Talk:Humanoid Cylon speculation/Archive1

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
Archive - Between February 1, 2006 and October 11, 2006
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. Please add new archives to Archive 2.

Please aid in concision

This article combines the speculations of the Humano-Cylon and Gaius Baltar articles. As such, it is very wordy. I added the conditional summaries to avoid having to say "Ron Moore said this-and-that" in each item. Still, the article is really all over the place. We need to pare each suspect to the basics--bullets if necessary. Please base your information only on what has been mentioned or clearly stated. Lack of evidence ("Nothing says that the Cylons couldn't have been introduced 5 years before the attacks") is invalid to the information actually stated for both Valerii's and Six character--their history is unclear 2 years prior. Concision should clear up the unnecessary editorial here and bring it to basics. --Spencerian 00:46, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Agreed, it should have been edited down for the sake of concision, as other points are made elsewhere. Thank you for editing it down to size. --Ricimer 00:48, 1 February 2006 (EST)

"At least" 2 years

No Cylon ever said out loud, "we've been infiltrating your society for two years"; we saw that Number Six was going out with baltar for 2 years, and then that Galactica-Boomer had been on Galactica for 2 years, then made the connection. However, although wide-scale infiltration apparently occured 2 years ago, we have no way of knowing if this is when infiltration of any kind actually began. Case in point; Ellen Tigh. A (deleted) scene said that she was married to Saul Tigh for 7 years. Now, I think it would be highly unlikely that the Cylons developed the humanoid Cylons 10 years after the Cylon War (30 years ago) or something, but the possibility that they were using them for the past 5-10 years seems within the realm of possibility to me. Again, there was never a definative "rule". --Ricimer 00:48, 1 February 2006 (EST)

I tend to agree. Although circumstantial evidence points to a widespread infiltration campaign launching two years before the miniseries, we have no idea when the Cylons actually developed the ability to construct humanoid models. This, however, should be noted once at the head of the article, not on a per-candidate basis. --April Arcus 01:10, 1 February 2006 (EST)
The circumstantial evidence is all we can go on to keep from making stuff up out of the range of given information. It was Baltar, talking to Six, that gave the length of time, but I can't recall Valerii's comment or reference to it. Yes, we do need to avoid repetition; there's a lot of it. I don't believe this article is intending to address or imply that the humanoid Cylons were created 2 years prior, but begin to appear 2 years prior. --Spencerian 14:49, 1 February 2006 (EST)
But that's really the point (not "when were they made"); when were they first used to infiltrate the Colonies? We really don't know; we only know that two units were inside for 2 years. BTW, it's in "The Farm" when Adama states that Boomer was on the ship for almost 2 years. --Ricimer 15:35, 1 February 2006 (EST)
Katee Sackhoff mentioned in an interview that Starbuck had known Boomer for 7 years. That would mean 2 years on Galactica and 5 years of training before that, which makes sense as realisitically not even the Cylons could sneak an agent into the military without any training period. It's much harder than creating a civilian ID, and probably the reason why Boomer had to be a sleeper agent. --Noneofyourbusiness 22:54, 2 March 2006 (EST)
This could have just been subject to change. --00:43, 3 March 2006 (CST)
In the Grace Park Q & A, Part 3 on scifi.com, after reading the following statement from a question: "...people with verifiable histories such as Adama, Roslin, Starbuck, etc. can't be Cylons because the Cylons only started infiltrating the colonies recently..." Grace quickly responds with "Wrong!". It's not entirely clear what that really means, but it's worth noting. --Todd 14:30, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
It could possibly be that the two years refers to widespread infiltration (Sixes, Doral, Conoy, etc.), and that the sleeper agents, such as Boomer, went in earlier, not only for easier acclimation, but so that they would have somewhat of a valid background.--み使い Mitsukai 00:49, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Billy's Entry

There is nothing of note in Billy's entry that could not be also said about Dualla, Tyrol, Cally, Racetrack, Kat, and other minor characters. It's unlikely that we can vouch for all character histories. It's their signficant, influential moments in an episode that appear questionable in intent, or their associations that are important. If there isn't a significant point about Billy's history that puts him at the same level of suspicion as Jammer or Bell, I move to strike this. --Spencerian 15:06, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Well, A) It's always the guy you least suspect, though that's more "paranoia" B) no one knows him, I mean even deckahands like Cally or Jammer were on the ship for at least a period of a few months, but *no one* other than Roslin met him before he first shows up on screen. And it would make sense to infiltrate a position with access to a cabinet member. --Ricimer 15:37, 1 February 2006 (EST)
Not disagreeing, but note that she was an extremely low-ranking cabinet member, and I doubt that the Cylons could have forseen either her "access" to Adar, or her assumption of the presidency after the attack. Besides, they already had Doral following her to Galactica's decommissioning ceremony. --April Arcus 17:09, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Given that Billy is now dead, his plausibility as a Cylon is completely moot unless he is found resurrected in a future episode (non-flashback). Only a Cylon agent comes back, which would validate the claim. Also, given that there hasn't been any further points that significantly differentiate his character's suspicion criteria over any other lesser character, I'd rather strike this. Farago's point that Roslin was accompanied by Doral indicates that Galactica was monitored anyway. There's no real logic leap that can give the Keikeya suspicion enough grounding in comparison to the others. Technically, Roslin herself could be a Cylon with the same logic in that we don't know for sure where she's been in the last two years beyond what's said in the miniseries and "Ephiphanies." --Spencerian 18:58, 13 February 2006 (EST)

If Billy was a cylon, what would his purpose have been? I can't see TPTB deciding to reveal him as a cylon in a future episode because it wouldn't make any sense! He would have had to be a sleeper agent, but he didn't do anything! For almost 9 months! When you're asleep that long, you're practically dead. It should be struck (striked?) --Drumstick 16:59, 25 February 2006 (EST)
He could have been the person who meet Six, before he boarded the plane and meet Roslin? Everyday I keep going over this, so I just had to get it out there now. :) --Shane (T - C - E) 01:30, 26 March 2006 (CST)
Part of the point of the Speculation page is that we're bringing up people who have been speculated as Cylons, and then we can actually disprove the posibility that they are Cylons; we do this, so that when visitors look at the list they can see why someone has been disproven or is still suspect; for example, we still keep Apollo's entry up even though there's frankly a snowball's chance on the sun that he is a Cylon. --The Merovingian (C - E) 19:59, 26 March 2006 (CST)

Apollo's Entry

Is it permissible to post a link to fanfiction? --Noneofyourbusiness

Permissible, possibly. But will it be helpful at all? The Lee-Is-A-Cylon thing is, as I understand it, perpetuated almost entirely by fanfiction. Except that a decent sized group of BSG (RDM) fans like this idea, we'd have thrown Lee off the list a long time ago because we can attest to the fact that he has a father. Linking the fiction would, I think, make it easy for a casual reading to misconstrue a case for Lee's being a Cylon as anything more than ver, very weak. Also... for ease of reading, please try to remember to sign your posts. Easy mistake to make. Just keep it in mind. --Day 23:46, 2 March 2006 (CST)
Under no circumstances is it permissible; didn't the section on Apollo make the point that BattlestarWiki does not support such things? Honestly; 20 people make a Apollo-as-Cylon fanfic, then post links to it endlessly on the poorly-moderated official messageboards. This matter should be dropped. I am sorry, but on this matter there is no question. --The Merovingian 00:45, 3 March 2006 (CST)

Baltar's Entry

Can we rule out Baltar as a Cylon now that we've seen "Downloaded"? The whole thing with Six seeing BALTAR in her head seem to imply a certain duality... Six's Baltar is trying to push the human agenda, and Baltar's Six is trying to push the Cylon agenda.--Mojorising1985 23:54, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Yes, please. If Baltar were a Cylon, they couldn't have not mentioned it in "Downloaded". The whole line of inquiriy is ridiculous. --April Arcus 00:00, 25 February 2006 (EST)
Plus, numerous Cylon characters referred to him as human. I'm glad. I think it's a lot less interesting if he were a Cylon. I feel a bit reluctant to remove the whole thing though... I'll just add some information against it from Downloaded, and if anyone else feels it needs to go, they're welcome to delete it. --Mojorising1985 00:02, 25 February 2006 (EST)
My inclination is to give the "Baltar is a Cylon" boosters a couple days to defend the material here before we chop it. --April Arcus 00:05, 25 February 2006 (EST)


By all means, I feel that we should give them a few days to defend themselves. However, although Six hallucinates Baltar...it is clearly implied that no other Cylons knew about him, and Number Three even says that they both fell in love with humans.

