Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

2006-05-03T19:45:12Z

Geckomind: /* Support */

*[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01|Archive 1 (September 29th, 2005 to Present)]]:

:[[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Citation Consistency|Citation Consistency]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Request for name change|Request for name change]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#BSG: The Magazine|BSG: The Magazine]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Citation Format|Citation Format]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Character Ages|Character Ages]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Railguns|Railguns]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Twelve Lords of Kobol|Twelve Lords of Kobol]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Magazine Content|Magazine Content]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#To Do|To Do]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#BSG Books|BSG Books]], [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive01#Sources namespace|Sources namespace]]


==Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report==
"Koenigrules" (KR) is the alias of Jim Iaccino, a popular reporter of BSG spoilers, whose reports are often cited and reposted by other sources. [http://lvpodcasts.autopodcaster.com/download.php?filename=Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3/Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3 Recent comments] made on the "[http://www.subject2discussion.com/ Subject 2 Discussion]" segment of the "[http://www.lvrocks.com/ LV Rocks]" radio program (transcribed at [[Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006]]) raised the possibility that KR is merely re-reporting publically available information, and does not appear to be a credible primary source.

[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] investigated this possibility, and posted his findings to [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]]. [[User:Peter Farago|I]] raised the possibility of instating a policy against citing KR's reports as credible sources on Battlestar Wiki, which was seconded by [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]].

Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review [[Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006]], its putative [http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf source material], and The Merovingian's comments on [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]] prior to casting your vote, and feel free to raise any questions below. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update:''' Koenigrules has responded to a number of our concerns via e-mail. You can read my correspondence with him at [[Sources:Correspondence with Jim Iaccino]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update 2:''' I will be transcribing KR's appearance on tonight's Subject 2 Discussion either later tonight or early tomorrow, and offer my considered opinion afterwards. I may request that the current "blacklist" vote be closed and recast as a more general discussion on the appropriateness of anonymous sources at battlestar wiki. Rebuttals will be welcome. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:05, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update 3:''' KR's latest appearance has been transcribed to [[Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 25 April 2006]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update 4:''' My final opinion is available at [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad#From Peter]]. I have changed my vote to "Oppose" and have supported Joe's suggestion of closing this vote and moving the topic of discussion to the appropriateness of anonymous sources. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:25, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update 5:''' This poll was closed by Joe on May 2, 2006, in favor of "The Rumor Vote" below. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 01:27, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

===Blacklist Vote===

====In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source====
*<del>[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT) - I feel like this guy betrayed us. And it's getting worse; 4-5 news sites report things he says as fact; he is not helping at all. Dogger said: "''He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail.''"-->He put that more clearly than I could. Way to go Dogger. :)</del>
*<del>[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.</del>
*<strike>[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT) - We do NOT claim to be a primary source here, and everything that is stated as fact should be citable elsewhere. Our sources are therefore our foundation, so they should be held to a high standard.</strike>
#[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
# [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT) This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information. I would vote the same no matter who we were talking about and spoilers without a named source seem to be a chance of forever cataloging misinformation. If this were a vote about sources and not a person I would be more comfortable but as it stands, I don't feel I can change my vote in good faith. I think spoilers except ones coming directly from writers or cast should be left off all together. If there is a more appropriate way for me to express this than this vote, I will consider changing it if not this is my input.-- [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 12:00, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
#*[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) <del>I've never heard KR 'reveal' anything that I haven't already seen from another source. I have always seen him as just somebody who reads the same things I read and then repeats them in another venue, but with an extra helping of certainty.</del> He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail. <del>Perhaps what he does might have some value as a 'digest' of what is being talked about, but I don't see why anyone but the most naive listener would consider him as a primary source.</del>
#*I have struck out parts of my comments that seem to have been proven wrong by some of the history presented in the thread on Skiffy. However, I cannot in good conscience change my vote because of the simple fact that I don't think that anyone claiming an anonymous source should really be considered a primary source, even if that source is genuine. Perhaps 'blacklist' is the wrong word. I simply see this as a test case for what is the appropriate kind of evidence that should be cited as authoritative. Singling out KR is probably unfair, but that doesn't change what I honestly think to be not an appropriate primary source for a wiki. If there were a vote to have a policy against citing any anonymous source as a primary source, then I would be in favour of that too. I consider this vote to be just an example of what I think should be an overall principle. For example, if KR were to name his source, then I don't see any reason not to consider citing that information. The problem I have is not with KR's honesty in particular -- it's with the idea of citing a source without giving the reader the benefit of evaluating its reliability, and that includes anonymity as well as the mixing of facts with speculation.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 19:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#*<del>[[User:Gouge|Frankie Gouge]] 02:20, 22 April 2006 (EDT) Credibility is too hard to earn to risk needlessly. Plenty of other sites to get speculative spoilers. </del>
#[[User:Bowersj8|Bowersj8]] 14:31, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
#[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:40, 25 April 2006 (CDT) I listened enough to the radio show. (All Annoymous Sources too...)

====Opposed====
#[[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 22:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Individual blacklisting is not appropriate for this case.
#[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 13:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT) It seems he does originate things after all.
#[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Let's not single out KR on the issue, but we do need to address the issue of anonymous sources (see below).
#[[User:Adedward|Adedward]] 23:28, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:06, 2 May 2006 (CDT) - This discussion kind of evolved into the more generic discussion about anonymous sources in general, and I no longer support a ban on KR specifically. I think we already said it had changed and stuff last week, but I forgot to formally change my vote.

====Abstain====
#[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 07:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Changed to abstain because I don't feel I know enough about this issue to choose either way.
#[[User:Quig|Quig]] 10:09, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:53, 20 April 2006 (CDT) After reading the unfortunate thread on the Skiffy board and the dialgoue established between Peter and KR, I will abstain until I determine whether or not this whole thing was worth the heartache for all concerned.
#[[User:Gouge|Frankie Gouge]] 16:05, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
#[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 20:58, 26 April 2006 (EST)

===Motion by The Merovingian===
While KoenigRules and several of his collleagues insist that he does indeed have access to some sort of spoilers, all of them still will not confirm the veracity of these sources. Seeing as this is what they would do both if they were REAL and if they were NOT REAL sources, we thus arrive at an impasse. Therefore, I want to find some civil compromise over this: I'm a Uniter, not a Divider, and if we start turning on each other Rick Berman's new crackpot scheme to make Star Trek XI: Starfleet Academy will eat us BSG fans alive. '''Proposal''': If KoenigRules promises to be more careful in the future in his interviews, to *'''make it clear'''* when he is giving away '''direct information from his source(s)''', and when he is making a '''speculation''' ''based'' on either this purported source material, ''or'' just his own personal '''opinion''', we will reverse our decision to hold a vote to reject him as a reliable source. For example, if KoenigRules says in an interview "I think Baltar is a Cylon", he should really make it clear that that is just his opinion and not supported by any spoiler source information that he might have, as news sites might miscontrue his comments and lead to a world of trouble. However, the matter of HollyWoodNorthReport itself, which has come under frequent attack from many sites for improperly forgetting to use citations when they source material from other fansites, should be considered a separate matter.

I hope we can all agree to this.

