Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

Citation Consistency

"Zoic" is a name that sounds like what Shaggy from "Scooby Doo" would make when surprised, I think.

Despite being the special effects company for the series, I wonder how much of their information still holds weight. I noticed that Peter gave neither negative or positive weight to this source. As we go through pages, two issues are going to crop up, of which one may need to move to the Standards page.

• Consistent and useful visual separation and identification of TOS and RDM information and characters. I find the mingling of TOS and RDM data in the same article confusing and lengthens an article unnecessarily. More germane to this project, it will also keep RDM and TOS stats from cohabitating and confusing the citation process.
• We need to cite official sources for TOS information on the project page, keeping in mind this wiki is for both series. There are surely more TOS fan sites than RDM, and things like games, fan fiction and the like over the years have surely diluted what is official and not.
• The level of detail or a standard of detail on technical pages needs some kind of governor. At which point is something being reasonable in description (such as Galactica's rail guns) or is embellishment or technobabble that just gives fan service (like "Galactica uses a BFG-3244 Rail Gun with Strapless Attachment")? I'd be more strict on this info than any other since tech is tech and such "facts" should not be different from what is seen on screen.

I think color coding article titles to identify TOS and RDM pages (rather than using "TOS" and "RDM") may be better on the eye. Spencerian 11:05, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

I intended Zoic to fall under point 3, for "crew" - ie, of roughly the same reliability as that interview where Lorena Gale talked about how Elosha used to do "a lot of drugs". --Peter Farago 11:21, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

I believe the actual word is spelled thus: ZOIKS! Caps are not optional. ;) --Day 01:21, 10 October 2005 (EDT)

Request for name change

I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "Jihad". I would rather we use the term "Crusade", or perhaps "Inquisition"; I think "Inquisition" is best (i.e. Spanish Inquisition [no one suspects the Inquisition!] b/c it's rooting out unsourced information). --Ricimer 13 October, 2005

Striving for accuracy certainly has better overtones than any use of "crusade", and "inquisition" has draconian connotations. --Peter Farago 01:11, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

I, uh, don't get Peter's post. Does that means he agrees or doesn't? Anyway, I'm fine with Jihad because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think could be, sarcastically, applied to the purpose of this project. However, I'm also fine with Inquisition because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think... You can see where I'm going with this, no? Also, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is my favorite Monty Python sketch in the history of Monty Python's being viewed by me. And I'd love for my comments on changing citation errors (if I ever see any, because I'm bad at seeing them) to be "Our chief weapon is Fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO chief weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to citation. Ah. Our THREE chief weapons are: Fear, surprise, a--" You get the idea.

I find it interesting that the name and the two proposed substitutes are all tied to religeon? We could have a Citation Rampage. Or a Citation Mosh Pit. Heh. Maybe we should be the Ministry of Citation. I always liked ministries. We would then address each other as "Minister Day" and "Minister Farago", etc. Or maybe one of you can come up with a more Orwellian name. That would be cool. --Day 01:52, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

To clarify: I like Citation Jihad. I came up with it, after all... --Peter Farago 02:08, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

"Jihad", in this context, does indeed present - shall we say - disconcerting ramifications for those of us who are not Christian. While humurous to most of us (I hate to splash cold water) the casual use of such a revered term amongst a potential audience of Islamic adherrants is a wee bit less than delicate... especially in light of the suspicion many perfectly native or naturalized citizens of Mid-Eastern descent faced immediately subsequent to 9/11... and the suspicion they currently face every time they reenter the U.S.

While rather fascinating that we should find ourselves encountering a problem delt with in more artfull ways in our favorite television program, it is nevertheless significant (dare I say important) that we handle this question of naming with a sense of diplomacy. --Watcher 04:12, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

I was unsettled--albeit briefly--with the name initially, but I'm not into political correctness. "Jihad" is correct in definition. Currently, however, some take the word with the same emotional charge as Muslims would hear "Crusade," since, essentially in the context of past conflicts between Christians and Muslins at war, both signify a religious purge. In any case, the term sites a religious note that might sour some.

