you could have chosen your words more carefully in a few instances.
I agree that precedent is important, and that's why your interpretation, which characterizes recognition of a particular literary reference as synthesis, cannot be allowed to stand without damaging the encyclopedia. Should it really become necessary to find citations for obvious connections like a poem quote, the encyclopedia building process will be impaired.
ArbCom won't touch this, since it's a content/policy dispute: neither one of is edit warring, misusing tools, socking, or any of the other sorts of nonsense that characterize truly poor behavior on Wikipedia. This is a content dispute, specifically dealing with the creeping expansion of the term "original research" and the gradual deprecation of the proper role of primary sources in writing about fiction. I wouldn't mind ArbCom weighing in--I wouldn't mind Jimbo weighing in--but I don't see it as their job to do so. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(to Jeremy) Do you acknowledge that "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." is, in fact, a part of the WP:NOR policy? If so, then isn't your statement an oversimplification that glosses over that caveat? Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
From the top: I wasn't saying that you were citing yourself. Another editor has done that, and we both know who he is. You are simply synthesizing two different pieces of information. Using PRIMARY sources is not a shield for SYNTHESIS. If I have wandered elsewhere from pointing out that your interpretation that the poem resembled dialogue being synthesis, it was only to address unrelated or ill-applied defenses. Sorry, if that distracted you. My point regarding the fact that it does constitute synthesis should be seen as crystal clear as your opinion that it is not - thus the mediation of this loggerheads.
Likewise, if you took personal offense at my characterization of poor citations, please accept my apologies; they most certainly were not directed at you. I was addressing the weakness of your arguments, and not any weakness in who you are. As I said, we can disagree - in this case, obdurately so - but I still respect you and your opinion. :)
As for the agreement regarding precedent, I have to agree that no, we don't always need citations for everything. We do need secondary citations where we connect two things, which is an evaluative - and therefore interpretive - step. This caveat allows us to free the encyclopedia of our egos, our need to add our own impression into an article. Our encyclopedia allows for interpretation, but only by reliable, secondary sources. Using the example of PSTS, the primary source is someone who saw one view of an accident, where the secondary source is more authoritative one, like a cop at the scene, collating and assembling the primary sources into a more encompassing, professional view. One primary view only represents one view of a situation, which may differ wildly from someone (or everyone) else. This is why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources almost exclusively - this provides the better view of the subject than one view. It doesn't hurt the encyclopedia to seek to preserve this objective neutrality; it enhances it.
ArbCom has weighed in on policy stuff before, and it would be delightful to have them address this issue. In contrast to you, I see it as the creeping expansion of ego into article content, skewing away from objective neutrality and predigesting the info for the reader. I also am seeing the increased usage of PRIMARY being used to defend the most half-assed (and in many cases, quarter-assed) claims - your claim is not such, JClemens; it's just favoring one policy over another. I think its wrong,not half-assed (the robot thing is another story altogether).
Lastly, your comment to Jeremy is flawed. You can add descriptive claims, so long as they aren't interpretive. You can say, 'the dialogue rhymes'. You cannot say it is similar to another poem, as that requires an interpretive, or evaluative step.Likewise, you can say that the robots shown at the end are humanoid in shape, you cannot evaluate them to be specific models, which is an evaluation that a reasonable person would not make, or be inclined to seek out. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation by Jeremy

I personally believe that all included information should meet the standards WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:PSTS and WP:V for inclusion in the article. I was the first person to bring up this point several weeks ago and was against the inclusion of information that was basically WP:Synth. As to the individual points, here is what I believe

  • Lucy Lawless - The inclusion of the fact that she was not in the show is trivial and should not be in the article. We do not mention the other characters that were not in the show for one reason or another and the inclusion of this particular factoid is unwarranted. Furthermore, the source used is a blog, a reviewers blog, but a blog all the same - which makes it unreliable.
  • High Flight - to include this information violates the rules of original research. To understand this fact, readers would have look the two instances of the poems and compare the two to come to that conclusion, which I have stated in a previous discussions is not allowed. The citation included in this example points the readers to a location where they can do their own research to confirm this, which is not allowed.
  • Robots - in no source that meets the standards of inclusion is it stated what models of robots these examples are. Contributors went out, retrieved data and made a conclusion that they were x and y models. This is a prime example of original research, and should not be allowed. A reliable source has been found that properly puts the robots in context.