:I don't think this subissue needs a vote. Koenigrules has indicated to me that he'll be able to reply here by monday. If he can adequately address the concerns we've raised, then naturally, the above discussion will be re-evaluated in light of that. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

====Support====
#--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:48, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

====Oppose====

== On anonymous sources ==

In lieu of all this, I am thinking of further clarifying the section defining what sources we should and should not use on the wiki. In particular, sources that are anonymous should not be referenced (this is fairly common sense, but isn't explicitly stated0. Also, for reference, we should probably add a definitive list of sources, grouped by categories from "uses anonymous source" to "trusted primary sources". (We have a list such as this already on the Citation page, though it could be better defined in my mind. ) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 19:49, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
:I agree (though I don't know how to set that up using wiki code).--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:46, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
::We would set it up just like the "Image tagging policy" page. The only question is how do we define what is legit and what is not? If we consider how big the internet and how vast information can be found, anyone who reports on infomration at a regular basis could be considered legit, as long as the information is true. (i.e. Gateworld vs. HNR). This would also not benifit the little people. So I am not really a fan of this, but in light of the problem with spoilers vs. fact, this might be needed. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:02, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Well it now seems likely that KR does indeed have a source: he's been heavily involved since the Miniseries, and was on the original nuBSG fan page. What threw me in all of this is that that site **no longer exists**, so when I was trying to fact check his credibility it didn't come up. He still cannot reveal his source without compromising it, so I think Joe's "annonymous source" spoiler tag idea might be best. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:41, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

::::I think anytime something can be better defined, it is a plus to the accuracy of the project. =)-- [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 12:02, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Everyone I think this has been resolved after our contact with KoenigRules, and we should bring down the site notice on the Main Page that there's a vote going on regarding KR, as I think things have been resolved already and this would only confuse newcomers. KR seems entirely on the level to me now, and we should put this past and move on to other work. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:40, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

:Absolutely not. This remains an important issue. Tomorrow night, I will transcribe his appearance on S2D and offer my final opinion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:13, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

===From Peter===

Alright then. Having spoken with KR and listened to his latest podcast, the following is now clear to me:
*KR is not merely re-reporting information gleaned from other sources available to the public. The overlap between the information in the Selloi Dedona casting side and the report made on the 11th is remarkable, but the information he supplied on the 25th cannot be accounted for in light of other publicly available material.
*KR asserts that he has a single, anonymous source for all his reports.
*KR has complied with every request we've made of him, clearly separating his personal speculation from information supplied by his source.

It is therefore my opinion that he has done everything we can reasonably expect him to do, considering the anonymity of his source. I therefore believe that singling him out for blacklisting is inappropriate. I am changing my opinion on the above vote to "oppose", and I support Joe's desire to let the matter drop and refocus the discussion on the nature of our sources.

The [[Battlestar Wiki:Spoiler Policy|Spoiler Policy]], arrived at by grudging compromise last autumn, makes the following statement:

<blockquote>All spoiler information must have a source, whether in the form of a [[Wikipedia:URL|URL]] or a printed publication text, on the ''talk page'' of the spoilerific article. For printed publication text, a copy must be scanned and uploaded to the wiki in the form of a [[Wikipedia:JPG|JPG]] or [[Wikipedia:PNG|PNG]], and posted on the talk page of the article containing the spoilerific content.</blockquote>

Naturally, this arises from a desire for Battlestar Wiki to be a reliable source. The nature of a wiki allows anybody to contribute news and information, which must be checked by a policy such as this. It would obviously be unacceptable to allow anybody to pass off ungrounded speculation as reported fact, bolstered in reputation by dint of its presence on the wiki.

However, the very nature of spoiler reporting renders impossible the goal of maintaining perfect accuracy while reporting on episodes not scheduled to air for months to come. Even the very best sources we can hope to come by - legitimate casting sides and call sheets, for example - may refer to script elements that end up being cut from the final broadcast. Set reports may refer to scenes which are filmed but not included, or be reported out of context.

This is an inevitability to which we must resign ourselves if we intend to report on spoilers at all. However, it can be mitigated by requiring attribution to individual reporters. The real problem with KR's reports is the anonymity of his source. Casting sides and call sheets which arrive in their original format are unlikely to be forged, and set reports substantiated by photographic evidence, but all we have to go on with regard to KR is his good reputation.

I find it awkward to judge submissions here based on such a nebulous concept as the reporter's reputation, which is why my personal preference leans to reporting only information which can be backed up by tangible evidence or sourced to individuals involved in production. However, it should be acknowledged that by excluding anonymous reports such as KR's, we will be depriving ourselves of a prolific source of timely and apparently reasonably accurate information.

Because I consider this a real and important dilemma, I want to solicit comment form other users on the issue of anonymous sources. Particularly relevant questions:
*Should they be allowed at all?
*If so, should we discriminate between different sources on the basis of reputation?
*If so, how should reputation be determined, and who should be responsible for determining it?
--[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:22, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

: '''(Intro)''' First of all, I listened to the podcast live. There was quite a number of people in the chat channel inclduing myself. Along with KR, was merv, Ribby, and a few other people that were in the orginal flame war on SciFi.com.
: '''(Question 1)''' anonymous Spoliers are the worest. First of all, they are considered [[Wikipedia:Hearsay]] which means the context of the spolier or information can change and exaserations can be made by the reporter. '''(From the Podcast on Question #1)''' When I listened last night he said he took through notes on what his source said, to make sure he kept the information straight. Usually I have pretty good ears, but I didn't hear any paper's or him lean away from the phone.
: '''(Question 2)''' If gateworld to report this as a spolier, and like this podcast OR link even us as the source with US sourceing it as an annoymous source, [http://gateworld.net/galactica/news/2006/04/secondandthirdepisodetitle.shtml Gateworld] did not list this current radio cast as the source for them knowning the new title. This page was posted a good few hours before the radio show. They have yet to cite or deem these current spoliers on the website.
: '''(Question 3)''' I can not answer this, because I think offical sites, offical news orginzations, are the best place. If this came from Katte's website, or Apollo's then I would be OMG, but it didn't. It came from a source that can not even verify if the spoliers are correct. Teasers are '''offical spoliers''', you can choose to watch them or not, but they are offical. RDM podcasts are offical, RDM blog. etc... etc..
: '''(Conclustion)''' If he was to go on the show stright till october, we would know all of Season 3 BEFORE it happened. For this, I voted to not allow KR be a source, even if another "anonymous" soruce, and only allow '''offical spoliers''' to be reported. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 13:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:I'm not that keen on using anonymous sources at all. I don't think it's realistic for us to be everything to everyone, and would rather see us strive to be the concise, accurate, organized repository of BSG knowledge (and let the new sites and forums handle the spoiler info). I could see maybe having a "news" pages with links to such spoilers, but actually putting content into the article that we have no way of verifying (and could prove to be false) seems like a stretch.
:Maybe there's a way for us to be able to "report" the information, without compromising our accuracy. We could, for example, limit spoiler postings to spoiler news areas (which nobody updates anyway), and obvious spoiler pages (like the next season, and upcoming episodes). People reading those pages '''expect''' spoiler information, as there is no canon information available yet. The important thing to keep in mind would be making sure that once the page passes out of the realm of spoilers into to normal article space (by having an airdate, etc), all normal citation requirements must apply. It is a double standard, but there's a clearly demarcated line that could be observed/enforced, and if the spoilers end up being false it only ends up affecting the temporal accuracy of that particular spoiler page, and not the long-term accuracy of the page once aired. I would still prefer not seeing any anonymous sources in the regular article space, though, as the maintenance issues involved would potentially leave false spoiler information in place after the event occurs.
:Also, I'd like to see the above vote closed (since the context since it's opening has changed quite dramatically). I'd rather not change my vote, I'd vote that way again given the same information, but "re-voting" based on the new information seems a bit of the Monday-morning quarterbacking ("I'd a double bagged it.")--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:47, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