But before you knock Peter for his choice, consider our subject matter: "Battlestar Galactica" is a morality play in the tradition of the original Star Trek series, which addresses in allegory the Muslim/Judeo-Christian issue present through current terrorism against the West as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict by using the Humano-Cylon/Human and God/Lords of Kobol issue. If nothing else, the use of the term "Jihad" in its purest form is actually appropriate and striking so for this Wiki. Don't let the Al Qaeda terrorists or other extremists make you afraid of a word when in fact, it is THEY that slur it from its true meaning. Peter has always shown a concise use of words that has little to no ambiguity--I should know since he frequently slices my edits to their essence when I use too many words. I'll back up Peter on this one. Spencerian 12:43, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Taking these points into account, I would greatly prefer "Inquisition" over "Jihad" or "Crusade". -- Ricimer, October 14, 2005

Good point. And very nicely said I might add. --Watcher 13:10, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

I hope you don't mind, Watcher, I indented your previous post one more. Anyway, I like Johad fine. I actually find it kind of refreshing to use it for something that's not violent. I'm not Muslim, so I can't speak to that. However, as an American I don't feel, I dunno, threatened by the name, or anything. When I first saw it, it gave me pause, but that pause was me thinking, "Whew. Someone's probably gonna throw a fit about that one." --Day 14:13, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Well I'm sorry but I do and I have. What's the consensus on this? --Ricimer, October 13, 2005

Not a problem Day. I think there might have been an unintentional slip during one of the edits (notice the time/date stamps) but I seem to constantly screw this detail up anyway. Feel free. I may read as insufferably serious but I assure you that's not the case. --Watcher 16:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Good deal, Watcher. Anyway... I was about to make a post about not wanting anyone to feel threatened by this project, but I find I have to revise that. I don't want members of the project to feel threatened by the name. I hope people who don't cite sources are scared witless of us. ;) Anyway, as much as I like using Jihad, I tend to like to not offend reasonable people, so I'd be okay with a change, I guess. --Day 17:21, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

A note on nesting - if Watcher was replying to Spencerian, not Ricimer, it should be indented to the level of Spencerian's comment + 1, not Ricimer's + 1. --Peter Farago 18:42, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Ah. Good to know. I shall endeavour to remember this. --Day 22:47, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Votes

We need to come to some kind of consensus, I think. So, first, is to change or not change. If we decide to change, then we can quibble over what to change to. Place your name under the appropriate heading.

No Change

1. --Day 06:14, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
2. --Not afraid of words when used properly. Spencerian 13:56, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
3. --Name doesn't bother me. Talos 19:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
4. --Peter Farago 00:51, 24 October 2005 (EDT)
5. --Ditto Spencerian. Let's not fear words when used properly. -- Joe Beaudoin 21:28, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

Change

1. Reluctantly --Watcher 06:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
2. Wholeheartedly --Ricimer 09:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
3. Normally I don't care about words, but I have to admit, that in today's world, some words have become too negatively charged. --cp.hayes 14:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
4. Wholeheartedly --Lone Odessan 19:36, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

BSG: The Magazine

I saw this on the news stand at Fry's and thought it was worth picking up an issue to see what was in it. I've so far read a whole of two pages, so I don't know much about it, except that it has an article on Pyramid that was interesting. Does anyone else know anything about this magazine? How reliable is it? I'm going to edit the Pyramid article with some things that are revealed about the rules. How should I cite this, exactly? I'm gonna go with page numbers and title for now. --Day 17:24, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Given that we haven't had much about the RDM show in print, I'd carefully use it to compare to the canonical stuff we have. If things are consistent, I'd say it's a reliable source since I strongly suspect that USA/Universal may have to sign off on its content. Spencerian 17:58, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

I say we put it on level 4, (sci-fi and skyone websites), provisionally. --Peter Farago 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Correction. The title is Battlestar Galactica, the Official Magazine even thought the words are not in that order on the cover. And, I must say, the thing was really clumsily edited. There are missing periods, 'and' for 'a', 'their' for 'they're', tense mixing, Obvious typos. Yech. --Day 01:04, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