While the points brought up may be obvious, to reach these conclusions requires original research. This is simply fact, as contributors we don't draw conclusions - we rely on other reliable sources to do this for us.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: the Lucy Lawless issue, allow me to quote from WP:BLOGS "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." If we are agreed that TV Guide is, within that context, a newspaper, then the source is clearly reliable, hence allowable. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoa. We are using the comment by the writer, and not the individual respondents, right? If its the former, we can use that. If the latter, there is no way in hell we can. They aren't notable. That would be like citing people responding to news that Bruce Wayne died, or allowing slafhfic because it was hosted by a reliable fansite. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right, we're quoting the TV Guide episode recap by Erin Fox, not any responses to it. I don't find anything that says that Ms. Fox is a paid employee, but she certainly appears to be endorsed by the website as a featured content writer and thus under their editorial control. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no "conclusion" involved in naming the robot models, hence there is not original research. Neither is there any "research" involved into gathering the information; no more then seeking out any other source for information. That argument could be applied to every source being used on Wikipedia, so the argument is self-refuting. Most of it is aquired via common sense. The fact remains that the information is 100% verifiable, therefor 100% allowable. — Edokter • Talk • 11:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, wrong. The conclusion being drawn is that these robots are indeed important beyond their simple appearance as anthropomorphic cautionary tales. It is taking one fact - the robots appearing in image only in the episode - and adding it to your own knowledge of the robots' models names, and connecting them in the misapprehension that for some kooky reason, they are vital to a understanding of the episode. You feel they are important (while no one who would speak with the authority to say yea or nay on the subject has done so), so the position being advanced is that they are worthy of note. Clearly, they aren't.
The litmus for inclusion is verifiability. The litmus for verifiability is reliable sourcing without synthesis. Yes, both parts of this information is 100% verifiable. The connection you are making - they they are worthy of note - is the synthesis. When a reliable source says it, we can include it. Not a moment before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"The litmus for verifiability is reliable sourcing without synthesis." is an oversimplification unsupported by the WP:SOURCES portion of WP:V or the WP:PSTS version of WP:NOR. The assertion that that the models must be described by a secondary source as important in order to merit inclusion is without precedent and unsupported by policy or guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Again, wrong. It is not an "oversimplification" but instead a narrowly, cleanly-construed definition - an assessment you have made before. I am not sure what specifically about SOURCES that you feel contradicts my statements, or PSTS, which I and others have already pointed out that you are grossly misinterpreting. The models are not important. They are trivia. They are cruft. If anyone notable felt otherwise, they would have explicitly said so. They have not. So far, it is simply an ediotr or two that feel that the article will collapse without the model names being in there. If it is as terribly important as all that,they should be able to easily find a reliable source. If they cannot, then it isn't important. Anything counter to that is synthesis, and elevating our own impressions of what we are seeing to that of notable, citable references. One would think an admin would understand that.
Now, I've mentioned at least twice before that we are in mediation and, as you are not introducing brand, spanking new arguments, but instead rehashing precisely the same viewpoints you have before, perhaps you can take a deep breath and withhold the desperate impulse to have the last word, allowing the mediator to weigh in. If you feel you are introducing new information, go ahead. If not, let's all shut the hell up and let the mediator speak. We both know you aren't converting me, and I am equally convinced that you aren't listening to reason or seeing the bigger picture. So, let's back ff, have a cup of tea and wait, shall we? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Arcayne, you are making up the rules as you go, ammending them along the process and twisting each and every policy to try and wrap them around your position. Yes, I feel they are important, and that is not synthesis, nor is their 'notewothyness'. I am sorry Arcayne, but I am no nonger having this discussion. Identification does not equal original research, period. I have provided a very reliable source establishing their notability and context to the real world, so as far as I am concerned, the whole robot discussion is over. — Edokter • Talk • 19:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, Edokter, but could you make more of an effort to simply address comments, and keep the telepathy-inspired evaluations of my posts to yourself? I frankly do not care if you wish to have the conversation or not; it is being had, whether you participate or not.
You have not provided anything approaching a source citing their inclusion. You have connected two pieces of information. You have additionally thrown a two-hour blog by Moore regarding the last episode, who not once mentions the robot models as being important. That pretty much nails the coffin shut, tosses it into the fire with dynamite. Its this simple: find a reliable source that speaks to the importance of the robot models - or even mentions their usage - and you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, your argument is circular, and any inclusion is your synthesis in feeling they are important - when no one else (no one citable, anyway) does. So, I guess we are lucky that you don't really determine when a discussion is over, since you are wrong. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
THE MODELS DO NOT NEED CITING!!! PERIOD!!!
Now, Give me one good reason NOT to include the models, and make it a good one this time; your 'syntesis' theorum just doesn't hold up; there is no synthesis; there is no original research. It is just common sense. Anyone looking at the models in the episode and the Expo image will agree that it is a no-brainer. WP:OR does not mean we cannot think; it is there to prevent unverifiable information. THIS information is VERY verifiable. And if you think it shouldn't be here, you need to come up with something that holds up. You are the only one opposing inclusion. WHY should I or anyone else still listen to you? — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I am going to urge you - once again - to calm down, Edokter. You may want to dispense with synthesis, but it is our policy. Period. You are picking robot models from your own personal collection of knowledge and applying to what you have seen. You are taking two facts: one about the appearance of robots in the episode and anotehr fact about some robot names and synthesizing them into the article, positing the idea that their model names are somehow important. Now, you can throw another temper tantrum, or you can calm the fuck down and discuss matters. This is a mediation, and not Edokter's article. I am not going to remind you again; the next time you flip out like that, you'll be reported. You are an administrator - please try to act like it.
I have given you a good reason for not including them. In fact, I have given you several, many, many times; please reread the length of the page and take your pick. The model names aren't important to plot or production. They are not vital to an understanding of the subject matter. You are attempting to wedge your personal view that it is important to the subject, when NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER SOURCE has said so. That makes your opinion a majority of one. Your argument mantra that it is verifiable is moot. Connecting them is synthesis. Period. Now, you can continue to argue one pov, and I can argue that it is wrong, without result (except you getting blocked if you lose your cool again). This is the point of mediation. You explain your point of view, I explain mine, Jeremy and JClemens and others explain theirs. Then we collectively shut the hell up and let the mediator speak. Maybe you should tkae that advice to heart. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd also point out that your reverts (now at three) are re-adding in incorrect information. The citation does not match the statements. Please refrain from adding incorrect information to Wikipedia, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
(←)Arcayne, no ammount of squirming your way around our policies is going to make you win the argument. You have countered each argument from each editor with endless rebuttals that simply don't stick. You are beating a dead horse, plain and simple. Just stop it. I have asked ohter admins to evaluate the issue and take action. — Edokter • Talk • 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. Leave the drama for your mama, coz I am pretty much done with interacting with you. You cannot be rude and expect to have people want to talk to you. The admins coming here are a great thing. I welcome the extra eyes. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