::Spoilers are already quarantined into the episode guide pages; quarantining anonymous spoilers somewhere else seems excessive to me. I think we just need to decide one way or another. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:55, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:::I didn't realize that was the case. I think I was remembering character pages like [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Helena_Cain&oldid=23108 this] that had spoiler boxes, and it's hard to edit them without running into the spoilers. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:00, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
::::I'm mistaken. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:02, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Having read everything you guys said and listening to the last show, here's my thoughts:
I entirely agree with the three points about KR Peter said; he met our requests and was careful about saying "I guess" "that's what I think", etc., and he incorporated it into his interview smoothly (didn't stop in his tracks and say "everyone be warned this is just what I think, websites shouldn't etc etc etc) which was good for him, not affecting his interview drastically. I think that worked out well for everyone. Nextly, I am actually now quite possitive that '''he does indeed have some sort of spoiler source''', the exact nature of which is of course unknown, but still it is now clear to me that he isn't just basing all of his information on casting sides and public information, but has a source no one else does. The real problem, then, has changed: how do we address spoilers which are based on a reporter who has a ''reputation'' of providing on the whole accurate spoilers ''in the past'', and uses an ''anonymous source'' which nonetheless seems to be a "real" source?
:"Should they be allowed at all? If so, should we discriminate between different sources on the basis of reputation? If so, how should reputation be determined, and who should be responsible for determining it?"
This was an important set of questions Peter, and I think that a new subsection on our sources policy page should be openned up to discuss these questions raised in more detail. '''Further, I agree entirely with you and Joe's feelings that this vote here should be "wiped", singling out a single person would be inappropriate, that we should "let the matter drop and refocus the discussion on the nature of our sources."'''

KR's sources thus seem to ''generally'' be real and he's not just making things up, but that raises all sorts of questions; as said above, these sources tend to be based on early ideas or scripts and are subject to change even if the reports on them were truthfully saying what the production team ''thought'' they were going to do, or might be scenes that even get filmed, but ultimately deleted and possibly becoming deleted scenes that are in fact contradicted by scenes that appear in the final episode rendering them totally non-canonical; i.e. what if someone was on the set and saw the alternate cut of "Pegasus" where Boomer ''actually'' gets raped, then left the set and did not see that ''another'' take of this was filmed where she gets saved at the last minute?...this spoiler source would honestly report that they saw a scene where Boomer gets raped...however even though this scene was filmed, another scene was filmed which completely contradicted it and it is no longer real (as opposed to like, the deleted scenes such as when Roslin gets "Lest We Forget" from Billy in "33", which it appears CAN be thought of as more or less canonical and RDM said was only deleted for time reasons). So, the thing we really need to do is open '''another, more generic discussion on what to do about sources and spoilers'''.

My thoughts on the subject: Generally, we should keep spoiler information confined to news and season 3 pages; by it's very nature the season 3 page is right now filled with spoilers, and people going there are looking for them, and can see the spoiler sign on top. Also, *individual episode entries* for episodes that have not aired yet, such as "Occupation", are obviously going to contain spoilers and people go there to look for them, although even then *gigantic* spoilers should be in a highlighted spoiler-text box so you have to highlight ''specific'' plot information to see it. Once and a while there will be some exceptions where we ''can'' keep spoiler info on a character page, i.e. {{spoiltext|Number Three where Lucy Lawless says she'll be a character like God, and do this for a MAJOR 10 episode arc.}}

We should be very sparing about allowing spoiler info like this off of the upcoming season and news pages. ***Still, '''I think our current spoiler warning policy is more or less okay in turns of placement'''.

What we need to really focus on is tagging our sources.

{{spoiltext|I mean, Lucy Lawless said the above thing in ''an interview'' and thus it is okay to add to a page. However, KR's recent comments about what Starbuck is doing in various season 3 episodes should '''definately not be added to the Starbuck page until they are confirmed by production photos''', but still will appear on season 3, news, and season 3 episode pages. }}

Ultimately, I think we actually have to run KoenigRules' spoilers: Gateworld, Galaticastation, and most other Battlestar Galactica news sites all tend to run them within a few days. We'd be seen as less reliable about our info if someone could get better info from somewhere else. ***I think the best idea would be to '''run these annonymous source spoilers only *after* an official news site like Gateworld or Galacticastation has already run them''', like the day after they run them, we report that "Gateworld reported this story, it came from a radio interview which gave news from an anonymous source".

Sort of like the "Citation needed" tag, which appears in the article but as a little super-script? I think we need a new one of those which says "Information from an anonymous source, not confirmed" or something to that effect. Well those are just my early thoughts on the subject. Bottom line: ESSENTIALLY, KR does seem to have a real spoiler source, though he won't reveal it. We need to figure out how to handle anonymous sources like this. We should remove this vote as new information we've gotten has shed more light on the matter, and we should refocus this onto a more ''generic'' "who do we handle anonymous spoilers" discussion on our sources page. I agree with Farago and SteelViper. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
:Maybe you should wrap the actual spoiler content in the above in spoiler tags. I hadn't read some of that yet (and try to avoid it).--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:04, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:Merv writes: ''I think that a new subsection on our sources policy page should be openned up to discuss these questions raised in more detail.''
:The Citation Jihad ''is'' our sources policy page, and we're having that discussion right now. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:14, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

::I meant a new subheading. (I will find those spoiltexts SV...)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:19, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
:::If we allow a spolier to be listed like this it would be moot to what we are. This is not even offical. Spoliers with cast memebers are offical. We become something we are not supposed to be. If I reported annoymously that I heard BSG Wiki was closing and it was annoymous source, it could be anyone, however int his case, Joe is the only one. So a reported would ask joe is BSG closing, or joe would see it and he would look to see who spread that rumor because the fact is not true. Just put yourself in RDM shoes. What would he say to the production staff. Please do not leak spoliers. Actors are bound by the [[Wikipedia:SAG]] contracts in which they why can't reveal sources otherwise they can be seriously fined. They do comment on the show and what their characeter does, but not the spolt details itself. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:31, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:::All spoilers should be sourced. If that source is anonymous, that should probably be specifically, explicitly noted, but I cannot see how it would hurt to include them if they are so marked. Each reader can then judge how much stock to put in an anonymous source individually, since it's a point on which reasonable people can differ. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 15:53, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:::: If you don't mind spoiler's read the two reports. One is from The [[Season 3 (2006-07)]] page and the other is from the new discussion.