Citation Format

Also, we should choose a citation format and stick with it. Opinions? MLA, APA, Chicago? --Peter Farago 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Damn it, Peter. I knew you were a student. You're going to force me to dig up a book or stand with the kids at the college bookstore, aren't you? :) Spencerian 22:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

Are you kidding? I just graduated and never once bought a book on citation. All that can be found on the net. I've only ever used MLA style before, however, I'd be willing, given the nature of web pages, to use something that just had footnotes with numbering. There was some tool Wikipedia has for this that I read about, but I don't remember much about it except that it seemed cool. --Day 00:06, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

I would find MLA with numbered footnotes ideal. For "personal communication", we would do well to follow MASON's example of including them in subpages, such as Mercury class battlestar/Sources (That should be linked to from the main article text, however.) --Peter Farago 00:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

Joe also mentioned possibly that we should scan things. What kinds of things? And, I assume those should go on a Sources page, too, neh? I think for whatever's on the sources page, we could do the foot note like this: (3) Personal communication (or whatever relevant info). See link to Sources page. I also think Sources pages should have a link back. WHat do y'all think? --Day 00:25, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

I Agree. --Peter Farago 01:14, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

By scans, I mean scans of publication articles and so forth. Scans should not be of the whole article but a snippet of the applicable text that was cited (enough to qualify as fair use). Also, as for linking the sources subpage, I created a template, {{source}} that can be placed next to the applicable information. The template automatically links to the Source subpage. (Format: Article title/Sources.) Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin 14:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

How does that work, then, Joe? The syntax, I mean? --Day 03:29, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

Character Ages

Character ages across the site appear to be based on the age of the actors who play them. This would normally be reasonable, but the Timeline of BSG does not match the progress of time in the real world - the characters have aged at most three and a half months in the same time that their actors have aged two years. Since we can't infer ages more accurately than a casual visitor could be glancing at a character photograph, I would rather this information simply not be included. Opinions? --Peter Farago 20:45, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

I concur. --Day 12:57, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

Another thought: Ages are hard to pin down... I mean, we might learn that it is someones XXth birthday in some future episode. Wonderful. However, it's somewhat meaningless. An "Age" attribute in the template needs to be "as of" some date. Right now we use the Holocost as that date, but we're no longer exactly certain how far ago that was. So, if it's Cally's, say, 25th or whatever birthday in the episode after next... how old was she at the Holocost? 24, or so, I guess, but you see my point? I think the best solution, and perhaps this should be brought up on the characters project page, too, is to make the "Age" attribute on the template hide-able and then blank everyone's age out unless we know explicitly a number. I also think we should say it thusly: Age: 23 (as of Scattered) --Day 02:50, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

Railguns

From the Official Magazine issue #1, p. 60: "Every Battlestar class warship has 24 primary railgun turrets as well as over 500 point defense turrets at its disposal." I don't have access to a scanner to prove that it says that, so you'll have to take my word on it. I'm not saying this is indisputable proof, but that it's maybe more than fanon, anyway. --Day 02:46, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

The magazine is wrong. Based on on-screen evidence, the large turrets on Galactica cannot be railguns unless we drastically redefine the very idea. This certainly trumps throwaway technobabble in a fan magazine. IMO, the only thing that should give us pause is if a character on the show specifically refers to them as railguns, which hasn't happened yet. --Peter Farago 02:51, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

Okay. I'll buy that. I bet that what's actually going on here is that someone somewhere who makes these desicions doesn't, actually, know what the heck they're talking about. I mean... What're we to do if someone busts out a ray gun and says, "This shoots a red lazer!" and then, *zap*, it's green? --Day 03:27, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

Oops. Ya did it now. Let's just hope TNS' writers don't become overwhelmed by the details and go the way of Space 1999. --Watcher 04:24, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

Twelve Lords of Kobol

Ricimer stated in his edit summary: "It has been stated numerous times that there are 12 Lords of Kobol".