My feelings on the matter, summed up into an easy to read list, are:

  • Baltar-Six is definately NOT the same person as the Number Six we see at the beginning of the Miniseries: Caprica-Six is someone else entirely. Did she load *a separate, backup copy* of herself into Baltar? Still a possibility.
  • Baltar-Six is not a hallucination, this has been proven in "Home, Part II", but no chip is visible on scans: I believe that she is an "Organic Chip", undetectable to scans, and not an "angel" as she claims.
  • Caprica-Six's hallucinated visions of Baltar on the other hand, are simply that: hallucinations, brought on by the apparent stress of killing the man she loved
  • As an inhuman robot not used to emotions or love, this had a profound affect on her; even disregarding Baltar, she is also feeling profound guilt over killing the human race, because after loving Baltar, she's come to think that a loving God would never want what the Cylons did.
So he's not a Cylon; it's just a cool way of visually showing us that Number Six and the Cylons are so near-human that when placed under moral strain or something, they can hallucinate just like people can. --The Merovingian 00:50, 25 February 2006 (EST)
  • I will go out on a limb, and propose that this is in fact conclusive proof that Baltar is not a Cylon, because the Cylons amongst themselves say that he is a human. I had been waiting until (my pet theory) Baltar impregnants Gina, but now I feel that this is grounds, Spencerian, to remind you of our Gentlemanly wager, that if Baltar were proved not to be a Cylon, you would support me in an Administrator election. --The Merovingian 00:53, 25 February 2006 (EST)
Not only is the notion staking an RFA vote on a petty wager rather more than a little disquieting, I'm not even sure Spence ever agreed to those terms. --April Arcus 01:12, 25 February 2006 (EST)
Given that it was a back and forth conversation, to which he gave no refusal in reply, at the time at least, this gave the impression of tacit admission of the terms. --The Merovingian 21:45, 25 February 2006 (EST)

The wager is not changed, but you came very close to losing it in "Downloaded." Nor, however, has any proof been revealed in this episode that negates the possibility of Baltar as a Cylon. In fact, since only Baltar and Six have appeared as virtual beings, this actually reinforces, not diminishes the possibility since, to this episode, only a Cylon image has appeared this way. Since both Baltar and Six appear as virtual beings to each other, AND this phenomena is obviously not known or planned for by the Cylons, this doesn't change the nature of what Baltar is or is not (or, by extension, Six). The results from "Downloaded" DO invalidate some of the postulations in the Gaius-the-Cylon speculation, which I will note when I can. When humans and Cylons are in love, things get weird. Note that this hasn't happened with Boomer and Tyrol, but maybe, maybe, their love was not complete enough to create this strange exchange of "love echo." Oh, and for two beings to have the exact kind of "hallucination" suggests that it is not an hallucination at all. Something else is going on. Peter's point on Baltar's lack of note by other Cylons, however, does have a point, of which I will chew on before commenting further. --Spencerian 17:09, 25 February 2006 (EST)

But if Baltar was a Cylon, than why was Six-Baltar pushing for the "human agenda" and talking about how bad it was that millions of humans were killed? --mojorisng1985 18:04, 25 February 2006 (EST)
It was her impression of Baltar (whom she thinks is human). (I think this whole line of speculation is absolutely ludicrous, by the way; but that question really doesn't change anything.) --Redwall 20:21, 25 February 2006 (EST)
Indeed, this is absolutely nuts. From an in-continuity perspective, the only way Baltar could possibly be a Cylon as of this episode would be if neither Caprica-Six, Galactica-Valerii, or Caprica-Three knew about it. Caprica-Three appeared to be very high-ranking - she apparently has the authority to have other cylons "boxed", and she knew that Baltar was still alive - something that was not public knowlege. From a dramatic perspective, it's completely impossible, and would invalidate the last two seasons worth of character development. --April Arcus 20:51, 25 February 2006 (EST)
"We're two heroes of the cylon, right? Two heroes with different perspectives o­n the war. Perspectives based by our love of two human beings". Cylons, talking amongst themselves, refer to Baltar as a human being in the episode "Downloaded". This alone is quite a good piece of evidence. --The Merovingian 21:46, 25 February 2006 (EST)
OK, the damage done to Baltar's speculation is nearly complete, but I do not fully concede. I've clarified the information from "Downloaded" but added one important matter: Since the virtual Six and Baltar are not a Cylon creation, where in the world do they come from, and why doesn't Tyrol have a virtual Boomer? Until more information comes out, its my last shot in this salvo that still leaves a thread of doubt. We'll need to condense Baltar's entry later since many concepts there appear invalidated or contradictory to aired content. Oh, and just because the two Cylons believed they were in love with two humans doesn't make it patently true. What did Baltar think he was shagging before Six's revelation? The writers twist and turn, and I don't believe we're done with this, but yep, my ship is sinking, although not sunk, and I'm still armed with name-calling, a claim that you smell of elderberries, and flatulence in your general direction. :) --Spencerian 08:34, 3 March 2006 (CST)
In Lay Down Your Burdens, Part II when Baltar has sex with Gina, does that disprove once him being a cylon. I would think that anyone who would have doubts after Downloaded would have to accept the fact that Baltar's spine did not turn red and therefore he can't be a cylon. Ronald D. Moore himself said in the commentary in the mini-series that the Humano-Cylon spines all turn red. Shouldn't we take him off of the speculated Humano-Cylon agent list?--Zareck Rocks 16:45, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Additional Qualifier for Speculation?

"According to Ron D. Moore, the twelve humanoid models are based on human behavior and personality archetypes distilled into twelve varieties."

It would seem, then, that any new Cylon agents will also need to have reasonably archetypal personalities that are notably different from known agents. --Mckooper 14:24, 6 March 2006 (CST)

Very true. Good thinking. Personally I find Billy to be too much like Doral.--Noneofyourbusiness 16:31, 6 March (EST)
This is my main arguement against Ellen Tigh being a Cylon. She's the same, archetypally, as Six, basically: The attractive, sexually agressive blonde. I'm waiting for model, let's say, Number 12: The Nerd. *wink* --Day 23:30, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Lay Down Your Burdens

Wouldn't the Season Finale exonerate Ellen, the Adamas and Gaeta? There were dozens of Centurions marching through that city. Surely if Ellen were a Cylon, she would have simply joined in the parade as a matter of pride? The Adamas wouldn't have jumped away of either of them were Cylons. And if Gaeta were a Cylon, wouldn't he have simply dropped the charade when he told Baltar they had arrived? Ragestorm 11:59, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Even in German-occupied France in World War II, the Gestapo still had spies pretending to be French to try to infiltrate any resistance. --The Merovingian 12:07, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Yes, and we have no particular reason to believe that conquering New Caprica is the end goal for the Cylons; this may only be a push to guide them in a different direction, in which the hidden agents still have a role to play. That said, I do wonder what new human models we'll see on New Caprica. My guess is that at least one will be of the same type as someone in Adama's fleet. --Saforrest 13:11, 11 March 2006 (CST)
They may be sleeper agents anyway, and their programming didn't tell them to "wake up"MrXerox 1:38 19 March 2006 (CST)

The Chief?

What about the chief? Should someone add something for him? Cavil... who was later revealed to be a Cylon, said that he hadn't seen him at any of the cylon parties, the same thing six said about doral. Plus, he kept on wondering why Tyrol couldn't see what was "right in front of his face". And he said "I'm not a Cylon", just like Boomer did in the season 1 finale. It might at least be a possibility. Finally, Cally's pregnancy might be an attempt at creating something similar to Helo/Boomer's child, but with the gender reversed... to see if a Cylon could impregnate a human female. Indeed, that was my intital thought when I accidentally stumbled across pictures of Cally pregnant.

Nah, Tyrol can't be a Cylon. That doesn't fit the Cylon M.O. of trying to make a baby. Remember that Tyrol was with Sharon before, and that they were planing to "Muster out at the end of their service," and get married and have kids, (Flight of the Phoenix). --FIDS 12:07, 12 March 2006 (CST)

if the chief were a Cylon, Three wouldn't have been as worried about Galactica-Sharon in "Downloaded." She would have just shown her another Tyrol copy. It's essentially the same reason Baltar can't be a Cylon: they may try to hide it from the humans, but why hide it from other Cylons? Ragestorm 19:27, 12 March 2006 (EST)

I don't believe Tyrol to be a Cylon, but (A) Two sleeper agents would plan on mustering out and getting married, not knowing the attack was coming, and (B) What good would showing her another Tyrol do? He wouldn't be Tyrol. If anything it would make things worse for Sharon.
Can we come up with some better disqualifing facts?--Noneofyourbusiness 21:47, 23 March 2006 (EST)
Cylons have demonstrated great interest in procreation with humans, and absolutely none with other Cylons. It fits with what we know of the Cylon plan for Sharon to want to seduce a human. If Tyrol were a Cylon, it would force us to violate Occam's razor on this count. Also, like the suggestion that Baltar might be a Cylon, this demands that one of the twelve models existance has been ekpt secret from the Cylons on Caprica, which seems silly. --April Arcus 21:39, 23 March 2006 (CST)
You guys are forgetting that the 7 Cylon models we know as of now, are the significant seven, and they have no clue on who the final five Cylon models are. (Cloud02 13:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT))
A) we're not sure about that info quite yet B ) I think there are limits to it. I mean, I think what Grace meant was "the Cylon on New Caprica have been programmed to not know who the other 5 are so they don't give it away involuntarily to the humans", but logically the ones on CAPRICA would not have any such restriction (they didn't run into the same 7 Cylons there). That's why I'm not really basing anything on her comments, until we get more info later. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:47, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Analysis

I think it would be good if we formated this with a case for and case against section, that is, like in the Adama sections, have the first section say "this is why we initially suspected him", but then say at the end "this other event (i.e. Cylons amongst themselves referring to a character as human)", makes it impossible for this character to be a Cylon.--The Merovingian (C - E) 15:45, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Makes sense to me... --Day (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Baltar as Cylon Zero

I'm sorry, but this part of it all is just too much, using questionable "facts" to prove a more questionable theory. It just doesn't make sense to add it, since there isn't even any Cylon Zero mentioned --Sauron18 12:37 19 April 2006