{{spoiltext|According to Ron D. Moore's podcast of the Captain's Hand, Apollo will continue to be the Commander of the Pegasus well into Season 3.}}
This goes totally against
{{spoiltext|

KR: It's not— I don't think you're going to have a Galactica spinoff

SO: Uh oh. Well, I mean, they could've done a spinoff with the Pegasus if they'd wanted to, they could've done some other things, but I mean even that as fan fiction—

KR: Did you say "Pegasus"?

SO: Uh oh.

KR: Did you say "Pegasus"? Episode 303.

SO: Uh oh.

KR: Pegasus is destroyed.

SO: Oh no, you're kidding me! Who's on it when it gets destroyed?

KR: Don't know. But it is sent— my source says it is sent on a collision course to a Cylon base ship so that the Galactica can get away.

}}
Goes totally against an offical spoiler. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:13, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
:Possiblities: (1) Plans have changed since RDM made that podcast, (2) Plans have not changed, the producers feel that three episodes are enough to show Lee's ups and downs of command, (3) Keonigrules' source is flatly mistaken or (4) didn't get the details right (it's a Pegasus Viper that is sacrificed, or something like that). --[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 20:58, 26 April 2006 (EST)

=== From Joe ===

Well, I've created {{tl|spoileranony}} with the following wording:

{{spoileranony}}

Basically, I feel that as long as we can cite a source for the rumor, we should report it as such. Care must be taken to ensure that we inform our readers that this information is rumor and speculation. Here are the criteria I'd prefer we use:

# As so long as it is reported on a valid news source (Gateworld, HNR, S2D), we can report it as well.
# We must take care to indicate that these are rumors. Therefore they may or may not be accurate. (Templates such as {{tl|spoileranony}} reflect this view.)
# We must make sure that we are not the primary source for these rumors -- we aren't a news and rumors site. We're a reference. We summarize and scrutinized what's been reported, nothing more, nothing less. (I guess I'm repeating point 1, but I don't think I can emphasize this enough.)

I think we may have to create a page specifically dealing with rumors, such as [[Battlestar Wiki:Rumor Policy]]. Thoughts?

So that's what I have to say on that subject... Unless anything else comes to mind. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 16:34, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:Page takes a second to create... :) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
::{{tl|Episode List}} - needs to be updated. I posted a suggestion to split up the three seasons because spoliers and title names should be inclduded. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree with the three points Joe has listed here. I'm unsure on precise implementation though but we'll be hammering that out for a while. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:First, let me address some of your points above:
:#What the heck is a valid news source? Anyone can start a blog and be a "valid news source". This goes back to the credibility/reputation problem.
:#If we do decide to permit anonymous spoilers, an ostentatious warning banner is the last thing we need. This is alread taken care of by the spoiler and spoiltext tags we already have. The anonymity of the source should simply be noted in the citation.
:I'm afraid I'm still against anonymous sources. If we report anonymous spoilers, we ''must'' take into account the reputation of the poster. Since we ''cannot'' do this in an objective and non-arbitrary manner, we therefore cannot report anonymous spoilers.
:Lastly, there is nothing that we would cover in a "Rumor" policy that we couldn't cover here. Let's not spread ourselves thin. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

: "What the heck is a valid news source?" A very good question indeed. In fact, you do raise many interesting points above and I believe we should consider very carefully whether or not we cite spoilers. I'm starting to reconsider that. Anyone else want to chime in? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 20:19, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

:: I dislike spoilers and only read them because it's an effective necessity to edit here; they don't add anything that wouldn't be there after the episode anyway. My opinion on anonymous sources for them (under the assumption that spoilers in general will be cited) is above. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 20:43, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Joe, I think it's time to wrap this thing up. Let's formally close the blacklist vote and come to a conclusion about our policy on anonymous sources. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:57, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

== The Rumor Vote ==

I am calling a vote on this issue; the '''blacklist vote is closed'''. Since it seems to be the consensus that we will not blacklist anyone, I am calling for a different vote, so as to make thing clear.

Here's the text of what we are voting on:

: Battlestar Wiki's primary goals do not include discerning which unofficial sources have valid information. Our primary goal is to report valid information in an encyclopedic medium. Due to this, we will not be citing rumors from any sources other than official channels (SCI-FI Channel, Ronald D. Moore, and current cast and crew). Any information from sources other than those in the list will be immediately removed from the wiki; actions which lead to the repeated reintroduction of said unofficial and unverifiable material will be dealt accordingly by an on-duty administrator.

Voting will end '''May 9, 2006 at 23:00 UTC'''.

=== Support ===

# [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:13, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
# [[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 23:04, 2 May 2006 (CDT) Could not agree more.
# [[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:24, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
# [[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:52, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
# --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 00:53, 3 May 2006 (CDT) (If I'm understanding this right, we won't be ''reporting'' the rumors, let alone citing them?)
#*Well, that's my understanding Day, though I could be wrong. BTW, what if something like TVGuide gets word of such super-spoilers or from a different source entirely, then runs a story with them that has anonymous sources? I think that if a major publication runs it, the lid on such a spoiler would be blown so wide open that we can't contain it as its common knowledge. I mean they ran a story that Apollo would kiss Starbuck in "Home, Part I" a week before it happened, with a picture and everything. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 01:25, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
#**A picture would be pretty incontrovertible. I'm less inclined to take their word for it in the absence of corroborating evidence. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:39, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
#***Agreed. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 01:47, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
#**Even in that case, unless it was corroborated by RDM or someone close to the production, then we wouldn't quote it. It's safer that way anyway. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 10:20, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
# Absolutely! -- [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 09:44, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
# [[User:Gougef|Frankie Gouge]] 11:44, 3 May 2006 (EDT)
# [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 11:48, 3 May 2006 (CDT) ditto
# [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 11:50, 3 May 2006 (CDT) This should make life easier, as it's a nice, sharp delineation.
# [[User:Geckomind|Geckomind]] 13:13, 3 May 2006 (CDT) BTW, am I right in assuming that the "Purple! Green!" at the top comes from the B5 Episode "Geometry Of Shadows"?
# [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:25, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

=== Oppose ===

=== Neutral ===

Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

2006-05-03T18:13:32Z

Geckomind: /* Support */

User:Geckomind

2006-04-06T18:01:40Z

Geckomind:

{{Character Data|
|photo= [[Image:Geckomind.jpg|200px]]
|name=
|age= 22
|colony= Leonis
|birthname= Fabian Aleksandar Scherschel
|callsign= Fuzzyhead
|death=
|parents=
|siblings=
|children=
|marital status= Engaged
|role= Pilot, ''Battlestar Galactica''
|rank= Lieutenant Junior Grade
|actor=
|cylon=
}}

'''Geckomind''' hails from Bonn, Germany. He is a scifi geek and fan of many classic scifi series and movies (Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars etc.) including the original ''Battlestar Galactica''. He is very fond of the new series since he first heard about it on the Internet in early 2006. Among his many Internet activities, he maintains a [http://www.galciv2.com Galactic Civilizations II] Metaverse empire, the [http://colonialfleet.net Colonial Fleet], which represents ''Battlestar Galactica'' fans in this community.