This statement is true if by "numerous times" you mean "never". I've been over all the episode transcripts and found nothing. On this page, of all places, you should provide a source before deleting a comment. --Peter Farago 19:54, 11 November 2005 (EST)

Magazine Content

Ltcrashdown, thank you for your informative additions to Saul Tigh and other articles. However, for them to stand, we need to do two things:

1. Make certain that we are not quoting the magazine word-for-word, or that where we feel compelled to do so, we set the text off and cite it directly.
2. In general, any information from the magazine needs to be cited as well. To do this, we need to know some of the publication information, including:
   • The publication's name
   • The article's author
   • The article's title
   • Date and issue number
   • Pages referenced

Thanks for helping to keep Battlestar Wiki accurate. --Peter Farago 22:50, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Where do I place this information in the area where I quote it in Tigh's article? --Ltcrashdown 23:05, 1 February 2006 (EST)

I will be happy to show you the proper format if you can provide the above information. --Peter Farago 23:15, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Here is everything I referenced from the Magazine in the articles I altered. --Ltcrashdown 23:25, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Publication: Battlestar Gallactica the Official Magazine #3

Feb/Mar 2006

The Tigh info, Rising Star refence to Picon, and Battlestar Athena came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh, Page 62'

The Alert Fighters and Colonial Day information came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Galactica Glossary page 60'

The Colors for the Colonies comes from 'Encyclopedia Galactica pages 50-55'. I also compared it to information in Battlestar Galactica The Official Companion.

There were no authors listed for any of the articles.

Can you post quotes here containing the relevant details? --Peter Farago 23:29, 1 February 2006 (EST)

I am familiar with the magazine, and feel that we should *provisionally* allow information from the "encyclopedia" stuff at the end, but I also *suspect* that they make that stuff up without input from RDM. I don't know. It is the "Official" magazine. Should be on the same level as info from Scifi.com (which has been known to be wrong, etc.) HOWEVER, things that are straightfoward "interviews" which are a simple transcript of an interview; hard to argue that (like when actors reveal insights about their character based on stuff from the series bible we didn't know before). --Ricimer 23:35, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Actually, I just saw that the magazine claims that Colonial Day is a biannual holiday; First, where would they get that idea? Second, Ron D. Moore stated in his blog that it is "not a biannual holiday; it's an annual holiday held every year". I wonder why someone got the idea to ask that. Etc. So it's now known to be not entirely accurate. --Ricimer 23:40, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Okay, I'll try to post everything I found word-for-word. --Ltcrashdown 23:43, 1 February 2006 (EST)

'Colony: Aerelon' is a listing under the personnel file indicating his planet of origin.

Tigh's history specificaly says, 'Saul Tigh entered the fleet as a deckhand but rose through the ranks and was a CPO (Chief Petty Officer) by the time the First Cylon War broke out.' Ltaer it reads, 'Tigh joined the Colonial Officer Candidate School and was reassigned as a Viper pilot, something he excelled in, earning a string of medals in his post aboard the Battlestar Athena.' This is the only refence to the Battlestar Athena.

Tigh's post-War history is given with 'Adama reenlisted with the service and Tigh spent two years drinking before Adama pulled strings to get him back into service. Saul Tigh was straightening his life out when he met his wife Ellen, who he courted and married within two months. Ellen did not take well to military life, and her repeated infidelities drove him back to drink. Ellen and Saul separated shortly before the Cylon attack.'

The Rising Star info was taken from later in teh article with the sentence, 'Three weeks after the Cylon attack Tigh's wife was discovered on the Rising Star, a carrier from Picon.'

The definitions are: 'Colonial Day - An biannual holiday which celebrates the signing of the Articles of Colonization.' 'Alert Fighters - A rotating group of Colonial Vipers which are constantly ready for immediate launch. Their function is to act as support for the Combat Air Patrol.

The colonial colors are just images, so there's nothing to type, but it corresponds with the same colors in the Official Battlestar Companion.

Excellent, thank you.