We are getting a less than civil here guys, please calm down step back, and take a deep breath. Throwing names at each other does nothing to resolve the the dispute. We do not another instance in which some one gets blocked or banned. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion

(Mostly) outside view from User:EEMIV
Hiya. I removed the bit about D'ana a while ago, and didn't add the article to my watchlist. Returning here after seeing the ANI blow-up. Anyhow, for what it's worth, I agree that mentioning D'ana's absence is trivial. I'm pretty sure she isn't mentioned, and her absence doesn't seem to play any role in developing the plot. Bringing her into the article is adding weight to a character who has no weight in the episode. I'd happily change my mind about this is coverage of this character expands from "She isn't here because she was left behind" to e.g. Moore or Eick discussing the ways the story might have developed differently if she were present. Pretty sure that isn't in the podcast. As a point of comparison, I don't see any other BSG episode articles that explain e.g. why Baltar -- who is even listed in the opening credits -- doesn't show up in a few. Furthermore, as articulated now in the article, this is entirely in-universe plot summary for this and another episode; it has nothing to do with "Production". Perhaps an appropriate compromise would be to mention that her line of Cylons is boxed, and the last activated one stayed behind in that previous episode, in outlining in the plot "summary" (which isn't) which Cylons take which sides in the battle.
I agree the comparison to High Flight implies a connection/meaning that requires a citation; otherwise, it's synthesis. Perhaps the writer didn't know the source material, and instead was inspired by Ronald Reagan's similar allusion to the poem when he gave the Challenger eulogy. Furthermore, this is a fleeting line with no weight or bearing on understanding the episode (the article aptly describes it as "prattle"), and slips into the realm of trivia.
Apathetic as to the robot models. Would a close look at the episode's closing credits indicate whence the source video, which may make it easier to more concretely identify models? If not specific models, certainly manufacturers.
My two cubits. --EEMIV (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain, in detail, what viewpoint is being unfairly slighted by the mention of D'ana? Really, you (and most other people who use WP:UNDUE in context of single bits of information) should go back and read WP:UNDUE. It has nothing to do with this situation (including, vs. not including, an isolated bit of information). It solely has application to multiple viewpoints of a single event or issue which each have RS support. That's not this, at all. The governing content policy is really WP:NNC, which basically says the editors can find whatever consensus is appropriate for the article to include content that's not notable on its own. Note that there currently is a citation for her non-appearance, which Arcayne has acknowledged meets WP:V. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; I removed the link. I think the idea stands, however, that this passing blurb of trivia about her absence suggests there is some reason to care about her not being there -- and I don't see a cited source to back up that belief. Again, I suggest migrating it to the plot summary alongside discussion of other Cylon participants, in part because this is trivia, there's no compelling third-party quote to indicate her absence is significant, and the line itself actually says nothing about "production".
Anyhow, I'm removing this talk page from my watchlist. The uncivil tone and flared tempers are ugly. I've offered an uninvolved perspective (but one that is at least familiar with BSG) that the mediator may or may not find useful. If he has any need for follow-up or clarification, he can post to my talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
First things first: EEMIV - no, there was no easy out presented by a mentioning in the citations of the robot models. Had there been, a lot of the kerfuffle might have been avoided.
And it should be noted that I didn't agree with the inclusion of D'Anna's absence; I felt it trivial and without citation. When a citation noted it in passing, I felt it was a matter of 'picking my fights'; the more pressing issues were the ones regarding synthesis, and not the solely trivial bits. I do admit, though, I am somewhat ambivalent over it; I feel its largely cruft, but not necessarily any worse than some Doctor Who episodic trivia (called 'production information' there). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry I've been away for awhile. Unfortunately, Real Life has been getting in the way of my usual wiki time. I should be able to mediate this case fairly consistently now, though, so I thank everyone for their patience. Firstly, I would like to thank Arcayne, Edokter, Jclemens, and Jeremy for sharing their views. Secondly, I would like to remind everyone to remain civil. Reading through the discussion, several of the editors have made comments that are at the very least borderline uncivil, and, at times, downright inflammatory. I will not name names, but I wish for everyone to stay calm.
Here are my general feelings about what course of action we should pursue.
I would generally be inclined to agree with Edokter on the issue of the robot models. As long as the models have been reliably sourced from other episodes, and are the same in this episode, I don't see how that is OR. As Edokter said "Identifying a real-world object like a "Ford Mustang" is no more OR then identifying a robot. While less common the the car, the fact that is it less common only makes it more notable." Essentially, it is in fact more important that we name the type of robot here than it would be to name the type of car, simply because many fewer people know what these types of robots are. So, naming the robot models is almost certainly not OR, so it can be added.
What I am doubtful of, however, is the reference to the poem. I feel that, since it was never mentioned anywhere--neither in this episode, another episode, nor in any source I've been able to find--that the inclusion of the poem would have to constitute OR. As Jeremy mentioned "To understand [that the poem is in the episode], readers would have look the two instances of the poems and compare the two to come to that conclusion..." Anything that cannot be directly found in an RS should not be there. This differs from naming robot models in that the models are named in sources, just not ones that apply to this episode directly, whereas the similarity of the poem is never mentioned. Finally, the similarity to the poem may simply be coincidence. I believe that it is quite possible that the writers had simply never seen the poem before, yet inadvertently almost recreated it. Therefore, I believe that the inclusion of the High Flight reference is inappropriate.
As an aside (since the issue isn't really being debated), I believe that D'Anna's absence should not be included in the article.
Respectfully,
ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Erik, I would point out that you might be laboring under a false assumption: the robot models have never been named before, were not named or credited in this or any other episode, and have not been named in anything approaching a wiki-reliable source. This specifically renders such a connection synthesis/ As they have not even been credited by those directly related to the episode or reviewing the episode, I am not sure how they represent well-cited or important material. Could you explain further? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I was going to point out the same thing; the models were not sourced to another episode. Nevertheless, identification of the models requires no research and are self-evident, meaning that no source for the models is necessary. And although not involved in the poem dispute, I must point out that the writers having come up with nearly the same text basically ammount to the One Million Monkeys Typing theory; the text is simply too sismilair. — Edokter • Talk • 21:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
And I think these two opposing views represent the different approaches to this information. On one hand, Edokter is saying 'this stuff is obvious', and I am saying that it is not obvious to the casual reader, that w/out a source noting these, Edokter has to synthetically connect them. I am also saying that this information isn't important, and its addition is further SYN in that if suggests the new (and minority) argument that this information is of intrinsic value to an understanding of the episode. It would appear reasonable to me that it is not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and in my view misguided. We need to establish the validity of your claim toward synthesis; it is the core of this dispute. Wether this information is intrinsic is not relevant; all information that complies with policy is is allowable. the only reason to exclude such isformation is when it is detrimental to the article. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, rather the whole point of the mediation, so there's no sense rehashing the same arguments. I was simply outlining the differences, not advocacy. as you've responded below, let's just get us a new mediator, and go from there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I won't if you won't. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent. Neither one of us will add any info that encroaches upon these topics in discussion until we can get a mediator who ca follow the matter through to conclusion. Thanks for working with me, Edokter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