He likes to play both strategy ([http://www.galciv2.com GalCiv2]) and roleplaying ([http://www.elderscrolls.com Oblivion]) computer games and is also a big fan of Bruce Springsteen, whose music he consideres part of his life. He currently studies Politics, English and Modern History at Bonn University and works part time as a web application developer. His personal blog (in german) is called [http://geckomind.net geckomind.net].

User:Geckomind

2006-04-06T17:45:41Z

Geckomind:

Talk:Military Ranks (RDM)/Archive3

2006-04-06T17:07:32Z

Geckomind: /* Insignia */

Isn't Cally referred to as a Specialist at some point? --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 21:32, 29 August 2005 (EDT)

Definitely. There's a time when the Chief tells the "Specialist" to go do something. -QuintusCinna.

Well, that just fracks up the whole thing then. Not only do we have Cally in the wrong place and we're missing a rank, but it's an Army/Air Force rank for a Fleet member. :( (On the plus side, Specialists are E-4s though IIRC.) --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 21:38, 29 August 2005 (EDT)

Let's be open with the Chief's use of "specialist". It might have been relative to her MOS, though I doubt it. Such as tech specialist, deck specialist, things of that sort. In the military we often called them specialists too, though I do believe, just like you, that the chief was meaning it in the context of rank. --[[User:QuintusCinna|QuintusCinna]]

==Abbreviations==
Here is the list of abbreviations I wrote for the ranks here. The enlisted ranks for Marines are still a little rough though, the "all caps" ranks are in the US Army style, others use lower case, eg Master Sergeant: MSG, MSgt.

Officer 
O-11 Fleet Admiral No abbrev., FAdm could work 
O-10 Admiral Adm 
O-9 Vice Admiral VAdm 
O-8 Rear Admiral RAdm 
O-7 Commander Cdr 
O-6 Colonel Col 
O-5 Major Maj 
O-4 Captain Capt 
O-3 Lieutenant Lt 
O-2 Lieutenant Junior Grade LtJG 
O-1 Ensign Ens 

Enlisted 
E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer MCPO 
E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer SCPO 
E-7 Chief Petty Officer CPO 
E-6 Petty Officer 1st Class PO1 
E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class PO2 
E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class PO3 
E-3 Crewman CN (based on US Navy Seaman SN) 
E-2 Crewman Apprentice CA ("") 
E-1 Crewman Recruit CR ("") 

Marine 
E-9 Sergeant Major SGM 
E-8 Senior Master Sergeant/Master Sergeant SMSgt/MSG 
E-7 Master Sergeant/Sergeant 1st Class MSG/SFC 
E-6 Staff Sergeant SSG 
E-5 Sergeant SGT 
E-4 Corporal CPL 
E-3 Private 1st Class PFC 
E-2 Private 2nd Class PV2 
E-1 Private Recruit PVR 
--[[User:Talos|Talos]] 22:33, 14 September 2005 (EDT)

: I went ahead and formatted your post, Talos, so that it was easier to read. I don't think I broke anything, did I? Anyway, I think the all-caps ranks look loud. I know that's kind of an artifact of the internet, but still... I'd rather just cap the first letter of a word from an abbreviation. Thus "PFC" is fine because each of those are the first letter of a word. On the other hand, I'd rather "Sgt." than "SGT". Also, "Cpt." and "Cmdr." are more intuitive to me, but I don't know if I made those up or ''where'' they came from. --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:03, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
::Thanks for the formatting, that's how it was whem I typed it in notepad. I see how that works now. Like I said, the reason they are all caps is that it is based on the Army enlisted structure. I didn't go with the Marine Corps structure because it's missing the two ranks unique to the MC, Lance Corporal and Gunnery Sergeant. Here is a link about the US Military ranks: [http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html]. There is a link on top to the enlisted ranks. What is interesting is the way the US Navy O-6 rank's head is turned compared to the others. Also, Capt and Cdr are how the USN abbreviates Captain and Commander. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 07:00, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
:::I wanted to add something else, the CAPS are only used in forms, charts, etc. When written with the name it is normal case, so Hadrian,... Rank: SGT, but ...Sgt. Hadrian. I can't believe I forgot this. I must be slipping. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:42, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

== Adama ≠ Fleet Admrial ==

: ''Following was moved from [[User talk:Joe.Beaudoin]] by [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] at 21:45, 17 October 2005 (EDT).''

Noticed something while browsing and thought I might mention it...

On the page for Military Ranks (RDM), the supposition is that the rank of Commander (i.e. Cdr. Adama) is equivalent to a US Navy Rear Admiral. In my extensive reading, I have found that there are a few reasons why Commander is not equal to a Rear Admiral or Commodore.

Battlestar Groups are roughly analogous to Carrier Battle Groups, the current major organizational format for the US Navy. CBGs are commanded as an entire body by a Rear Admiral Lower Half, while the carrier itself is commanded by a Captain (O-6). It is possible that, while the vessel was in lay-up at the Scorpion Ship Yards, the Pegasus was part of a functioning BSG. This would explain why Adm. Nelena Cain is in command of the Pegasus. Meanwhile, the Galactica was quite alone at the beginning of the mini-series, and on the verge of decommissioning and conversion. Adama's rank could be considered analogous to an O-6 since the Rear Admiral LH in charge of BSG-75 would have moved to another BSG while Commander (Captain) Adama took the Galactica into retirement. In a footnote in an earlier draft of the page, it was stated that since Adama had the authority to assume command of the fleet (Miniseries), he would have to carry flag rank. This was likely a plot device, and it was never necessary to justify it, since no other Colonial Fleet vessel survived (excepting Pegasus, which was most likely already gone). In the modern US Navy, it would be highly improbable for the Admiral in charge of a CBG to assume command of the entire Navy.

S. Price

:I expect this would be more useful on [[Talk:Military Ranks (RDM)]] than on Joe's talk page. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:24, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

==How Many Admirals==

Although Nagala and Cain are both referred to as simply "admiral", I don't think that's presents strong evidence for them all being of the same rank, distinguished only by seniority. In the real world, both a one-star and four-star Admiral are referred to as simply "Admiral", unless a precise distinction must be made - not the case in the heat of combat, when Nagala's identity and rank would have been quite well known anyway. Furthermore, RDM's comment that Cain was only one promotion up from Commander strongly indicates that there were additional ranks above her.

The methodology of this page to date has been to identify BSG universe ranks with their (rough) NATO-equivalents. This seems sensible to me, since no precise overview of the BSG rank system has been given yet, and it makes sense to evaluate new information with regard to an existing military structure with which the show's creators are familiar. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:39, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::I agree. I can't imagine a "promotion date" hierarchy working very well for establishing seniority between fleet commanders. I don't know how common inter-fleet operations would be, but there would be a lot more friction if equal ranked admirals were issuing orders to each other. While a twelve-admiral "quorum of twelve" would be a very democratic and fair sounding concept, military thinking tends to prefer hierarchy to committee, especially in cases where decision need to be made quickly. I wonder if Cain's insignia might provide any insight into the ranks (and whether there might be higher ones). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:28, 7 December 2005 (EST)

We never see Cain referred to as a "rear admiral" either. Looking at the insignia on the page, there's only one Admiral insignia anyway—there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that rear admirals and vice admirals even exist in Battlestar Galactica. Moore himself only mentions one grade of "admiral" in his blog entry. So essentially what's happening is that people are making things up and pretending it's in the canon just to make Colonial Fleet correspond perfectly with the US Navy.