The MLA citation format for a magazine article with no author is as follows:

"Title of Article." Title of Magazine. Date: Pages.

So, to use the Saul Tigh article as an example:

"Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh." Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine. Feb./Mar. 2006: 62.

Introduce a footnote in the main body text using the {{note}} and {{note_label}} tags, and place the corresponding citation in a ==Sources== header after #{{ref}} and/or {{ref_label}} as appropriate. I will restore your edits to the Saul Tigh article and cite them, to give you an idea. --Peter Farago 00:00, 2 February 2006 (EST)

You should also restore the 'Twelve Colonies' changes since all i did there was add Saul to the Aerelon natives and correctly match the Colors with their colonies. --Ltcrashdown 00:02, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Maybe he was busted down from CPO during the second year of the war. Or maybe as a Chief Petty Officer, he once served as a Gunner's Mate (though this is a bit of a stretch, I admit). --Ltcrashdown 00:22, 2 February 2006 (EST)

This information, however, is contradicted by the deleted scenes from "Valley of Darkness" where Tigh says that in the second year of the War, he was a "Petty Officer...gunner's mate" and not already a Chief Petty Officer when the war broke out.--Ricimer 00:14, 2 February 2006 (EST)

"Let's cut through it, shall we?" The magazine is obviously compiled by people who are worse fanboys than we are, and lack our zeal for accuracy. I mean, if they can't even spell "Gemenon" properly, I'm not really inclined to give them much credence. Their information should be taken with a very large grain of salt, when we take it at all. Frankly, I'm a little worried they're going to start using us as a source.

(Dear lord, I'm using sci-fi quotes out of context and Ricimer's talking in a civil tone of voice. It's like we've merged.) --Peter Farago 00:30, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Realize that it my business to know (of course you know, etc etc). Enough Batman-villian-esque theatrics. ***I only have the first issue, and need to read the other issues. Frankly, it's a combination of *REEALLY* good and really *BAD* material. Basically, they've got 5 or so articles that are worthwhile; but they're exclusive, plus they also give out concept art unavailble elsewhere. Long story short, *I would pay money for the few good articles in it*, but the problem is they want to "pad out" the magazine to get a certain length (and I'm going, "I would pay the same amount of money if you didn't pad it, because the other stuff doesn't add much") I mean, the first one has this *really annoying* LITERALLY Fanfic letter "from Starbuck" describing an air-combat manuever she pulled off in a Viper (in an article about Vipers). Now, let me remind everyone: ***It's a good magazine and has many good articles. It's just that some of the articles are obviously "filler". Thus, as I said, apart from the flat-out Interviews with cast members or articles written by like David Eick, Garry Hurtzel, production team members, etc. should be held under great critical skepticism. --Ricimer 00:45, 2 February 2006 (EST)

This whole thread has been a great read. Very interesting. I have the first issue of this magazine. I sourced it for the Pyramid (RDM) article some. I remember thinking mostly as you do, Ricimer: Some great stuff, the rest horrid. They're good for interviews, artwork and not much else. The first issue had an interesting thing at the end that seems to be a synopsis of an interview (if I remmeber right) with the head costume person, which I keep meaning to reread and use to add some real-life info to Uniform. I've also been looking for the other issues in the place where I got the first one, but I can't find it. I a little wary of subscribing to the thing... It just seems like there's a line being crossed there. *wink* --Day 06:06, 2 February 2006 (EST)

To Do

• Deprecate citation templates in favor of <ref> tags. --Peter Farago 00:44, 2 February 2006 (EST)

BSG Books

There was recently a novelization for the battlestar galactica mini-series. I was going to get a copy and add information from it to the wikipedia. Does anyone else think this should be done, assuming the novelization yields any new details (i.e. ships, pilots, etc.) --Ltcrashdown 00:14, 4 February 2006 (EST)

Its come up before. That's where, I think, we got the name Natasi for one of Number Six's copies. We're kind of wary of it, but I think there's further discussion on Six's Talk page. --Day 02:51, 4 February 2006 (EST)

I'm going to post my point by point analysis of it in a matter of hours. It is, on the whole, quite poorly written, and I don't think he had any official stuff to go on, just making it up. Regardless, per "Memory Alpha" template, it deserves it's own page which I will comment more on, but we should not base beliefs on it. --Ricimer 02:57, 4 February 2006 (EST)

Sources namespace

Just to let everyone know, Sources have their own namespace (i.e. Sources:Pegasus (RDM)). This avoids having to use the subpage suggestion I had earlier proposed. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 13:11, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

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. Recent comments made on the "Subject 2 Discussion" segment of the "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.