After reading this, I find a few tenuous snippets of intriguing possibility on the original premise. The bulk of the section that tries to support the premise, however, is pure speculation, which I will cull, as well as retitling the section more germanely. I believe I can add or reinforce the central thought. --Spencerian 12:58, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
Rewritten. I believe the concepts are more digestable, do not rehash existing points (the page is getting long, anyway), and points to the new crux of what the heck ARE the virtual Six and Baltar and how in the heck does Baltar seem to work "God's" work in those season 1 episodes. That's something I'm sure will haunt him (and the other characters) later. --Spencerian 13:34, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
Not a single piece of it was acceptable, I am sorry, but we cannot coddle this. I have removed it entirely. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:59, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
I agree. Sorry, Spence. --April Arcus 14:11, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
Not a problem: was trying to salvage rather than obliterate an addition. I had that first reaction myself. --Spencerian 10:42, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
Thank you Peter: sometimes I worry that I act hastily, but often we get new users who jump on and say their own pet theories, and as an encyclopedia we cannot tolerate hundreds of people's pet theories, just prevailing ones: i.e. I disagree with "could Baltar be one of the 12 Cylon models?" but enough people on messageboards suggest it that I felt it had merit to stay (as speculation) here, and then to note as the series wore on that it has been (by and large) disproven by the evidence. But that guy saying "hmm, those nukes must have been detonated by suicide bombers" when you SEE basestars in orbit nuking the planet, is sillyness. --The Merovingian (C - E) 14:16, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
If it were up to me, I'd completely eliminate Ellen, Lee, Bill and Gaius from that list. --Sauron18 15:06, 19 April 2006
No. It helps people to show who couldn't be a Cylon, so they won't add it. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:35, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
Could we just lay out the (very conclusive) evidence against their being cylons, and dispense with any further discussion on the topic? --April Arcus 19:43, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
Maybe. But then, would we have EVER thought we'd see Starbuck give Tigh a HUG? Anything is possible with RDM and especially in light of the end of Season 2. If anything, keeping the speculation and its conclusions there there prevents someone from putting it back with rehashed items. We should note the high unlikelihood as per the article's purpose in each section. --Spencerian 10:42, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Restructuring

I'm revising this article. I'm spent a lot of time sifting through messageboard speculation, and I'm going to list other characters: again, we shouldn't just list "people who might be Cylons", but for other people, such as say, Adama, who have "reason" to be suspected of being a Cylon, to help out readers trying to figure out who's a Cylon we should list how sucha person might be suspected of being a Cylon, but also, that this possibility has been disproven. I'm putting little bolded tags onto the bottom of each one, summarizing the actual chance such a person has of being a Cylon after reading the entire article: that is, summary of the William Adama article: "Possibility of being a Cylon: None". Meanwhile, the "point" of the entire Ellen Tigh article could be summed up as "well she could conceivably be a Cylon and is a shifty character but could also not be and RDM isn't pushing it too hard", so "Possibility of being a Cylon: Moderate". If you want to change someone's odds of being a Cylon, just do so and if there's any arguement over the particulars of it, we can debate the merits on this Discussion page. --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:37, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Just to elaborate: so many times on messageboards I see people saying "well maybe Anders is a Cylon", or "maybe Roslin's a Cylon", that I really want to just list here "Roslin: can't be a Cylon because...etc"; just round out the full regular cast, plus anyone who's non-Cylonness has been confirmed. Just a guide to help people.--The Merovingian (C - E) 22:03, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
That doesn't sound unreasonable. I also like the idea of a little summary tag for each person so that, if you only wanted to read (dis)proofs, you could skip the ones that have any change besides "none". I'm interested to see how this turns out. --Day (Talk - Admin) 22:51, 30 May 2006 (CDT)
I've been reading this page as you do it. Make sure you cite the Episode. I already marked something under Dullea because I never seen or saw something that provved she acually married Lee Adama. {{citation needed}}. Also I like to point out that your doing the same thing as the message boards, just listing character. At this point, you can list every character at this point and say they are a potiential Cylon. Maybe add something to the {{Character Data}} template with their "cylon" chances if they do exist, but because there is ltitle "citation" it should not appear on this page. --Shane (T - C - E) 23:25, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

Chief and Cally + Company

We already establish from LDYB II that these three can not be Cylons. Why were they added? In this discussion (above) it proves this point. Reason to put Cain? She's been around for 20 years and already has a history from being an Admiral? This makes no sence to be placed on this page. Tom? Need I say more. "Due to being such a publicly known figure for so Tory Foster, Cheif, Helena Cain, Tom Zarek, Kara Thrace, and Cally and decades before the Cylon Attack, Zarek could not be a Cylon." Kara Thrace? Please... alot of these should be removed.

For reason I should this is the list that should be removed (and update this list if you think it should be removed also. This is not a Keep list.):

  • Laura Roslin
  • Tory Foster
  • Cheif
  • Helena Cain
  • Tom Zarek
  • Kara Thrace
  • Cally
  • Helo (Only has one entry? Why is it here?)

--Shane (T - C - E) 23:36, 30 May 2006 (CDT)

A) I did this in a hurry, and I'm not done B) because I'm leaving for a convention in NYC Ron Moore and the cast are going to C)I want the people DEFINATELY DISPROVEN to be on the list as well, or at least a shorter subheader going "these people can't be CYlons, here's why" so people can see that they have been disproven (meanwhile, people like, Captain Kelly we know so little about that we don't suspect them, nor has their innocence been proven, or like Kat). ****Battlestar Galactica Magazine did a similar "who is the main cast is a Cylon?" list but it was based on their BEHAVIOR, which as we all know can be implanted, so I wanted to do a fuller list, which explains how these people can't be Cylons. **I'll get to work on this later. --The Merovingian (C - E) 06:13, 31 May 2006 (CDT)

Creating a page to proove to RDM and cast is not a reason to expand this page Merv. Maybe these should be put in a new page called Human speculation. --Shane (T - C - E) 06:29, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
I do not understand what you just said: I didn't "create" a page this thing has been here for like a year: as I already said, I listed the other people in order to list the reasons that dispel why some fan reading our site might think they're a Cylon, because the magazine had an article which (wrongly, I felt) kind of included them in the speculation. --The Merovingian (C - E) 07:25, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
Then where is the citation. I have to say, in most case you say you now where eerything is coming from, but forget to cite where this was posted. If this is the case, there should be a footnoote for everyone of the ones that came from the magazine, page number and all. --Shane (T - C - E) 07:28, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
He's not quoting the article in this case (correct me if I'm wrong), but using it as precedent for the type of article. Also, the minute we yank a "Cylon candidate" (no matter how unlikely) somebody will come along and add them back because they believe that they might be a Cylon. Having concise, cited, definitive arguments against their being Cylons is good inoculation against a larger, speculative theory about the possibility of them being Cylons. This article has served as an excellent "containment area" to house some of the more "message board style" argument and speculation, and it has come a long way towards being well cited since its original inception. --Steelviper 07:46, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
I concur with SV. We should leave ALL entries placed here, but we can concise the entries that are highly unlikely of being an agent to its root reason, and leave arguments for characters with stronger suspicions for later detail. We need to be mindful of this article's size. --Spencerian 14:13, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
Are there any points, specifically, Shane that you see needing citation (besides the rather tangental note about whether Apollo and Dee are married now)? If so, please note them here... Maybe some of us happen to know where the information came from off the top of our head. Maybe not, but then, at least, we could all be in on this, rather than you vaguely requesting more citations from Merv, who, as he mentioned, will be out of town for a while soon. --Day (Talk - Admin) 00:07, 1 June 2006 (CDT)


Hey, I'm back for an hour or two: I think this turned out well with the stuff you guys touched up. Yeah, I did this in a hurry and need to put in citations and stuff (the APollo+Dualla citation is on the Dualla and Apollo bio pages, but I'll add it in plus other stuff as needed). I'll be tinkering with this....--The Merovingian (C - E) 13:26, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

The Doctor

Im surprised to see that no one has suggested him. He knows almost everything there is to know about the insides of the fleet, and he knows about the cylon baby. (Cloud02 13:54, 2 June 2006 (CDT))

You could if you want but we have to list the why's and whatfor's. I think he's never done anything overtly suspicious, and thus falls into the same category as like, Captain Kelly and 3 dozen other named characters on the show like Racetrack; we know so little about them that there is no specific reason to suspect them. I only listed the main cast and some of the bigger recurring characters just because they're the most frequent names.--The Merovingian (C - E) 14:22, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
Actually, someone did suggest it (I say "suggest", he vehemently insisted) Cottle for a Cylon on the Doc's talk page. The general opinion of those in the discussion was that every viable argument for Cottle (doesn't complain about treating a Cylon, is sympathetic to said Cylon, and opposed separating Hera from her mother) more likely stems from him being a doctor than being an agent. --Ragestorm 16:21, 4 June 2006 (CDT)
It's also important to remember that the doctor is the person who "proved" that Baltar didn't have a chip in his head allowing him to see hallucina-six. If he were a cylon then it would explain that whole phenomenon. Additionally, he gave Baltar the clue that allowed him to cure Roslyn and knew exactly when the baby was being born (as he was on call) and so could have alerted the cylons to send their observer ships. Further, his running the abortion smuggling ring gave him a reason to be clandestinely transporting people, thus explaining that six's mysterious escape from the galactica. --Frieze 10:08, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Cleanup Required

This article is the wiki's largest, at over 45Kb, which might break on some browsers. At the same time, it's one of our most active "unexplained mysteries" page and I don't want any content removed (especially given our heated and fun pro-con arguments to date). Still, this page needs to be broken down to subarticles. Perhaps the Gaius Baltar section should be made into a subarticle to start, which should greatly help in page size (it should not be deleted; sorry Merv--other newbies need to see the progression of the logic, even with the new information, to avoid redundant information). If anyone else has suggestions, pipe in. --Spencerian 10:47, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

I never finished updating this page, it's been a work in progress for a week: I'll get to this tonight. --The Merovingian (C - E) 10:50, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
How about starting off by separating out and expanding the discussion about the qualifiers as the main article with the of the discusion of each candidate as a subarticle? How about a speculation template for the each candidate subarticle? Willing to work if given instructions and go ahead. I'm sleepy hope this made some sense. --FrankieG 19:57, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

I finally finished cleaning up this article. --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:53, 22 July 2006 (CDT)

Zak Adama?