In response to "I can't imagine a "promotion date" hierarchy working very well for establishing seniority between fleet commanders.", the fact is, the real military uses that hierarchy consciously. For instance, the seven US generals and admirals promoted to five star rank in 1944 were deliberately promoted on consecutive days—Leahy in the 15th, Marshall on the 16th, King on the 17th, MacArthur on the 18th, Nimitz on the 19th, Eisenhower on the 20th, and Arnold on the 21st of December—to allow for such a hierarchy.

More importantly, Colonial Fleet was probably a small and shrinking military force anyway, largely because they had nothing to do—the colonies were united and there was no foreign threat for over 40 years. Furthermore, there can't have possibly been that many ships in the fleet anyway, if Galactica and Pegasus were the only survivors. Four grades of admiral exist are necessary when you're the United States Navy and you have 300 ships. We have no evidence Colonial Fleet was that large. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 22:17, 7 December 2005 (EST)

:1.) I can't speak for the source on those insignia myself - did [[User:Winterfell]] every say where he found them?

:2.) We know there were at least 120 battlestars, next to the US Navy's 12 aircraft carriers, so I have difficulty with that argument.
::At which point? The Cylon war was 40 years ago. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 22:56, 7 December 2005 (EST)
:::At the time of the Cylon Attack. When Adama tells Starbuck that 30 battlestars have been destroyed, she replies in shock that "that's a quarter of the fleet!". --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:15, 7 December 2005 (EST)
::::OK. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 23:36, 7 December 2005 (EST)

:3.) I don't think we're pretending anything is in Canon here, and if it looks that way to you, I don't mind making a clearer distinction. The fact is simply that we don't know much about the Colonial Navy, and that comparing the ranks observed on the show to the ranks of a well-documented force is an instructive exercise. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:28, 7 December 2005 (EST)

::Your clarifications look good to me, Philwelch. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:34, 7 December 2005 (EST)
I don't know if it means anything but in Pegasus, the DRADIS screen after they identify the Pegasus has two stars next to the Peggie's symbol. Maybe she's a two-star admiral. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 22:17, 25 December 2005 (EST)
:Here's what I mean. Note the stars (they are more blob-like here but are stars) next to the Pegasus on the right and how the identically targeted Galactica has none. Also, note that the Pegasus can ID the Gal's Vipers but the Galactica doesn't show the four Pegasus Viper's callsigns. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 15:54, 28 December 2005 (EST)
[[Image:GalPegDradis.JPG|thumb|DRADIS displays, Galactica and Pegasus ([[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]])]]
::Veering off topic, but Kat is apparently flying "Viper 24" in that scene. Have we seen two-digit numbers used for Vipers elsewhere? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:08, 28 December 2005 (EST)
:::Not that I know of. I was wondering about this earlier, maybe the two digit number is shorthand eg. her Viper is 5624NC or something. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 18:34, 28 December 2005 (EST)

:: I'm assuming this is a moot point here now, but I'll chime in anyway. Of the 120 or so Battlestars that were commissioned at the time of the attacks on the colonies, I'd say we're missing some information to make an educated guess as to who commands what. Starbuck mentioned 'fleet', so I'm working under the assumption that the word 'Battlestar' is used to describe a military ship in general, rather than a specific type of ship (Sort of like the USS in US Navy ships) . That said, I'm guessing there are also more than two classes of Battlestar (Mercury class and whatever class Galactica belongs to can't be the only two),and they're somehow organized into a type of numbered fleet command structure. An Admiral would command the numbered fleet, Commanders would command the smaller support craft and so on down the line. Above the numbered fleets is someone like Admiral Nagala from the mini, who commands the ENTIRE fleet and directly supervises the numbered fleet admirals. In Galactica's case, she was being prepared for decommissioning anyway, so she didn't fall under a numbered fleet, instead reporting directly to Fleet Headquarters on Picon in the mini. I know it's a bit long winded, but hopefully that sort of explains why there aren't 120 or so admirals in the fleet running around giving orders...:) [[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 15:07, 18 January 2006 (EST)

::: I think you're misunderstanding things. A battlestar ''is'' a type of ship. It's like saying destroyer, or aircraft carrier, though, so there can be different classes of battlestar. The name comes from what role it's intended to play in combat (a combination, actually, but a carrier being one of those roles). I believe our understanding is that a Battlestar Group (BSG) was a battlestar and its accompanying support fleet, very similar to the US Navy's Carrier Groups. So an admiral would probably actually be in charge of a few BSGs (with a Commander like Adama being in charge of his BSG alone) and you might have an admiral above that controling a group of lower admirals (think CINCLANT or CINCPAC) and you might not... Then you've got Nagala at the top telling ''everyone'' what to do. Anyway... a battlestar is not just any combat ship, a BSG is not a group of battlestars (but a group of ships with a battlestar in lead), and, no, all my ranting doesn't get us any closer or farther from the question of how many Admirals the COlonial Fleet had before the Attack. --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:44, 18 January 2006 (EST)

:::: I think you and I just both said the same thing! And I wholeheartedly agree, we're no closer to a solution...[[User:Joemc72|Joemc72]] 15:51, 18 January 2006 (EST)

==Insignia==
I'd advocate getting rid of the conjectural insignia. It would be nice if we could find actual screen captures to use instead of Winterfell's (admittedly nice looking) drawings, for credibility's sake. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:22, 11 December 2005 (EST)

:The conjectural ones, yes. The ones that seem to correspond with screen captures we do have, I think it's safe to keep. Is there anyone here with HD captures of the episodes? If so that would help greatly. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 18:53, 11 December 2005 (EST)

::You know what I think? We should have both. I really appriciate the clarity of the illustrations. Let us have both, side-by-side, so that readers may verify the accuracy, but also clearly see what the insigniae are. --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:12, 11 December 2005 (EST)

:::Speaking of this, Major on down in the officers insignia are very hard to see. Can we get versions with more contrast or better colors or something?--[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 22:25, 11 December 2005 (EST)

::::After this last episode, we finally got a good look at Major, and the one on here is close, but is off a little. Same can be said about the one for Captain too. On that one, the middle peak /\ needs to be closer to the top of the insignia. On Major, their is equal (more than shown) space between all of the peaks /\.--[[User:Bpense|AdmPense]] 21:25, 23 February 2006 (CST)

:::::I just recently made some BSG insignias for one of my forums. You can have a look at them here: [http://www.geckomind.net my blog] (sorry for the german page, it's article #8 I'm talking about). I still have the source files (just the insignias without the decoration around them) in 256x256. If you are interested in them for this wiki, please let me know. --[[User:Geckomind|Geckomind]] 12:07, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

Is it just me, or in Lay Down Your Burdens, pt 2, did it seem like Adama was wearing insignia different from the displayed admiral insignia shown here? It almost looked like a chevron with a point at the top, and the shot (which i think was most prominent when Adama was on Colonial 1 w/ Pres Baltar) seemed very distinct, rather than the edged diamond shown here. I cannot distinctly remember the insignia Roslin handed Adama, but I am almost certain that those aren't what I saw. [[User:Jake Conhale|Jake Conhale]] 12:16, 14 March 2006 (EST)