back round to the Kodiak

Kevin Quattro was a Digital effects artist on both C&C Tiberian Sun, Firefly, Serenity, and Battlestar, this may have bearing here as well Tricia Helfer, and Grace Park both stared in C&C 3 TW as Gen. Kilian Qatar and Lt. Sandra Telfair respectively this may be a bit of tradeing favors. Granted this is not illrefutable evidence but the case is building, and here is an image comparison to prove the truth of what I clamed; that the Kodiak appeared in the episode.

From Episode - From the GDI opening of tiberian sun 1999 with upturned necells for take off To prove the validly of the two images I ask that you watch both the episode around the 11-12 minute mark and then go to [5] click 1999 and "watch my judgement is sound kane" and given that to make this concusion is one of common sense I would like to post the following wiki rules that would allow me to add this to the artical

-If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. [6]

and this rule

-Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule.

Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something disruptive is not forbidden in a written rule doesn't mean it's a good idea (e.g., don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The principle of the rules is more important than the letter.

Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all.

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it is quite acceptable to justify your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what this is all about, but I've edited out your pictures into links, instead. That sort of thing isn't usually done, as large images tend to take up a lot of space in the article discussion page.
Secondly, IAR isn't a badge to go out an synthesize information. Where someone reliable can cite it, we can include it. You are not citable. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Arcayne. Please review the arguments made earlier on this page, you are reiterating Jim Shaheen's points which were thoroughly discredited. This is still original research, and is not allowable. --Jeremy (blah blah) 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sirs I want you to ask your selves a simple question why do you think it is that these rules exist in the first place--Collinsas (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
here I think I found statements in the No OR section that might help me:
Citing oneself
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.
According to this I can post the Kodiak in the article using the 2 images as my source --Collinsas (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The rules against original research exist to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a fansite web forum, wherein all sorts of garbage info can get added under the guise of "fact". We use citable references because we editors are not specialists in our field - and you are going to have to prove beyond a shadow's fart that you are a specialist in the field of science fiction imagery and space-ships. If you have been published on this subject - and this means that the source not some fan-forum crap that fails to meet our criteria for inclusion - then fill out an OTRS ticket and proceed from there. Until then, you cannot cite yourself. The policy you cited is for folk to comment on their own article, like Bruce Willis or Mick Jagger or Stephen King, or for them to comment on their products.
Additionally, it allows for folk who happen to be, say, rocket scientists to add their experience to articles; they have to cite themselves, and because they are experts, they have better access to info to support their statements. They do not get to add info willy-nilly and defend it by claiming 'because I am a rocket scientist'.
Hope that clears matters up for you. I am glad that you are reading our policies, but you need to understand how they fit together in a larger system. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you may be missing the point of the rules sir; they exist so I just don’t go out and post a-bunch of lies and false-hoods, now rules aside, at no point sir did I say that I was an expert in SciFi ships (to which personally I read what you stated above about someone being rude to you, and I think you tried to insult my intelligence just now) but I can express a good degree of expertise in the Command and Conquer series and should you believe that if I am not a suitable (given my 12-13 years worth of knowledge on the series as a whole) authority on the subject; I have a I line of several people who are acknowledged (even by the company that produces the game series) experts on the subject.