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

Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006, its putative 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. --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. --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. --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. --Peter Farago 12:45, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Update 4: My final opinion is available at Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad#A_word_about_sources . 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. --Peter Farago 13:25, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Blacklist Vote

In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source

• The Merovingian ^{(C - 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.  :)
• CalculatinAvatar 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.
• 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.

1. Talos 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
2. Spencerian 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
3. Grafix 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
4. Mazzy 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT) This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information.
5. AerynSun44 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
   • Dogger 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) 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. 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. 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.
   • 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.--Dogger 19:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
   • 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.
6. Bowersj8 14:31, 22 April 2006 (EDT)
7. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:40, 25 April 2006 (CDT) I listened enough to the radio show. (All Annoymous Sources too...)

Opposed

1. Kuralyov 22:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
2. Peter Farago 13:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT) Individual blacklisting is not appropriate for this case.
3. CalculatinAvatar 13:49, 26 April 2006 (CDT) It seems he does originate things after all.
4. 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).

Abstain

1. 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.
2. Quig 10:09, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
3. Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - 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.
4. The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:39, 23 April 2006 (CDT)As I've offered to give KR benefit of the doubt in compromise if he'd just be more mindful that at times when he was speculating or when he was giving spoilers was confusing, I'm switching my vote to abstain.
5. Frankie Gouge 16:05, 24 April 2006 (EDT)

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. --Peter Farago 02:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

Support

1. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:48, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

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? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 19:49, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

I agree (though I don't know how to set that up using wiki code).--The Merovingian ^{(C - 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. --Shane ^{(T - C - 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - 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. =)-- 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - 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. --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 reports made on the 11th are 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 Spoiler Policy, arrived at by grudging compromise last autumn, makes the following statement:

All spoiler information must have a source, whether in the form of a 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 JPG or PNG, and posted on the talk page of the article containing the spoilerific content.

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?

--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, 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. --Shane ^{(T - C - 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.")--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. --Peter Farago 13:55, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I didn't realize that was the case. I think I was remembering character pages like this that had spoiler boxes, and it's hard to edit them without running into the spoilers. --Steelviper 14:00, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm mistaken. --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.

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
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.

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - 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).--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. --Peter Farago 15:14, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I meant a new subheading. (I will find those spoiltexts SV...)--The Merovingian ^{(C - 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. --Shane ^{(T - C - 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. --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.

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.
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

Spoiler follows, highlight to read.

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. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:13, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

From Joe

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

This page is silly. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

You have found a link that leads nowhere... deliberately.

Reasons?

The reason for this is to clean up the Special:Wantedpages, thus making our lives easier behind the scenes.

So, what links lead here?

There are too many to bother wasting our time listing. So here's a list of pages that link here.

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:

1. As so long as it is reported on a valid news source (Gateworld, HNR, S2D), we can report it as well.
2. We must take care to indicate that these are rumors. Therefore they may or may not be accurate. (Templates such as {{spoileranony}} reflect this view.)
3. 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. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 16:34, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Page takes a second to create... :) --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

{{Episode List}} - needs to be updated. I posted a suggestion to split up the three seasons because spoliers and title names should be inclduded. --Shane ^{(T - C - 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 16:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm afraid I'm still against anonymous sources, for reasons I think I articulated above. 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 must not report anonymous spoilers. --Peter Farago 18:03, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

Also, 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. --Peter Farago 18:09, 26 April 2006 (CDT)