Has anyone thought of Zak Adama as a possible Cylon model? I know he was William Adama's son, and William probably was there when he was born, but it is something to think about. When Leoben told Roslin that "Adama was a Cylon", it was obvious that he was lying. But he does mix truth with lies. Lee and William are about 99.99% NOT cylons. But maybe they somehow did something with Zak... I think in the new BSG comic there is something about Zak in there, but I'm not sure how canon that is, and also the fact that the comic hasn't ended yet, so we don't know the whole story. --Scoke Faofa 13:15, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

A) We decided that the events of the comic book are laughably non-canon.
B) Commander Adama has known him since he was born, and Cylons are not copies of pre-existing people. No, there is 100% no chance that Zak was a Cylon. --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:07, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
Indulging in minor speculation, that one in the comic book is, at best, a Cylon. He was definitely not a Cylon in the series proper, though. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 19:25, 29 June 2006 (CDT)


Felix Gaeta

One of the comments in Gaeta's section says that he seemed, like Boomer, to be more resilient to the stresses placed on him than other humans. But he still had a few rebellious moments in CIC and as shown during Final Cut. However, I think it just as likely that he noticed that he was "out of tune" with the rest of his shipmates and chose some highly visible ways to show stress that he may or may not have been feeling.

Gaeta has also been very careful to maintain a close relationship with those in power. He's a critical player in the CIC and an assistant to Dr. Baltar. That puts him in a perfect position to monitor things and give them a push to go the way the Cylons want them. When New Caprica is founded and the military's power is drastically decreased, he leaves to become Baltar's aide. Baltar becomes a hedonistic, ineffective president, which leave Gaeta as the "go-to" guy. It seems that everything he does gives him some level of control over the events around him. --WiJO

Okay but that's really not anything that isn't already said in the article. Further he actually seems to be trying to keep New Caprica running and a little PO'd at how incompetant Baltar is getting. The stamina thing is just a low-level clue and not a major one, as Cylons could just fake being tired or whatnot; it's more an annectedote than anything. Although Gaeta is a "Moderate" chance of being a Cylon I honestly think he's a red herring, as A) He's got many obvious things that suggest he might be a Cylon, being a little TOO obvious B) All of the things he's done have actually had a legitmate alibi: i.e. yeah he linked together Galactica's computers and the virus got in, but Adama probably would have died had he not done that. I'm going to fix up this page later today. --The Merovingian (C - E) 10:22, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Removing "Past Affiliation"

Should we remove the "Past Affiliation" requirement? I actually have never thought it meant anything as a qualifier, as a Cylon could act alone. If we remove it, it would actually have no impact on who makes the list and who doesn't: everyone who's either suspected of being a Cylon or proven innocent, was proven so for reasons completely divorced from whether they were actually in contact with someone (i.e. no one is thought of being more or less a Cylon simply because they happened to have contact with a Cylon). --The Merovingian (C - E) 23:43, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

The association criterion should be deleted.
The family history requirements should be unified. It should be amended to more clearly state that pre-Boomer pregnancies disqualify and post-Boomer pregnancies do not. (Her pregnancy was clearly the first and special, but it is possibly replicable.) It should also be more direct in stating only non-identical siblings disqualify. (Technically, 12-(known models) is the upper limit on non-identical siblings in a Cylon agent mock family, but that's well beyond plot credibility.)
I also think the "old enough for Cylon War" requirement doesn't actually add anything. If they are actually verifiably that old, it's covered by the "reliable history" requirement. If they are not, it's effectively another case of Cavil's exception.
None of these points come up with any character that springs to mind, but they are not absolute logical requirements, so they should be dropped or changed for proper compliance with NPOV. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:15, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
I agree. "I also think the "old enough for Cylon War" requirement doesn't actually add anything. If they are actually verifiably that old, it's covered by the "reliable history" requirement. If they are not, it's effectively another case of Cavil's exception."-->Yes, it's their *history* but not their age: it's *verifiable participation in the Cylon War*, like Tigh and Adama. There are people that old, like Cottle or Cavil, but the fact that Cottle is old enough to have been in the war isn't proof that he was, as Cavil is that old too and he is a Cylon. So we should clarify that. --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:39, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
I am in agreement with CA. Also, much of the concerns could be alieviated if we better cited our sources in the article thoroughly, ensuring a reduction in POV bias that presently exists in the article. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 19:51, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Agree on all points. --April Arcus 20:35, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

POV problem.

All of the qualifications are POV. Please provide citations from RDM or someone else that supports these qualifications or they must be removed and the article reformatted to remove ranking systems that are POV. --Mateo 19:25, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

No, all of the qualifications are not POV. They are based on on-screen established parameters. Yes, we cited an RDM podcast in which he said that Cylons are not copies of pre-existing humans. This is an Analysis page.--The Merovingian (C - E) 19:43, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Please provide citation (from RDM or someone else on the show) that "regular association with other Cylon agents". We will start from there, but a cursory glance suggests that all of the qualifications are POV.
Also, the title "Characters who cannot possibly be Cylons" is absurd for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, most of the people listed there says that they have "very little chance" which is a huge difference from "no chance" (even if "very little chance" were true, which I disagree). Secondly, unless RDM says "X person is not a cylon" then excluding anyone is POV pushing. --Mateo 19:47, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
I agree with Mateo as I pointed out here. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:51, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
He's right about the "regular association" part. As far as we know, Boomer never associated with any other agents. Noneofyourbusiness 20:36, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
In many cases there is absolutely no reasonable cause to suspect a character of being a Cylon. Constantly noting the existence of a negligable shadow of a doubt (which will exist in all commentary on fictional work) would muddle the text badly. I don't seen this as POV pushing so much as abiding by a set of reasonable criteria to discuss a work intelligently. --April Arcus 20:38, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Well said. --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:50, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Mateo...."regular association wiht other Cylon agents"....didn't you see the topic I made immediately above this one, only 20 hours before you made this new subheading, in which I agreed and said "we should remove "regular association"? CalculatinAvatar, Joe and Peter have agreed as well; we're already removing that. As for "Characters who cannot possibly be Cylons", far from being "absurd", I think we've actually giving solid evidence that many characters (i.e. the entire main cast except for Baltar) cannot possibly be Cylons. This is an Analysis page; we don't post "Roslin cannot be a Cylon" into the Laura Roslin article, the place for Analysis is here. As for "very little chance vs. no chance", you are belaboring the point and splitting hairs over random choice of grammer, but if it makes you more comfortable I'll correct the wording throughout. Mateo, you have not engaged in many of our Analysis articles like the Timeline, this, etc. so I think you are unfamiliar with the line between Analysis and POV which we have faithfully maintined, and you're unfairly declaring all to be POV. --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:48, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