Post note: If I came off as rude I do apologize sirs. --Collinsas (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide sources that meet the five standards for inclusion, go right ahead and get them. However, if they are just a bunch of guys that are doing the exact same thing you are, it will still be original research and synthesis that will still not be allowed regardless of their credentials. Basically, even if you got the lead designer from the C&C franchise to state that the pictures do look alike, it would still be his opinion and not be allowable as a reliable source as he synthesized the opinion. These guys may be very knowledgeable on the subject, but their opinions are still just opinions. They cannot reasonably make a comment about what was in the minds of the special effects team who created the effects with out drawing a conclusion.
What you are probably going to have to do is locate a source that is related to BSG who states something to the tune of "Well, yes that is the Kodiak from C&C. Good job on catching that!" --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, you really need to go read WP:SPS, as what you've just said is unallowable (an expert opinion from a game designer) is specifically allowed. You've been very confidently wrong on multiple occasions in our interactions here. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Long past due reply: You really need to re-read what I wrote- I said BSG as in Battlestar Galactica, not the publisher of C&C. What I said (expanded) is that Collinsas needs to find is a source from the Battlestar Galactica production team that makes a statement to the tune of "Well, yes that is the Kodiak from C&C. Good job on catching that!" like Ronald D. Moore stated about the Serenity from Firefly showing up in the original BSG miniseries.
That is an acceptable usage of a primary source and is not a self published source. That refers to people citing their own published work, not some one citing a production blog like the one by the show's composer. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that this particular discussion would be greatly simplified if someone were to make a concrete proposal here - in other words, write out a phrase or sentence to add to the article (including source, if available). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That had already existed in several forms back after this artical had first be written the last one I remember was:Around the 11-minute mark of the first act in the second part of the episode; the GDS Kodiak from the 1999 video game Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun appears in the Colonial fleet during an establishing shot.-[citation needed]but here in I would use the two images as my citation, provided I can’t find more solid evidence or if it would be more applicable I would send a wave to the experts I talked spoke of above in my last post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought experiment

  • Imagine the following hypothetical situation...
  1. We're discussing the article Murder of John Smith
  2. It has been suggested that the murderer was Mr.X
  3. A "mug shot" or Mr.X is available, as is a security camera image from the murder scene showing the face of the murderer.
  4. Many editors, and a great many online forum posters, bloggers, and so on, agree that the two photos must be of the same person.
  5. No one claims that either picture has been doctored in any way.
  6. No police officer, detective, or other official has commented on the case.
  • Do you think it would be acceptable for the Wikipedia article to post both pictures and say "Mr.X murdered John Smith"? If not, why not, and what would it be acceptable to say? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I figure given past experiences with me, y’all can already guess my answer.--Collinsas (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to run a thought experiment, it'd probably be better to run one that's closer to the real events, and doesn't run afoul of other Wikipedia policies like BLP and basic ethical constructs like "first, do no harm". Absent those things, if we're dealing with a product or cultural reference identified in a television episode posting the two pictures side by side and saying something to the effect of "this appears to be that" should have a relatively low threshold of proof. Per WP:PRIMARY, if the pictures are both primary sources, comparisons are OK, but conclusions are not. In my mind "This looks like that" is a comparison, while "This is that" is a conclusion. Funny enough, I think the ship, robots, and poem issues all can be justified appropriately using the same rationale: linking to or reproducing small parts of multiple primary sources and letting the (non-specialist) reader decide seems both appropriate and policy-backed. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And I think that the comparison is an evaluative effort, and thusly interpretive - something we aren't allowed to do. Foregoing the BLP considerations, etc. JClemens rightly noted above, consider the film, Children of Men. At the end of the film, during the credits, we can hear children laughing and playing. No one disputes that the sound exists, and yet, its uncited. We cannot include it, as much as we want to (trust me: there were pages and pages of discussion about this), because no one has cited the occurrence. Here, we have the observation of a ship. We have the image of that ship. We also have an image from another place of a ship. We cannot connect the two because it requires us to evaluate the similarities and differences between the two. We can say 'they are two ships'. We cannot offer the evaluation 'these ships are similar', as it elevates our qualifying observations (creating an argument of connection, similarity, etc - aka. synthesis) to those of the types of secondary sources that Wikipedia uses almost to the exclusion of anything else.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That is called guilty by association. With out evidence to the contrary, we cannot pass judgment. Innocent until proven guilty, otherwise that is called vigilante justice which is hardly justice at all. Same for the images of the Kodiak and the ship in the episode; no inclusion unless it can be proven via proper procedures. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Id like to state well I have heard second hand reports that this Kevin Quattro person admitted that he did place the Easter egg in there thou I have yet to find it, that aside I believe the chances are slim to nil that the production staff will comment on this, Now if I can be so bold as to offer a possible compromise; could we not just add the qualifier; What appears to be and have a side by side to let the reader decide the truth of the matter sirs. --Collinsas (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that WP:BLP applies to murder, assuming that any parties are still alive. The big difference between this and a murder case, though, is that a murder case is very important whereas this particular detail is utterly trivial. If no reliable source has seen fit to write about something, we should seriously consider whether it is important enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. The triviality of this one piece of information, in the grand scheme of things, is one of the reasons I am so surprised that so much importance has been attached to it, even to the point of edit warring, blocking, and WP:ANI discussion.
I have some reservations about including the photos in the article and asking the reader to make up their own mind. To me that seems like a tactic often used by the lowest class of tabloid journalist: they have no proof of something, so they employ innuendo and suggestion - and yes, this also happens in murder cases. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Another thing to keep in mind, Colinsas, is that, as an encyclopedia, we aren't in a hurry (and shouldn't be, as we aren't breaking any stories, but reporting when someone else does). If something seems obvious to you, someone is going to eventually write about it, and that someone is going to be citable enough for inclusion. Just be patient, and don't be in a hurry. If it is as obvious as you say, someone is going to notice it to, and point it out. Then you'll have the sort of RS citation that we need. Good enough? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In my looking search for some way to get a foothold I found in many articles where the editors have written something to the effect of some people have said such and such with and in the cases were a citation had yet to have been written it would say -[who?] and thus using the precedents I found I can safely cite my "experts".--Collinsas (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to rethink that. The {{who}} tag is a reminder for the contributor to properly cite the passage. Failure to do so can result in the information being removed, as stated in its documentation: Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable. It is not a permission tag to add information willy-nilly. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request (typo)

