Is it just me, or did Koenigrules just assume that Tigh loses his eye? I mean the phrase is "looks out of his eye"...for all we know, that was just a turn of phrase, or perhaps, he got a really bad black eye and it's swollen and he can't see out of it. Lots of possibilities. Yikes, Koenigrules handled this really irresponsibly. I'm pretty steamed about it. --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:51, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- No, it's not just you. It's clear to me that KR just read the casting side and RDM's blog and made a few conjectures, and Shaun O'Mac heard Katee's interview on KUFO in Portland. Because the majority of KR's comments can be traced to other sources, I'm hopeful that we can find out where he obtained the few scraps of information which appear to be original, and which he doesn't explicitly identify as guesses. Namely:
- Title of episode 3x02
- Death of Ellen Tigh around episode four
- --Peter Farago 01:06, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Do we officially condemn Koenigrules? (Your call). --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:15, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- "Condemning" him isn't an option, and as always, any citation is better than nothing. But we should approach his reports with a healthy skepticism and try to uncover his primary sources. --Peter Farago 01:52, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Probably because I'm half asleep and I've been watching Apocalypse Now reruns all day, but my patience with Koenigrules is running thin. I honestly don't know why he is considered a more important news source than us by GalacticaStation, he usually just reports stuff based on the things we've seen. Look, really I've had nothing against him before this at all. But like dominoes, I saw all the news sites reporting his *interpretation* of a poorly sourced script as if it was fact, and I'm annoyed--->regardless: I don't want to "condemn" him, I want to know if our official position is that his report is lousy, so that when I'm on the official site, I can say "at BattlestarWiki, we analyzed this and decided he didn't know any more than we did", because if anyone doesn't want me to say that, I will not. But it comes up in conversation alot, but I thought the right thing would be to check here first. ****Brilliant idea. I should try to get an interview with Subject2Discussion, to hype the Golden Toaster Awards which I am a spokesperson for, and mention in passing that KR was a little...overzealous in his reporting. Overzealous is a better word than condemn. The horror....the horror....--The Merovingian (C - E) 02:12, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Well, frankly, we need to find KR's sources prior to making any assertions on the validity -- or lack thereof -- of his interpretation. I would really like to know how he obtained the two facts Peter mentioned above. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 09:20, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Well, I'm personally dsappointed wth him, but I can't articulate a postion for the entire wiki. --Peter Farago 11:01, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Agreed. But we can achive a consensus position. I also agree with what Joe just said. "Koenigrules said it" isn't a source. For the past year I've heard him making interviews on Subject2discussion, but I never really questioned who he was. I assumed he was near production or something. I have the sinking suspicion that he's just a prominent Galacticastation member. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:11, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Probably because I'm half asleep and I've been watching Apocalypse Now reruns all day, but my patience with Koenigrules is running thin. I honestly don't know why he is considered a more important news source than us by GalacticaStation, he usually just reports stuff based on the things we've seen. Look, really I've had nothing against him before this at all. But like dominoes, I saw all the news sites reporting his *interpretation* of a poorly sourced script as if it was fact, and I'm annoyed--->regardless: I don't want to "condemn" him, I want to know if our official position is that his report is lousy, so that when I'm on the official site, I can say "at BattlestarWiki, we analyzed this and decided he didn't know any more than we did", because if anyone doesn't want me to say that, I will not. But it comes up in conversation alot, but I thought the right thing would be to check here first. ****Brilliant idea. I should try to get an interview with Subject2Discussion, to hype the Golden Toaster Awards which I am a spokesperson for, and mention in passing that KR was a little...overzealous in his reporting. Overzealous is a better word than condemn. The horror....the horror....--The Merovingian (C - E) 02:12, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- "Condemning" him isn't an option, and as always, any citation is better than nothing. But we should approach his reports with a healthy skepticism and try to uncover his primary sources. --Peter Farago 01:52, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
- Do we officially condemn Koenigrules? (Your call). --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:15, 16 April 2006 (CDT)
Page Change Name...
Peter, think we should move this page to Sources:Subject 2 Discussion, 11 April 2006? --Shane (T - C - E) 00:41, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
- Yes. --Peter Farago 00:47, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
Deletetion
I don't think we should delete this because it's historical value or the "rumor" vote. We might want to re-link this once we get to the episode that has some of these "rumors" if any become true. --Shane (T - C - E) 21:48, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
- Good point. If only for the historical value. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:50, 9 May 2006 (CDT)