No, analysis is fine when it's not organized to reach conclusions, which this article does. If it instead simply listed suspects and then gives explanation and says stuff like "some people think that this character's regular association with cylons might mean he/she is one too" then that's acceptable NPOV analysis. But back to the point:
"The suspect must not have any adult children or siblings." Please provide citations from RDM or the show which state that cylons can not have any adult children or siblings. --Mateo 20:55, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
"No, analysis is fine when it's not organized to reach conclusions, which this article does. If it instead simply listed suspects and then gives explanation and says stuff like "some people think that this character's regular association with cylons might mean he/she is one too" then that's acceptable NPOV analysis. --->That's not even remotely what this page is like. YES, for every character we have a subheading ticking off the reasons for or against their suspicion as a Cylon, each of these headings is explained at the top of the page, and then in the paragraph for each we explain each of these points. It couldn't be more systematic. What you describe...isn't what's on the page. No, at no point does it say "some people think" something, we've pointed out "Jammer suspiciously is found hiding in a weapons locker when other people in there were found dead", or "Apollo sired a pregnancy, and his father has known him since he was born, and thus he cannot possibly be a Cylon"
I will add in the link, it was on the *main* "Cylon agent" page, of which "Cylon Agent Speculation" is actually a sub-page due to length issues. Please read that too. Ron Moore said this in a podcast interview with Chase Masterson; I'll post the transcript from that page into this page if it will satsify you. It's in the aptly named subheading "Ron Moore elaborates on the twelve models"--The Merovingian (C - E) 21:11, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Excuse me, but holding two conversations at the same time is too difficult. If you want to talk about the larger philosophy of this page please PM me. I will stick to the specific issue at hand. That is this qualification, "The suspect must not have any adult children or siblings." We need this to be verified by RDM or otherwise basing an entire page on this POV is problematic. --Mateo 21:19, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
"We need this to be verified by RDM or otherwise basing an entire page on this POV is problematic.".....Did you see "The Farm"? We related the information from that episode into the top of this page, under the bolded heading "children are a disqualifier", and cited "The Farm" in the article for characters. Yes, this is "From RDM" as it is from on-air statements. As for "two conversations"...what 2? I'm just (confusedly) trying to answer this one. I do not understand your PM request. Please if you have a problem I encourage you to ask questions here on the Talk pages. --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:35, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
It has already been established that the Cylons cannot breed progeny of their own, hence their Human-Cylon breeding programs, such as the farms and the experiment with Helo and a Number Eight model. It has also been established that, prior to the conception of Hera, that the Cylons had utterly failed in creating a successful hybrid, hence their belief that love was a factor in a successful hybrid birth. Also, from episodes such as "Downloaded", we know that the Cylons began introducing the human-form Cylon agents into Colonial society only two years prior to their attack. So they can't have adult children or siblings -- barring, of course, the occassional retcon or gaffe in logic from the writer standpoint. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:46, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
If it has been established then please cite where it was established. If you don't have exact quotes on hand, then please cite at least episode names and descriptions of the scene. Specifically I would like evidence that they can not breed on their own; but be assured that hybrid experminents do not logically mean that cylon/cylon procreation is impossible. It's a perfect and fine POV but not established fact. Unless it has actually been said that cylons can not procreate (and, for the record, human characters specualting this does not count as evidence, nor does a cylon telling a human count. If two or more cylons are talking to only other cylons, then that would be sufficient for me). Otherwise, the best evidence is, as always, statements made by RDM off the show. --Mateo 22:41, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
I am being patient but you have left me actually confused: Did you watch the episode "The Farm", and Did you read the changes to this article that I made over an hour ago?----"Specifically I would like evidence that they can not breed on their own; but be assured that hybrid experminents do not logically mean that cylon/cylon procreation is impossible. It's a perfect and fine POV but not established fact. " Did you watch "The Farm"? In "The Farm", Caprica-Sharon *states* on screen that it is impossible for humanoid Cylons to breed with each other. Did you miss this episode?--The Merovingian (C - E) 22:46, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
I'll pop in the episode right now... -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 22:52, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Yes, I saw the episode. Yes, I saw the episode. Please stop asking these types of questions, I've seen every episode. You need to be more specific than that. I have seen every episode but I don't have every scene memorized.
Now, if I remember correctly, by this point Caprica Sharon was outed and working with Helo and Starbuck. If she said this to them, then that's not good enough to make it a qualification. You can choose to believe a cylon is telling the truth to humans, but that's a POV, not fact. --Mateo 22:54, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
It's 38 minutes into "The Farm" on the Region 1 DVD. I suggest you re-watch it. Sharon explains that the Cylons have been unsuccessful in breeding on their own, hence the farms and the experiments. It makes sense, and there has been absolutely no indciation that this Sharon has been lying. Now if future events tell otherwise, then the editors here will make those changes accordingly. If it makes everyone feel better, we can say that Caprica-Sharon claims these things, with specific cites and so forth.
Again, I am finding that I must point out that this is an article on speculation, and there will be POV in any form of speculation. (Yes, we should aim for its reduction when humanly possible, but it would be unrealistic to believe that all POV will be eradicated.) Also, I personally feel that there is a level of paranoia here with the unfounded fear that this article (and other like it) will become a form of echt-1984 group think. As has been consistently demonstrated on this wiki, our administrators and contributors are level-headed people who would shut down (or seriously retool) this article were it to turn into a cesspool. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:08, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
Well, if Caprica Sharon was talking to humans, then we have no clue if it's true or not. She could be telling the truth, she could be lying. We simply don't know. We do know that Cylons lie to humans for manipulation purposes. We don't know that this instance is the case. Or not. So basing a ranking system on a POV that she's telling the truth is wrong.
Of course the article is going to have POV content. I don't care about POV content, I care that the entire article is itself one big POV. What if I don't believe Sharon (and for the record, I don't), how can I add my input without being excluded? The only way I can see how is to take out the ranking system, leave the "criteria" (renaming it something like "Possible criteria", and simply listing the suspects and giving reasons (that anyone can add their own POV) without ranking them. If you have another way to not exclude someone's POV, please let me hear it. I'm failing to see one. --Mateo 11:04, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
It is right until proven otherwise. The information was presented without implication of lying, and far more importantly--->it is a logical explanation of what (part) of the Cylon plan was, and why they're even trying to have hybrids with humans instead of just having their own progeny. It fits what the entire show presented up to that point, and brought it together really well. ***By the logic of "well the Cylons might be lying", we might be so paranoid as to question if the Cylons actually believe in a monotheistic God, or if they've just been stringing the humans along this entire time. --The Merovingian (C - E) 11:20, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
"how can I add my input without being excluded?"......As Joe suggested in the post immediately before your last one, we could add in little sentences going "(if Caprica-Sharon's statements about the self-sterility of humanoid Cylons are to be believed". Joe *just suggested doing that*. This is like the 2nd or 3rd time in this conversation that you haven't acknowledged points made by other people which were actually in favor of doing something you wanted (I.e. The Farm is already cited, past association with Cylons is removed (I never liked that anyway), and we cited and RDM interview for the no pre-existing humans thing). Are you actually reading our responses? ---->Caprica-Sharon's revelation at the end of "The Farm" was one of the biggest dumps of information we've had on the Cylon Plan, and rather than something mentioned in passing or in an interview, an entire long scene was devoted to it at the climax of an episode. No, we don't "memorize" every episode, many people are aware of that scene without needing a transcript. ------->I am trying to be diplomatic about this, and I mean this level-headedly: You have not contributed a great deal to BSWiki in the past, and seem confused about how our basic operations run (what Talk pages do, etc.); Consensus is against you and we've been making changes trying to satisfy you Mateo, but you insist on being needlessly belligerant about it, even when we're trying to help and accomodate you. You're not working well with others. I mean this as a honest and good faith suggestion, but if you want to be involved in BattletarWiki, you should re-analyze your position: We've made changes that agree with your demands, and you're still not happy with it; you're not really trying to work through consensus, cooperation, or compromise; you just demanded that this page be destroyed, even when we fixed it up to meet any legitimate complaints you've had. Lastly, you watch the series so casually that you completely forgot a major plot revelation which was frankly on the same level as Adama getting shot. I'd like you to contribute to BattlestarWiki, but you've A) Not worked well with otherse and haven't been willing to compromise or cooperate B) Haven't contributed anything much of substance other than to complain about the work of others, that you did not participate in even in Discussion C) You are not yet familiar with how wikis work, and when I tried to gently explain how to use a Discussion page you demanded that I e-mail you instead, rather than showing signs of trying to learn (which is actually really simple) D) You don't seem very observant about the series, missing a major plot element, casting doubts in my mind as to how much you have to contribute. I have made every effort to be diplomatic and accomdating about this, but as Apollo said in "Black Market", "there are limits" to how much we can tolerate. All you've realy done is made long tirades berating the hard work, well cited and fact supported, of the other wiki users. If all you're going to do is make shaky, poorly based criticisms of stuff on BattlestarWiki while not contributing even into the Discussion of the forms that things should take, I think you should reassess whether you want to go on at BattlestarWiki as you have, leave, or honestly try to work hard and learn how to cooperate with everyone here and learn how things work. --The Merovingian (C - E) 11:39, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
Mateo, as I stated before, if you feel that Sharon is lying (which is something that doesn't compute, seeing as how much trouble the Cylons have gone through to create farms, round up survivors, and gone through the trouble of just finding Helo and putting him with a Number Eight copy), then by all means prove your case with cites to the aired content thst supports your views. Again, this is a speculation page, and speculation that is supported with content from the episodes and from commentary given by RDM and crew will be evaluated by the community. I have no problem in toning down the POV, if there is any to be toned down. The crux of the series is that the Cylons (at least a group of them) are out to become "closer to God", hence their desire to become more human, and procreate and so forth. Again, this page is by no means "final" and the beautiful thing about the wiki format is that things can be changed when there are new developments regarding the show itself. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:30, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Here are my responses to the above two posts since that was getting too vertical:

It is right until proven otherwise. The information was presented without implication of lying, and far more importantly--->it is a logical explanation of what (part) of the Cylon plan was, and why they're even trying to have hybrids with humans instead of just having their own progeny.

This is a perfect example of POV. What you should said was "What cylons say to humans should be assumed true absent of evidence otherwise. That's your POV and that's fine, but this wiki is for everyone, I thought, not just for people who share your POV.

By the logic of "well the Cylons might be lying", we might be so paranoid as to question if the Cylons actually believe in a monotheistic God, or if they've just been stringing the humans along this entire time.

We aren't supposed to decide anything about the show. Anywhere that it statest that "Cylons believe in a monotheistic God" it should say "Cylons claim they believe in a monotheistic God", however if Cylons talk about a monotheistic God with only other cylons around then we know they are telling the truth. That's inaccurate anyways, because not even all cylons believe in a monotheistic god, just most of them.