{{editrequest}} Typo fix: "podcas" to podcast in the production notes section. Verbal chat 12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Clearly non-controversial. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 12:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible "High Flight" source?

Was just going through Google for the N+1th time, and found this It's a blog, hosted by a real newspaper--albeit an alternative media outlet--in which hehas been widely featured. This one links High Flight directly to Reagan. Thoughts on whether this meets the criteria for a newspaper-sponsored blog or not? Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New mediator needed?

Based on User:ErikTheBikeMan's statement above "Anything that cannot be directly found in an RS should not be there." I think we need to get a new mediator--one who is actually familiar with WP:PSTS and WP:SPS. The "RS are good" answer is simplistic and applicable for 90+% of the content disputes on Wikipedia... but not this one. We need a mediator who can at least understand my position before any such mediator can give an informed opinion. Absolutely no offense intended, Erik, but both Arcayne and I have 5x or more edits than you do--if this were a simpler case, a simpler answer would suffice. I simply don't have the confidence that you have the nuanced policy and guideline knowledge necessary to mediate this dispute. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no offense intended, but if Real Life is intruding, you needed to let us know, so we could seek out another mediator. It's a pretty big responsibility, and sucks up almost as much time as being an admin (which is what Edokter, who has a lot of edits as well). I second the call for a different mdiator. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree here. Erik, Thansk for the effort, but we need someone with a deeper understanding of the involved policies. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Not every single detail about an event or an 'occurrence' must be included in the article, even if sourced, since answers to more notable questions aren't always included, simply because it can't.
These two robots, have they appeared in any other television show besides this one, after it appeared in this one?
Do they have significance in the whole AI, super-robots universe?
Did they have prominent roles in the episodes, as in, out of the cast of 20 people, in a 1 hour show, did they received at least 10 minutes of air time?
If the answers to these questions are NO, then insertion of the robot's "model name" is information, but does merit inclusion. If there is more information like this, already in the article, dispute it!
Poem: Was the poem used in the same manner as Regan? as in an accident happened in the episode, like the one in real life? if it was in the same manner, a sentence, not a paragraph would be nice. Cryptonio (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully - and do not misunderstand me, I think you should contribute - I think we should get a new mediator and avoid restarting/continuing this discussion outside of it. The parties remain somewhat intransigent - not always a good thing, but there it is.When that mediation starts, please feel free to add your name to it and weigh in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: the poem--actually, the one possibly notable newspaper blogger does compare it to Reagan, which is pretty appropriate, since Anders quotes the same parts of the poem Reagan used. Anders says the line in part 1, and his doom is to fly the ships into the sun in part 2, so from my own limited literary analysis skills, I'd call that foreshadowing. Having said that, I don't think that sort of analysis can be put into the article without an RS. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If that is the consensus, I will gladly step down. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Daybreak In-Episode Reference: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

This Episodes ending resembles Douglas Adam's The Restaurant at the End of the Universe wherein a Captain in a bathube takes the outcasts of Golgafrinchan society to a new world. In the story, Zaphod and Ford also decide to steal a ship from the restarant, which turns out to be a stunt ship pre-programmed to plunge into a star as a special effect in a stage show. Later, Ford and Arthur end up on a spacecraft full of the outcasts of the Golgafrinchan civilisation. The ship crashes on prehistoric Earth; Ford and Arthur are stranded, and it becomes clear that the inept Golgafrinchans are the ancestors of modern humans, having displaced the Earth's indigenous hominids.

This is all in such an remarkable significant resemblance to the shows finale, so it should belong into the article. After all, this is more obvious and easier to proof as the Kodiak, too. And a direct quote of Douglas Adams should always be mentioned.