==Tyrol & Hadrian==
Small point - Chief Tyrol and Sergeant Hadrian are assigned equivalent ranks in the table. During his arrest/detention and again during interview in Litmus the Chief puts great stress on calling Hadrian by her rank over and over, this always inplied to me that he considered himself above her in rank. Also if you watch it through on slow-mo zoomed in... (ok now i'm getting sad)... She has a "green diamond with a single stripe" and he has a "green diamond with single stripe and an arrowhead on each side" ie the ranks currently in the table as CPO for Tyrol and PO (of some grade) for Hadrian. - I didn't want to edit the main page as this is my first ever wiki experience. - Grible

:Thanks for your note, and your caution. Does anyone have screen captures of Tyrol & Hadrian's rank insignia? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:26, 29 January 2006 (EST)

::I disagree: listen and you'll see that he's saying like "It was ''the Sergeant'' that was responsible for that", etc. And because he was on trial, it's not like he'd be presumptuous enough to call her by name, but at the same time, he wanted to be condescending and shift the blame to her. As they've already stated on screen, Tyrol is the highest Non-Com Colonial Fleet officer, and Sergeant Hadrian is the highest-ranking Colonial Marine Non-Com; they've both got the highest Non-Com rank. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 20:32, 29 January 2006 (EST)

I've got screen captures to support my point now, I must needs be go to work however, how do i get the captures to you?
Also, Just because Hadrian is the ranking Marine aboard Galactica doesn't mean she has to hold the highest rank, Galactica is short of Marines from the start. I would suggest that a ship on it's way to decommission only has the bare minimum of marines under an appropriatly ranked person (Hadrian) to do marine stuff (guard things etc) onboard. No one expects them to need Marines for boarding/landing parties or to defend the ship. Furthermore, Hadrian is the Master-at-Arms, she's the ships policeman. If Galactica had a full unit of marines chances are there would be commissioned marine officers and a complete command structure. I suggest she is a relativly low ranked NCO with a handful of marines to act as a security force aboard a ship about to leave the service, then look what happened... - Grible

--No. "Sergeant" is the highest NCO rank, anything higher would be a commissioned officer. That's the same position Tyrol is in.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 10:54, 30 January 2006 (EST)

--yes and no, "Sergeant" used in conversation could mean any level of Sergeant. She could be anything from E4-E9 and still be legitimatly called Sergeant. Since I'm only (and how anal do i feel) suggesting she be bumped down to the PO grade she would still be a Sergeant just a lower ranked one.
Also... do Marines exist at all? Or is "Marine" a job title like "Machine Operator" or "Comms Tech"?
the ranks being assigned Marine sounding names but there being no "Marine Corp" as such? Are we blinded by the need to make this fit the US system?
However the point is I've got Screen captures from Litmus that show her coller insig as being what this page has defined as PO (1st or 2nd) she's in the wrong place whatever the reasoning behind Marines.(my understanding of wiki isn't up to linking to the image but it's in the list called TyrolHadrianinsig.jpg) - Grible
:Here you go with the pic. It's not a matter of shoehorning the US Marine rank system. Marines have a seperate rank system, we have two examples PFC Kelso and Sergeant Hadrian. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:19, 30 January 2006 (EST) [[Image:TyrolHadrianInsig.jpg|thumb|right|Tyrol/Hadrian Rank Comparison]]
::Oh, and in Final Cut, during Kelso's interview, the text reads PFC Scott Kelso, CMCR which would be the Colonial Marine Corps Reserve. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:22, 30 January 2006 (EST)
::: [[Scott Kelso]] is displayed pretty clearly as being PFC (see his character pic). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:24, 30 January 2006 (EST)
:::: I conceed on the existance of Marines! - Grible
:::::Thanks SV, I just got to that scene and was about to take a screenshot. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:31, 30 January 2006 (EST)

::::::You're arguing about changing the rank equivalence of characters, and you didn't even know that the [[Colonial Marine Corps]] existed? Please read this link, it has more info than I can list here. Officially, the [[Colonial Fleet]] ranks are as stated above Admiral, Commander...Lieutenant, Chief Petty Officer, etc. etc. Also officially, RDM has stated that the Marines don't use this rank structure, but an entirely different one. '''Comparing collar rank insignia is meaningless'''. Because they use an entirely separate rank structure, they almost certainly have different rank insignia. We know that "Sergeant" is the highest Marine non-com rank, Commander Adama stated in that episode that Sergeant Hadrian, their Master-At-Arms, was the highest ranking Marine on the ship, and we've seen other Marines who were "Sergeant"'s so I think she's the highest rank of "Sergeant". The reason Tyrol acts like she outranks him is because she's the ''de facto'' MP (military police) leader aboard ''Galactica'', and has been given greater responsibilities as a result. But they have equivalent rank.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 15:38, 30 January 2006 (EST)

::::::Maybe Sgt. Hadrian is the highest-ranking Marine on the ship because they just didn't have any Staff Sgts/Gunnery Sgts/First Sgts/Sgt Majors. If Galactica is the equivalent of an aircraft carrier they would just have a small detachment of marines—most of the marines could be aboard "amphibious ships" instead. Incidentally, the Marines could be a part of the Fleet just as, say, the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy, or the US Marines used to be a part of the US Navy until 1947. Was there a Colonial Army? [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 18:30, 30 January 2006 (EST)

I was dipping a toe about the colonial marines, my point was really that, did they have to be a seperate service? I've been slapped down, leave it be :)

IMHO Tyrol acts like he out ranks her (which is borne out by the coller pins). Else he should call her Sir/Ma'am not repeatedly use her rank and be borderline insulting to her. As above just because she is the highest ranking marine on the ship doesn't make her the highest rank avalible.
She is the Master-at-Arms even if she is equal in rank to the other sergeants, which I'm not arguing for (there are plenty of sergeant grades to go around), she would still be in charge.
On a more fundamental point i would also suggest comparing collar rank insignia is the only meaningful way of establishing relative rank. There really wouldn't be much point in having it otherwise. For instance all of the branches of the US army forces use a unified collar ranking system to streamline relative ranks, isn't that the point? The coller pins used are the old army ones but everyone uses them. It makes no sense for a Navel LtCmdr to wear Oak leaves (not very naval) but it draws the link to Army/Air/Marine Majors, this is the point no? - [[User:Grible|Grible]] 17:37, 30 January 2006 (EST) (look at me learning wiki!)