"how can I add my input without being excluded?"......As Joe suggested in the post immediately before your last one, we could add in little sentences going "(if Caprica-Sharon's statements about the self-sterility of humanoid Cylons are to be believed". Joe *just suggested doing that*. --The Merovingian

That wouldn't change the fact that entire ranking is based on this criteria. The ranking assumes she is telling the truth. Adding a line in the criteria that she might be lying doesn't help my POV in the ranking system.

This is like the 2nd or 3rd time in this conversation that you haven't acknowledged points made by other people which were actually in favor of doing something you wanted (I.e. The Farm is already cited, past association with Cylons is removed (I never liked that anyway), and we cited and RDM interview for the no pre-existing humans thing). Are you actually reading our responses?

I acknowledged them by the fact that I have stopped talking about them. If I still had a problem with those points then I would still be raising them. I told you from the beginning that I have a lot of problems with this page. You seem to want me to be content with a couple of fixes, and then ignore the rest.

I am trying to be diplomatic about this, and I mean this level-headedly: You have not contributed a great deal to BSWiki in the past, and seem confused about how our basic operations run (what Talk pages do, etc.); Consensus is against you and we've been making changes trying to satisfy you Mateo, but you insist on being needlessly belligerant about it, even when we're trying to help and accomodate you. You're not working well with others. I mean this as a honest and good faith suggestion, but if you want to be involved in BattletarWiki, you should re-analyze your position: We've made changes that agree with your demands, and you're still not happy with it; you're not really trying to work through consensus, cooperation, or compromise; you just demanded that this page be destroyed, even when we fixed it up to meet any legitimate complaints you've had.

Huh? First off, consensus can not overrule NPOV. So whether everyone wants to exclude my POV from the article or not is irrelevant... unless BSWiki is not in favor of NPOV.

There is nothing that is solely my POV in the article. What, specifically, am I supposed to compromise on?

I've said from the beginning that a ranking system is going to exclude people's POVs, you have claimed that it will not, and I have proven that it in fact does. You're the one getting angry, not me.

A) Not worked well with otherse and haven't been willing to compromise or cooperate B) Haven't contributed anything much of substance other than to complain about the work of others, that you did not participate in even in Discussion C) You are not yet familiar with how wikis work, and when I tried to gently explain how to use a Discussion page you demanded that I e-mail you instead, rather than showing signs of trying to learn (which is actually really simple) D) You don't seem very observant about the series, missing a major plot element, casting doubts in my mind as to how much you have to contribute.

A) I don't have anything to compromise with. Nothing in the article (that I'm aware of) excludes your POV. B) Wrong and irrelevant. Cooperating with others doesn't mean throwing out Ad-hominems, so please stop the petty personal attacks, I'm not doing it to you. C) Wrong. Please don't assume to know things about perfect strangers. I've been using wikis for over a year, I know exactly how they work. I didn't "demand" that you email me. We were talking about 2 things at once and I was trying to eliminate one of them as to avoid confusion (which is now ocurring again) by focusing on the most narrow matter and to take the rest to PM if you want. I didn't demand or even ask you to PM me. D) More ad hominems. It seems that in fact you are the one who is having trouble working well with others. I'm just going to ignore your posts now until you calm down. Please don't attack me personally, I'm not doing it to you and it's certainly not the way to work out problems on a wiki. --Mateo 13:00, 18 August 2006 (CDT)


Mateo, as I stated before, if you feel that Sharon is lying (which is something that doesn't compute, seeing as how much trouble the Cylons have gone through to create farms, round up survivors, and gone through the trouble of just finding Helo and putting him with a Number Eight copy), then by all means prove your case with cites to the aired content thst supports your views. Again, this is a speculation page, and speculation that is supported with content from the episodes and from commentary given by RDM and crew will be evaluated by the community. I have no problem in toning down the POV, if there is any to be toned down. The crux of the series is that the Cylons (at least a group of them) are out to become "closer to God", hence their desire to become more human, and procreate and so forth. Again, this page is by no means "final" and the beautiful thing about the wiki format is that things can be changed when there are new developments regarding the show itself. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:30, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I shouldn't have to prove my case. You didn't prove your case. That's what NPOV is about, unless facts or known, you shouldn't favor one theory over another. --Mateo 13:00, 18 August 2006 (CDT)


I am not attacking you personally. I am pointing out legitimate concerns.

  1. "I acknowledged them by the fact that I have stopped talking about them"--->This isn't acknowledging anything, and that's not even what you did: you continued to complain about "we need to cite such and such", even after we inserted citations, etc. etc.
  2. "We were talking about 2 things at once and I was trying to eliminate one of them as to avoid confusion (which is now ocurring again) by focusing on the most narrow matter and to take the rest to PM "--->I still have no idea what this "second" thing is you are talking about. Please elaborate. I am honestly confused.
  3. By us having to direct you to this Discussion page, and me even having to go "I will bring this up in a discussion page for the article, it's place is not a personal rant on another page", that I had to do this and we had to explain it to you, showed if you do know how to use wikis you were being confusing about it, and either way not trying to go about the process of using a Wiki through discussion with other users.
  4. "Secondly, I am not being belligerant. I am not "compromising" because I have nothing to compromise." Define "irony"
  5. Mateo in the "over a year" you've been on wikis, you've basically done only 2 things on BSWiki: argued the semantics of a "Sequel" vs a "prequel", and the current demand that this page be destroyed. I'm not berating you for not using BSWIki alot; we get many newcomers who are not avid about it. What is straining the decorum is that you are now describing the many flaws in articles you didn't even talk about in Discussion. By your own words, you are a "Stranger" here. I'd be happier if you worked to really helping out here and being a part of stuff.
  6. Yes, I proved my case. At this point you're just lashing out at everyone who is disagreeing with you when you could be trying to work with us. Homer Simpson: "I'm not pouting....you're pouting!"
  7. I put the matter to a definative vote so this doesn't drag on forever. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:45, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Responses to above:

  1. Well, if I missed something by a few minutes then sorry. I acknowlege that I am happy with the removal of "contact with other cylons". I've moved on from that. I'm now talking specifically about that Cylons can not have children.
  2. We were talking about both the 2nd qualification and whether rankings can exist in general. Talking about two things at once creates confusion (now we are discussing about 20 things, so it's even more confusing). We don't need to continue talking about this, it's unimportant.
  3. The other discussion page was on the state of the wiki. You, for some reason, thought that I shouldn't talk about specific articles on that page. Whatever, so I moved over here with you. That doesn't mean I don't know how wikis work just because you disagree with where I talk about certain things. Why are we even talking about this? What does this have to do with the article? This isn't about me or you, it's about the article. This is called "ad hominem", attacking the person.
  4. This type of thing is complete unnecessary. It doesn't help resolve disagreements.
  5. I didn't demand that this page be destroyed. My problem was that the ranking system seemed to favor certain POVs (and I turned out to be right, which is why I think you're so angry right now). I suggested changing it around to make it NPOV. You've invented this "destroy the article" stuff in your mind.
  6. No, you haven't proven that anything a cylon says to a human is true. I am not lashing out at anyone. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Look at your last two posts which were nothing more than insults against me. I have insulted no one, I have only pointed out when POVs are being ignored.
  7. That vote isn't related to this matter, as I never suggested deleting the article in the first place. My suggestions have all been to remove POV content. --Mateo 14:00, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Anders

I think we should move Anders from "no possibility" to "low probability", since the major point against him being Cylon is that Cylons on Caprica called him human, and Baltar (who also has been called human by Caprica Cylons) is on the low probability list. The other point is that he was a sports star, so people would have noticed more than one of him walking around, but there is no reason to believe that more than one of him would have been walking around at all. There's no indication that more than one Boomer or Doral was ever in the Colonial star system before the Attack. Not that I think he's a Cylon, but the evidence is not yet conclusive. Noneofyourbusiness 12:17, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Is the "ranking" really that valuable? I can see the utility in pointing out characters that cannot possibly being Cylons due to canon references, but as for the remaining ones... they might be Cylons. One person's "moderate" might be another person's "high" or "low". All we should do is present the facts as they've appeared in the series and let the reader decide for themselves. --Steelviper 13:21, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
Agreed! I've been saying this for a while, a ranking system cannot possibly be neutral. There are fundamentally assumptions made (such as demonstrated above, the assumption that cylons are telling the truth when talking to humans). It should be up to individuals, no the BSwiki, to decide what they believe. --Mateo 13:23, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

It still needs to be moved. Noneofyourbusiness 10:12, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

It still needs to be moved. Noneofyourbusiness 13:05, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

To be honest, I'd rather see Baltar moved to "no possibility." --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:13, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
Good. I agree. I pushed for Anders to low because I thought it would be easier to achieve. Noneofyourbusiness 12:40, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Then again, now that we know about the Significant Seven and Final Five, it would be better to move Anders to low and keep Baltar at low. Noneofyourbusiness 18:42, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Vote

I put forward the proposal (which I do not support) that we yank all of the "chances of being a Cylon" stuff, as well as anything not stated directly on screen or by RDM, removing all Analysis on our part.