On a personal note; I guess they wanted to make fun about the religious right and took the choice of Adams Hitchikers to make it obvious. Too bad, no one seemed to have recognized this. Nobody seems to read the Hitchickers these days no more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibirian (talk • contribs) 13:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the comparison, but think its a stretch, Shibirian. We cannot compare one thing to another without citable references. What direct quote of Adams' are you referring to? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I was taking the plot as a citable reference. After all, an inserted part of a plot from another author's plot into ones own plot is a quote, too. Or plain thievery, mayhaps. A nice and classic example for such a quote (or inspiration, if one would want to call it like that) would be huge parts of Star Wars a New Hope, which features extensive plot parts from Akira Kurosawas The Hidden Fortress. Lucas himself never oficially stated that he got the inspiration from Kurosawas original. The similarities are still pointed out in the SW-NH article. Nevertheless, comparing both plots for quotes or inspirations taken (or simply said: similarities) is really not objectable by Wiki standards because the plot itself is the citable reference. And the plots for BSG's Daybreak and the The Restaurant at the End of the Universe are already verified and referenced in Wikipedia. Or would you say, they are not? At least the pointing out of the similarities in both plotlines should be added to the article since they are obvious and verifiable, and cannot be denied. As mentioned before, comparing two plots is something different than comparing two animations, as it is a matter as with the Kodiak, of course.- Shibirian
See, this is the insidious problem of synthesis: we take two different things - or even peripherally-related things - and connect them up because we see the connections. This is how almost every other aspect of the Real World operates; we reward people with the ability to do this, as well as the ability to make this connections quickly, correctly and to anticipate where other connections will be made.
In Wikipedia, these connections are important, so long as they come from a source that is not an editor/contributor. The sources we recognize as valid are those who are known to be verifiably and reliably recognized. As editors, we are neither, so it doesn't matter what connections we make - we cannot use them in articles. In short, we as editors are not suitable sources of information in articles. When we make connections - even obvious ones - we are guilty of using these two pieces of information to create a third piece of information (that they are related), or even worse, that this connection is indeed important.
There are some who consider that interpreting this too narrowly stifles the free flow of information. I do not, and I suspect that just about everyone else in Wikipedia doesn't believe this, either. By uniformly applying what we can and cannot add to articles, we remove much of the guesswork (and a ton of the editorial ego rife within Wikipedia) from editing. If we refuse to allow our own perceptions to crowd into the article, then the only hurdles to overcome is the occasional set of references that contradict one another. If only that were true already.
We cannot connect anything from BSG with HHthG without a reliable, verifiable, secondary (meaning not your own observation) citation. Finding one means that someone who should know is also aware of this connection. In the absence of it, you may congratulate yourself on your deductiona nd knowledge, but you cannot use it in the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is, I cannot use a verified source from a wikipedia article to use in another wikipedia article, right? Or did you mean, I can not point out similarities in the plot of two stories, until somebody on the internet did it? Or in a book? Besides, what else than the text in a book (story taking place) do you mean with reliable or verfiable? Only want this clarified, thanks.
Oh, by the way, the source is not me, the contributor, but the link I added to Douglas Adam's The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Since when is that source my contribution...? Doesn't that source count as secondary, too...? Only confused, here. - Shibirian
What we mean by primary, secondary and tertiary sources is explained here. Essentially the problem is that the link you want to add, i.e. the connection between BSG and HHG, hasn't been published by a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For an informal view of this problem, see WP:ACCEPTIT. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Which is to say very informal, as it is Shefflield's essay. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel wrote:"...hasn't been published by a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Well, how good to know what wikipedia excactly is for you. :) Since the linked source I wanted to use for proof is a wikipedia-article... --Shibirian (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Shibiran, Sheffield Steel is right. finding a source means a source which says the conclusion which you are drawing. you can't draw your own conclusions based on primary evidence here at Wikipedia.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any connection between the two. I read the book, and watched the episode, and they don't see related at all. The original Battlestar Galactica had mentioned in its opening, that there were some who believed life of the ancient civilizations, and mentioned several, began way out there. That Earth was a colony of these alien beings. That's what they ended up using. And I believe the series started before the book was published, so couldn't have been influenced by it. Also, its creator said Battlestar Galactica was partially based on Mormon religion, a world called Cobol or something like that, existing that humans came from. Dream Focus 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


What you are proposing constitutes synthesis and original research, which is not allowed. While there maybe similarities, unless there is a reliable source that actually puts the two together you cannot add it. --Jeremy (blah blah) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of all this debate, it would be completely ridiculous to include references to similar plots in every single work that share similar plots. Does every Battlestar Galactica article also need to mention that it borrows concepts from Blade Runner? Or Star Trek? Or any of the other countless sci-fi and non sci-fi works that comparisons could be drawn between? Just because a ship crashes on a planet and its inhabitants decide to abandon technology doesn't mean it is a Hitchhiker's Guide reference. I noticed the similiarity between the plots too (and I don't doubt that RDM noticed) but it is completely unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.240.149 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pigeon

The article reads, "Lee finds the pigeon again, but doesn't bother chasing it." When did he see it the first time? Sethie (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

During the first part. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Text of summary.