:At least in the US, enlisted are never called "sir", only commissioned officers. Notice how everyone calls Tyrol "Chief". Even in terms of officers, you can call an officer by his rank if he outranks you without offense—this happens all the time. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 18:38, 30 January 2006 (EST)

::In the following scene Socinus addresses Hadrian as Sir through-out - [[User:Grible|Grible]] 03:02, 31 January 2006 (EST)

:::Raw recruits (fresh out of boot) have the tendency to "sir" anything that moves. I guess it is better to throw in an extra "sir" than to miss one. The worst you'll usually get by "sir"ing an NCO is a gruff "Don't sir me, I work for a living." --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:47, 31 January 2006 (EST)

::::I agree with you, however since we arn't assuming this to function like our world (nods to Ricimer) i thought i'd mention it. It just seems to me to support my contention that Tyrol outranks Hadrian since he never Sir's her and Specialist Socinus, not a raw recruit?, does. However Ricimer is quite right and he could be panicing and Siring every thing that moves I suppose. - [[User:Grible|Grible]] 09:23, 31 January 2006 (EST)

:We should in no way "assume" that their military functions like ours, that they have equivalent rank insignia between different branches of the military: we shouldn't ''assumme'' that they function like the US military in that respect. Further, the ENTIRE scene is really tainted: Hadrian is suspecious of him and prying, and Tyrol (regardless of whether he is addressing a superior officer, or whether he is not) is just really nervous that they'll find out about Boomer and his relationship, so his smokescreen is to be really agitated and throw questions back at Hadrian, or more importantly, trying to shift ''blame'' on Hadrian by saying that securing the hatch was ''her'' job. This isn't a "normal" scene, and we should not base anything on it as a result.
:But basically, '''you have been "assuming" that calling her by her rank, "Sergeant" is somehow and insult, but we have seen nothing on screen to provide evidence for that'''. How do we know that they're ''that much'' like our own military, that such a thing would also be copied. Far too many assumptions. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 18:42, 30 January 2006 (EST)

:If anyone cares about my opinion: I think that, without any other evidence, we should assume the insignias represent equal ranks, as they do in practically all terrestrial militaries, and that therefore it would be prudent, without any other evidence, to assume that Hadrian is a Staff Sergeant. I don't see this as presenting a problem with regards to the events in Litmus or anything else. But: does anyone have any caps of insignias of any other Marines? Kelso or Venner, for example? --[[User:Redwall|Redwall]] 19:18, 30 January 2006 (EST)

:: I concur. It makes complete sense to assume that the rank insigniae are the same across services. Otherwise, why have the top Sergeant rank look exactly like the insignia for a lesser Naval rank? That's just confusing. If they weren't meant to show equivalencies, I'd expect the insigniae to look quite different. However, unless we're ''certain'' that this is the correct insignia for Hadrian, I'm not sure we should go on it. It's very, very easy to mess up rank pips and all that. --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:32, 30 January 2006 (EST)

: I agree we shouldn't be assuming things based on the US militeary (a 9 grade enlisted/NCO structure in the first place...) I dragged the Naval coller pin thing into this to make the point Redwall made for me above. I take onboard that this is not a normal scene in the "court". However his switch in tone and phrasing on the hanger deck before does still suggest to me he is stressing her rank because he has that over her. The shifting the blame point is true and isn't affected, if anything by stressing she is lesser in rank he's trying to belittle/intimidate her which to me does tie in with his shift of blame. (It's to Hadrian's credit she doesn't bend!) - [[User:Grible|Grible]] 09:23, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Per below, Hadrian is a Staff Sergeant at best. A Gunnery Sergeant is addressed as "Gunny", per [[Sacrifice]]. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 23:16, 10 February 2006 (EST)

== "Gunny" ==

In Sacrifices, Starbuck addresses a Marine leader as "Gunny". This is an "affectionate" term for a Marine Gunnery Sergeant, who's equivalent in rank to a Navy Chief Petty Officer. The Gunny probably outranks Hadrian--maybe he's from the Pegasus. In any case, this is pretty definite proof that the rank of Gunnery Sergeant exists in the Colonial Marines. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 23:15, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:The term "Gunny" may be a familiar term here in NATO circles, but BSG isn't NATO, nor is it supposed to be an exact emulation of real-life situations, structures, and terminology. Thrace's use of the term "Gunny" was actually directed towards a character who is listed in the credits as a ''Lieutenant''. How do you explain that? Who's at fault? Has it ever crossed your mind that BSG ''might not be exactly'' like familiar ol' Earth here, and that the term "Gunny" might be given to ''all'' Marines by pilots as a term-of-endearment, such as "Leatherneck" or "Grunt"? What she said isn't pretty definite proof, or any kind of proof. This series is ''still being written'', so we really shouldn't jump to "definite" conclusions yet. -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 01:41, 24 February 2006 (EST)

:Here's an interesting picture from Home part I (crap I mislabled the picture!). The non-com walking is wearing the khakis we have associated with the Marines but his insignia appears to be identical to Tyrol's CPO insignia with the exception of a yellow enamel background unlike the traditional green. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 23:31, 22 February 2006 (EST)
[[Image:Marinerank klgpII.JPG|thumb|Possible Marine senior non-com ([[Home, Part I]])]]

==Second Chart==
As we are now dealing with two branches and therefore two equivelents, might two charts be appropriate?? [[User:Kkimball|Kkimball]] 23:30, 10 February 2006 (EST)
:Yes, I think so. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:33, 10 February 2006 (EST)

== Back to Officer Ranks... ==

A couple of things:

When Cain tries to justify her jurisdiction in sentencing Tyrol and Helo to deal, she says that she's a flag officer in a time of war. Does anybody else read into that statement that Adama as a Commander was NOT a flag officer (at that time)?

It's not nonsense that then-Commander Adama would be "simply" the equivalent of a Naval Captain and assume command over the Colonial Fleet. As the highest ranking officer known, do you think it really makes sense to quibble over that?

Reminds me of Star Trek: First Contact when Picard took charge of the fleet attacking the Borg Cube...there was assumed to be no higher officer left there, so who's going to argue in a time of crisis against him putting a head back on the chicken-with-its-head-chopped-off? Seems the same to me...

Regarding the rank of Major: I think it's safe to say that there is no longer a confusion as to whether Major's senior to Captain, since Lee considered it a promotion, so I'm changing that statement appropriately. [[User:Rocky8311|Rocky8311]] 01:16, 24 February 2006 (EST)

:Even if there were still flag officers outranking Adama, he was in probably the best position to assume fleet command, and he knew it: his battlestar was immune to the cylon backdoors, had not sustained heavy damage, and, most importantly, his service in the first cylon war probably qualified him uniquely - very few men of Adama and Tigh's vintage were probably left in the fleet. Cain had certainly never seen actual combat with the Cylons, so Adama could reasonably assume that he'd have the confidence of other officers, given the dire circumstances. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:30, 24 February 2006 (EST)

::That's what I'm saying, but I'm taking it a step further and saying that Adama wasn't a Flag Officer as a Commander and I'm not sure that there's a reason to assume so. I guess we can't really take the voice inflection in Admiral Cain's voice as proof that she considered herself the only Flag officer in the fleet though...after all, the actress isn't necessarily briefed on such things. [[User:Rocky8311|Rocky8311]] 03:13, 24 February 2006 (EST)

== Piping ==
Has anybody else noticed a difference in the piping on the uniforms of the different grades of officers? It seems like Commanders have red trim on their jackets and lower grades have shades of blue. [[User:Rocky8311|Rocky8311]] 03:13, 24 February 2006 (EST)
:I figured that out a while ago on the [[Uniform]] page. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:19, 14 March 2006 (CST)