Support

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - There's nothing truly wrong with this well-researched Analysis article. As far as Analysis allows, it is Not POV. Any minor concerns with it can and were easily fixed by simple editing and discussion, and there's nothing wrong with summaryizing who has more evidence against them and who has relatively little.--The Merovingian (C - E) 13:33, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Comment

  • I don't think anybody (including Mateo) is in favor of this. I think you realize that, though. Should this "vote" continue to take up space if it really isn't anything that anybody is even suggesting? If anything I think most of Mateo's objections would be resolved by simply yanking the "Chances of being a Cylon" rating and headers. --Steelviper 14:00, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Point taken, I'll revise that...--The Merovingian (C - E) 14:12, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
  • You can't properly hold a single vote on 2 seperate issues (rankings and analysis). Some people might be in favor of one but not the other. Such as me. --Mateo 14:15, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
    • I agree. Following SV's advise, this is just for the rankings. --The Merovingian (C - E) 14:16, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
      • The proposal says for removing rankings and analysis. --Mateo 14:18, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Possible resolution to POV dispute

Instead of scraping the article altogether, it could be possible to set up seperate pages for different theories. For example, currently this page supports an axiomatic assumption that things cylons say to humans are true, absent evience against it. You could set up a page that operates off of that assumption. You can then set up a seperate page for a different assumptions, for example my opinion that anything cylons say to humans can not be trusted. And so on. That way no one's POV is excluded and we can still have speculation based on the various theories. --Mateo 13:33, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

That's needlessly elaborate, and BattlestarWiki is not a messageboard. ---->I have already put it to vote. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:35, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
Please provide an alternative that doesn't exclude some POVs. --Mateo 13:38, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
There are no POV violations. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:47, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
This article supports the POV that cylons are telling the truth to humans. POVs which contradict this assumption are excluded, currently. I'm trying to find a way to fix this, this suggestion is the best I can come up with so far. If you have other suggestions, I would like to hear them. --Mateo 14:01, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
Could everybody quit using the POV and NPOV terms? I think they are just confusing the issue. Couldn't we just report all the "facts" that are presented in canon and let the reader draw their conclusions? --Steelviper 13:49, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
I agree that this is probably the best path. --Mateo 14:02, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
Mateo I am sorry that this may have caused tension; A) I don't think there's a problem with rankings, just saying "this person has a lot of evidence against them and little alibi: High probability"...much less, people like Adama who we've actually ruled out. I hope the rankings represent a blurring rather than rigid structure (i.e. Low to Moderate) B) There isn't much fundamentally wrong with this page itself, it's for Analysis. While we could debate the rankings thing, on having Analysis at all I really think that's just the nature of the thing. C) We've got bigger fish to fry than our own petty squabbles, fellow BSG Fan: I've just heard shocking news that due to an NBC/Writer's Guild of America fight, the BSG Webisodes have been postponed indefinately. Quickly, to the webisdoes article!...--The Merovingian (C - E) 14:22, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
While there's definitely merit in well-researched analysis, I think it's important that we should distinguish our "analysis" content from our "encyclopedic" content. Maybe there could be an encyclopedic version of this page that's just the facts (ma'am), then an "analysis version" (in an analysis namespace) that would be as it is now? If another fan wants to research the same problems under different assumptions, they could start a different analysis article, and use the encyclopedic article as ammunition (but operating under their alternative assumptions). And... damnit. That's why they haven't been released. I wondered if something was up (since they should have been out by now otherwise). --Steelviper 14:41, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
Perhaps we could use a Template at the top clearly saying this is an Analysis page?--The Merovingian (C - E) 15:31, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
This article does have "speculation" in the title. I think that suffices. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 23:21, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

My concern is the relationship between Qualifiers and Rankings. Rankings are based on Qualifiers. Qualifiers are based on Assumptions. So if a person has different assumptions, their rankings will be different. Assumptions are axiomatic. The difference between this Analysis and Anaylsis on episode pages is that the analysis on episode pages is not axiomatic: it doesn't make definitive statements that then influence the rest of the article. This one does. I still would like to resolve this. --Mateo 14:36, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I think that lays it out more clearly: Rankings are based on Qualifiers. (Going in reverse order): I think the Qualifiers are fine, and the Rankings a logical easy to read summation of their net result. If you don't like the Qualifiers, I can see why you are against the Rankings (as they are based on them).--------->Our Qualifiers are not based on "Assumptions". "Cylons are not copies of pre-existing people" is not an assumption at all, "Cylons probably started infiltrating Colonial society en masse 2 years ago so someone who's been aronud 20 years can't be a Cylon" is Analysis; a point based on evidence, not "assumption", and Caprica-Sharon's long scene explaining how Cylons themselves are sterile, was presented as fact and fits into place with all other Cylon activities. No, we will not remove Caprica-Sharon's statement from the Qualifiers, as it was presented as really fact and as Joe said above, to doubt everything verges on paranoia. It's a Hypothesis: any good scientific hypothesis bases itself on evidence which is trusted until disproven. I.e. we still call Evolution technically a "theory" but it's based on solid evidence and speculation based on that, analysis, but not wild "Assumptions" of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. With reference to that specific point, we aren't removing the Cylon sterility thing as a qualifier.--->Qualifiersare not based on "Assumptions"; most of this is tentative (save for those people we've ruled out for several reasons), under the "well I wasn't there and didn't see homo erectus turn into Cro Magnons, but I can pretty well piece together the evidence so I'm not doubting it" train of thought.---->Thank you for still wanting to resolve this. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:42, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
"It was presented as fact". What does that even mean? A cylon made claims of fact to humans. Saying that this is "evidence" makes the assumption that she is telling the truth. That's a POV, by definition. There's no dancing around this. This article is extremely POV and you are stiff-arming any attempt to make it encompass more than just your own personal POV. The fact that you say "No, we will not remove Caprica-Sharon's statement from the Qualifiers" shows that you don't want to resolve this and that, in fact, you feel you have more power here than everyone else (you don't).
There are really only 2 possible ways to make this article neutral: remove all POV qualifiers or make this a page of facts and then splinter pages for different POVs. --Mateo 20:18, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Having thought about this, I think the best measure would be to cover all possible POV on this. One POV for those who believe Sharon telling the truth and those who believe Sharon's not. Further thoughts, concerns, suggestions? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:31, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
I think it's best to break into different pages. I just edited the page and it said it was 33kb and that 32kb was the suggested limit. --Mateo 20:34, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Editting by section avoids this and constrains your changes to make edit histories more readable, even without comments. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 22:33, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
32kb is the suggested limit for pages due to technical issues with older web browsers, such as IE5 and NS4, if I recall correctly. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 23:06, 13 September 2006 (CDT)
Think about this article in the long-term encyclopedic view. If the series continues to a logical end, the contents of the page maybe (and likely) rendered moot. I don't if investing a lot of time picking over it is worth it. Anecdotely, I have cited this article a lot on boards, and the arguments have been analysed by non-wiki users and seem to be acceptable. Plus, it has received several complements. One solution maybe the disputed discussion Naturalistic science fiction. I like that because it forces the "disputer" to put forth logical arguments (and work) to make his/her point. Personally, I think that this is one of best "analytic" articles on the wiki. Just my 2 cubits. --FrankieG 16:25, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
TNS is wildly successful by SciFi's standards; it'll be around more than long enough to keep this article moot in the original sense for quite a while. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 23:28, 18 August 2006 (CDT)
I was referring to the second meaning of moot (obsolete), because we would know all the agents, especially if the series is able to continue to it's logical event. However, it is possibly we won't. After all my pontificating, I still see nothing wrong with the article. --FrankieG 05:42, 19 August 2006 (CDT)
I just meant that point is likely a long way off. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 09:15, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Ok, I am going to try and build these pages. What about titles though? We need names for the theories. I was thinking of Cylon agent speculation (extermination theory) for the theory that cylons only goal is the extermination of humans (and therefore their words can't be trusted). Not sure what to call the theory that this page currently supports. --Mateo 11:56, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Cylon agent speculation (procreation theory) would probably be apt. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:41, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Jammer in the webisodes

I disagree with the analysis of the webisodes presented on this page. Jammer was not advocating the Cylon agenda; he was baiting Duck to find out if he was a potential recruit. Jammer's reaction to Tigh's plan to hide arms in the temple is interesting, but hardly damning. Tyrol's oft-repeated line in the season three trailer ("some things you don't do, colonel, even in war") suggests the question of acceptable or unacceptable tactics will be part of the first few episodes of the next season. The scene in the temple might just be a setup for exploring that distinction. There are ten webisodes to go, and attempting to discern Jammer's motives at this point (with the story unfinished) might be a little premature. --Noindiecred 00:26, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

I think the analysis of the webisodes is inline with the rest of the analysis. It inherently takes a paranoid approach, as most of the entries are meant to convince people someone isn't a Cylon. I certainly consider his behavior in the webisodes suspicious (more the second), particularly in comparision to the "roll the hard six" thing.
As to leaving it off until The Resistance is finished, I feel that the text is likely to end up more polished if it's incremented and reviewed after each segment. In any case, it seems best to work with all canon material available at any given point. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:46, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
Anyone agree to move Jammer to "Moderate probability of being a Cylon" based upon what we seen in Occupation. Cavil called him Human. --Shane (T - C - E) 01:18, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Cavil may be unaware (remember, the remaining models are supersecret), in which case he should remain as is; or he's putting Jammer in his place, which would lower him on the suspected list. I'd have to see more evidence before I'd vote either way.--み使い Mitsukai 01:30, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Where did we learn that the remaining models are supersecret? --April Arcus 02:16, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Saw it as a reference somewhere on this site, a comment by Tricia Helfer that states essentially the remaining Cylon agents are so secret that not even the known ones are aware of who they are. I'm going to have go to spelunking through the site here to find out exactly where that was referenced, but I know I saw it.--み使い Mitsukai 02:25, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
Heres a link to the interview: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Ragnar_Anchorage/index.php?showtopic=5655 Noneofyourbusiness 07:09, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

The suspect must not have any adult children or siblings citation

First off, Summary is not the talk page. It is not a place to discuss previous edits. It is a summary of what you changed about the page. Not why you think a previous change is invalid. That is what the talk page is for.