I really do not see why the text of the original of the two different most recent "contested" versions is better. The structure is odd and the details which had been included are not any more relevant, less so in fact, than what I added. The information about the "watchtower" song is part of the long running story arc and should be included. This is, after all, a series finale, and the most notable of the details which the producers decided to include should be pointed out in this summary. I would describe the original version as more of a "blow by blow" than my resultant edits. Anyway, I can see from the talk page that there is endless debate about the issues. If you want to make it your hill to die on to defend bad writing, so be it. If anyone else recognizes good writing, they will defend what I have added. Have fun, folks. Njsustain (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are a little bit unaware of how the editing process works here. Covered under the acronym of BRD, when your Bold edit is Reverted, you are supposed to come to the discussion page and Discuss the matter. This doesn't mean edit-warring over the section, which is ineffective (I was going to initially say stupid) when it comes to sustaining a postion. You are at your third revert for the day, so I would urge you to take more time to discuss why you feel your edit is better. I am reverting the article back to its pre-addition version until discussion is complete. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The original writing which you have insisted on restoring (I haven't counted how many times you reverted) is as bad as your reply is non-substantive (I was going to say stupid) and pointless. The discussion is complete. You have won. Congratulations! Njsustain (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. I am sorry you feel that my request for discussion instead of revert-warring was "stupid and pointless". I imagine that you are likely going to find most discussions in Wikipedia to be the same; in practically every instance, discussion is preferable to revert-warring. But hey, if you aren't up for discussing the substance of the issue, okay. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


OR Robot Fight/Outside Opinion

I know it has been a while but I see that this page is still listed on the Mediation Cabal. I've read most of what has been written in the mediation section. As far as I'm aware the main dispute centers around the question of OR by synthesis, notablity, and varafiablty. In regards to this issue I would like to offer a opinion concerning the question of synthesis.

It is my understanding that routine calculations do not count as original research. It is also my understanding that routine calculations include logical inferences. I believe that, in essence, this instance of potential synthesis is in actuality a simple identity statement: the object in picture x is qualitatively identical to the object in picture y; and therefore ought to be permissible under the routine calculation exemption -if you grant that it is indeed a routine calculation. Frayr (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you input on the subject, but this is not a calculation because the matter is about subjective comparisons vs objective comparisons. This is a comparison that requires an individual to connect similarities between two disparate subjects and make a connection, not a comparison of two numbers that are easily linked by an objective math equation. In other words 2+2 will always equal 4, but an observation of cloud formations will yield different opinions of what they look like. That goes to the heart of synthesis. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It may very well be the case that this is not an instance of calculation. But in this particular instance the results of the "calculation" are not actively contested. If the results themselves were contested, then the current policy for dealing with calculations already provide grounds for objection. The fact that the results are not contested and that the question focuses on the relevancy of the result to the article suggests that the comparison is not as subjective as comparing the shape of clouds. Anyways, I look forward to seeing how this mediation plays out. Frayr (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Respectully, the "calculations" are indeed contested. I maintain that the robot being identified as one thing might in fact be something else altogether. I thought that needed clarification. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well if that is the case then you're quite right to object.Frayr (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section

The Reception section could use some work - as it stands it cites almost exclusively negative reviews of the episode. I've read plenty of reviews of the episode myself (include the ones cited) and many of them are not negative - I'd say the opinion is decidedly mixed. Even the articles cited seem to have some of the more negative quotes from the particular article highlighted - Seppinwall's article is a good example of this. The complete lack of reference to Maureen Ryan's article on the episode also seems particularly notable, as she ran one of the more popular weekly BSG review articles and quotes from her articles are referenced many of the other BSG reception section on the site. As it stands it gives the impression that most people disliked the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.240.149 (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad Templeton's analysis

I'm surprise his review that it was The worst ending in the history of on-screen science fiction is not mentioned.--DrWho42 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything he has to say would not meet the standards of inclusion because of the subjective nature of his opinion as he is not a professional critic but a blogger. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who reads the analysis will be impressed by the intelligence of it, I learned a lot from his description of how this episode fundamentally misunderstands Mitochondrial Eve. True, it may be a blog rather than an article, but the criticism is of a quality that is superior to most professional TV reviewers, because most tv critics don't have a background in science and are thereby less able to analyze concepts in science fiction. I would argue his criticism is less subjective, because he is arguing with the science of the show's Deus Ex Machina ending. Fans of the show may be disinclined to read it because of its negative tone, but they would miss out on a better understanding of the episode. Walterego (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did Adama decide to rescue Hera

After watching the end of the series, I came to this wikipedia page hoping that there would be an explanation of why Adama sent the Galactica on a Kamikaze mission to save one little girl. Characters repeatedly describe her as being the salvation of humanity, yet the show never demonstrates why she is so valuable. The salvation comes from Starbuck entering the FTL code based on music she saw written by Hera, although Starbuck had already known the music from her father anyways. And by the time that Hera is captured by the cylons, Starbuck has remembered the music and will know the correct code when the time comes to enter it. So Hera's rescue has little or no purpose, except it puts the Galactica in such a desperate position, due to a series of random violent events (or not random but guided by the divine being of the series) where it has to make a jump to an arbitrary location. Does Daybreak or the episodes previous ever provide a rationale for why Adama changes his mind and sends the ship after Hera, other than the ship is falling apart and he wants to go out in a suicidal blaze of glory to kill all the cylons? Walterego (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This Adama thing is kind of explained in the scene by the photo wall, where he sees her picture and kinda goes "I can't leave her behind after all we went through". Decision of the heart, blah blah blah...
Hera's real importance is only revealed in the last scene, where she turns out to be the mitochondrial Eve from which our entire race descended. Of course the Old Man would never know that, but maybe some "angel" whispered it into his ear. (Damn, I hated this angels crap...) -- 77.253.14.141 (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)". Battlestar Galactica. Season 4. 2009-03-20. SyFy. {{cite episode}}: Check date values in: |airdate= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daybreak_(Battlestar_Galactica)/Archive_1&oldid=1136653196"