Secondly, simply naming an episode where a supposed reveal takes place is not a citation. Giving lines of dialogue or paraphrasing dialogue that takes place, is a citation. The reason I want it to be this specific is because if you are not specific, people can claim cited facts when in fact they are not facts; just someone's interpretation of events. --Mateo 10:09, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Starbuck: So farms, that’s great. What were they gonna do? Knock me up with some Cylon kid?
Sharon: They were gonna try to. We haven’t been successful so far.
Anders: Supposedly they can’t reproduce. You know biologically. So they have been trying every which way to produce offspring.
I think that's the relevent dialogue. Not sure how you want that incorporated... --Steelviper 10:31, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
I'll add it, thanks. --Mateo 11:41, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Mateo, having a link to "The Farm" is a valid citation, because this is where the information is revealed. Also, the pertinent quote that Steelviper posted on this talk page is listed on "The Farm"'s episode guide under "Noteworthy Dialogue", albeit in a much longer form. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:34, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
It's not valid because a person would have to watch the entire episode to verify it. This is the equivalent of giving a book reference and just saying what book made the claim, without listing page numbers. Turn that into your professor and you're getting a failing grade. --Mateo 11:41, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
While I see where you're coming from, wikis work differently than mere term papers. All one needs to do is click the link and find the pertinent information on "The Farm"'s page, which is why it's a valid wiki citation. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:45, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
One shouldn't have to read an entire article, not even knowing exactly what you are looking for, to verify a claim. Besides, that breaks the citation rules of self-referencing. The person making the claim of fact has to do the work, not the person who wants to check the fact. --Mateo 11:56, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
The dialog would help, but we might also want to include timestamps. I just fixed up the {{cite episode}} template to include it. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:09, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Linking to the episode guide entry on "The Farm" isn't a self reference... seeing as the pertinent quote is listed on that page (and we could even grab an audio capture of the quote in question). (We may also have to better define what a "self reference" is and what one isn't?) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 16:36, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
The quote wasn't cited, in any way, on the page. So a person who tried to verify the citation wouldn't even know to look for a quote. They weren't told that it came from a quote in the episode. For all they know, it could simply come out of the "feel" of the episode. That's why it's important to be very specific in citations, it's the only way to judge if the citation fits the claim of fact. It removes subjectivity; either the citation fits the claim or not. --Mateo 18:35, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
It's valid as a matter of policy (BW:CJ); discuss it on the policy's talk page if you want it changed, though, to be frank, I doubt many will agree with you, as practicality argues weightily against your position. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 16:21, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
That page doesn't say anything about how specific you have to be when citing episode content. --Mateo 18:35, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
BW:SC#Links_to_Episodes supports our long-standing precedent of simply naming the relevant episode. I apologize for directing you to BW:CJ as support for something it does not directly mention. I would note that even Joe seemed to think it stated this. It probably should.
If you would like justification, I suggest looking at an article with frequent citations and contemplating dropping a paragraph between ref tags in place of each parenthetical episode name. Also consider the legal ramifications, as such a policy would necessitate quoting the vast majority of every script.
As a readability note, please place same-level replies to the same comment so as to advance through time as one goes down the page. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:41, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
I think that may set a bad precedent. If will start having to "cite" aired content that is already generally and reasonably accepted, the wiki will mostly be cites. Also, isn't the discussion page for clearing up most stuff like this? And CA is right, if there is a problem with the policy, take it to BW:CJ. --FrankieG 16:39, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Using the talk page is bad because then you will have to go over the same dispute every time someone different recognizes it. As it stands, you only need to cite controversial claims. Whenever speculation is involved, citations are necessary. There is a thin line between someone's interpretation of an event and what the simple facts are. People, by nature, think that their interpretation is obviously correct. They have a hard time recognizing POV (see above discussion with The Merovingian, who couldn't realize that his interpretations were POV, not fact). So making vague "this happened in X episode" citations makes it extremely difficult to verify that it is a simple fact and not POV interpretation. --Mateo 18:35, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
I don't follow "Using the talk page is bad because then you will have to go over the same dispute every time someone different recognizes it." By all means, elaborate on that if you wish.
All claims that are not prima facie true should be cited. Being speculation or not has no bearing on this requirement.
This is a tangent which I don't feel merits further discussion here, but, to illustrate that I disagree with your example of the above discussion with The Merovingian, note that I don't agree that your POV on that matter is a cogent one.
If you consider such citations too vague, I suggest you consider trying my typical response to an episode reference I can't place, which is simply requesting clarification via the article's talk page. As you can see, in this case someone knew or could easily find the exact relevant lines of dialogue, and that person readily provided them. If that remedy does not please you, I'd suggest bringing it up at BW:CJ's talk, but, for whatever reasons, you seem staunchly unwilling to do so. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:41, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
I was summarizing what I changed and the reasoning behind it. You are likely referring to my parenthetical justification; I typically include such any time my edit is not obvious in intent and reasoning, particularly with reversions and partial reversions. 'An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?".' is the first sentence of Wikipedia:Help:Edit summary, so I believe such usage to be solidly in line with wiki norms. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 16:21, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
Just because it is normal doesn't mean it is correct. Summaries are for summarizing. Not communicating with previous editors. That is what the talk page is for. You specifically refered to me in your summary. That's not what summaries are for; they are for descriptions of the changes you made are, irrespective of what a previous person's changes were. You even gave me instructions to use the talk page. You should have posted your reasons for not liking my previous edit on the talk page. That's what it's for, use it. Not the summaries. That causes warring. --Mateo 18:35, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
It is not just normal. That page is from the people that wrote the software this wiki uses, and, as such, it represents the opinions of the people that put the summary box there in the first place. Providing justification for the edit is the intended function of the feature.
Edit summaries are for conveying both the substance of an edit and its reasoning. If you dislike this, you are free not to use them for such, but I will continue on my present course.
As to giving you instructions to use the talk page, it was actually for two distinct reasons. The first was the avoidance of a revert war in the case of your not understanding the best way to dispute a source. The second was that it offers an alternative remedy, further explaining the reasoning behind the edit.
As to justifications in the edit summaries causing warring, it does seem to have offended you; I'm sorry for any offense caused, and I can assure you it was not intentional. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 00:41, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Split

I would like to see this page split up into three different pages based on the sections that we have and setup a "table" for linking to the split up pages, but still have an overall summary on this page. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:20, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Good idea Shane. Sort of like the The Twelve Colonies (RDM) series. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 14:38, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
yeah. --Shane (T - C - E) 14:39, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

The problem is that this already needs to be split up by different POVs. So if you are going to split it up, you need to give each splinter page specific theory names. --Mateo 18:39, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

Starbuck as agent vs. relationship with Adamas

Hello, I just added another piece of data counting against Starbuck being a Cylon, though it may need some fine-tuning. The data added was the length of her knowing one or more of the Adama family due to her past relationship with Zak. Considering how the real-world military works, for her to have met him at flight school (and for her to have been a flight instructor), she would have had to have been in the military for some years (they don't pick hotshot nuggets for flight instructor, no matter how good), though this is real world vs. BSG world speculation. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that the relationship was well before the start of the miniseries, and likely well into the "disqualification" time. Of course, all of this is based on the info given in "Act of Contrition".

I've probably written it very badly, but it's information that is nonetheless useful, so if someone else could probably come and give me a hand cleaning it up, it would be appreciated.--み使い Mitsukai 09:41, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that relationship was two years ago, which is when infiltration began. None of the Adamas knew her before then. Alpha5099 12:16, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
Not true. IIRC, there is a picture that pops up a few times in S1 which shows Zak, Kara and Lee, which would indicate that Lee knew her through Zak, and while their friendship wasn't as strong as it was as of the Miniseries, he did at least know her.--み使い Mitsukai 22:58, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
The facts that we know is that the relationship with Zak ended two years ago with his death. This is when Starbuck met Adama, as shown in Act of Contrition. She, however, has had a friendship with Apollo before that, as shown by the picture Thrace has and the conversation the two have when he visits her in the brig in the Miniseries. --Talos 23:13, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Qualfier Wording

"Confirmed participation in Cylon War"

I'm not sure that this is the best way to phrase this. For example, Ellen Tigh, Laura Roslin, Tom Zarek and Brother Cavil are clearly old enough (visually, at least) to have been around during the time of the Cylon War, but I really doubt Ellen was a participant in the war, per se (can anyone actually picture Ellen in the military?). This also affects Roslin, Zarek, and Cavil (insofar as his statement of being a preacher for over 30 years before his revelation as a Cylon agent) and thus it makes the wording off. I would propose the following:

"Confirmed to have lived during the Cylon War"

which would fit the above criteria and still match the civilians/non-combatants who lived at that time.--み使い Mitsukai 09:53, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

"Confirmed to have lived during the Cylon War" would be fine to me. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 12:26, 8 October 2006 (CDT)