Talk:Occupation (Battlestar Galactica)

message: I just noticed the templates in the main page, in the criticisms section. Thank you. I think this is a very good way for us to move forward.
I see that you've ignored all of the Wikipedia guidlines that I've referenced and deleted the section again.
I note that *you* added the "controversial topic" template.  Please read the words in the template:
   Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
You again deleted a large block of information with no discussion or call for opinions ahead of time.
Matthew, please stop vandalizing wikipedia.
Please stop ignoring wikipedia guidlines wholesale.
Tjic 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you, Matthew Fenton 

message: Problem statement / history
# TJIC added a criticisms section, which is typical in Wikipedia for novels, movies, etc.
# MatthewFenton deleted it without discussion 
# TJIC restored it.
# ...
# MatthewFenton deleted it and specified that 
#* it did not match NPOV
#* had weasel words, and 
#* did not cite sources.
=== weasel words ===
With regard to weasel words, make sure to read the Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Exceptions exceptions paragraph:
:As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:
  
* When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."
* When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."
Note that in this case:
# the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion
# the holders of the opinion are too numerous to qualify (see the fact that Google has over 1 million hits on the term "Battlestar iraq"
=== NPOV ===
* "POV comparison"?  Does that mean that it described actual opinions that people have?  That's not invalid in Wikipedia; explaining people's positions is entirely legitimate.  Look through many many many entries on books, movies, and TV shows, and note that many of them have "controversies" sections discussing reactions to a piece of art.
* If you have a problem with a particular word or sentence, edit it, do not delete it.
=== did not cite sources ===
semi-fair point.  I've cited three from each side to document that the Iraq/BSG connection is well commented on in the blogosphere.
=== reversion ===
*"I know how to revert" is not a valid response to my pointing out that you're vandalizing the page and breaking Wikipedia custom. 209.6.167.39 11:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many commentors on both the left and the right have acknowledged the strong analogy." <- Weasel words; read WP:WEASEL.
* Uncited criticism.
** cited now.  The article section is now far more verbose than it really needs to be, given that the criticisms should only be a minor section. Tjic 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While it does seem pretty clear and obvious, its inclusion is inappropriate for other reasons. Words like "obviously" and "clearly" generally indicate original research, no matter how obvious it is. Even sourced opinion is still opinion. Wikipedia is concerned with presenting fact. The fact that several columnists compare the episode to the Iraq war is not being debated. The place of those columnists' analysis in the article is, however. I don't think it belongs. It's not the notability of the blog that matters, either. It's the factuality of the content. Now, if an official source (e.g. Ronald D. Moore) is available that specifically discusses the intent of the writers/producers, that's a different story. --Fru1tbat 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflection of current events in Iraq?

message: *"I know how to revert" is not a valid response to my pointing out that you're vandalizing the page and breaking Wikipedia custom. 209.6.167.39 11:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Many commentors on both the left and the right have acknowledged the strong analogy." <- Weasel words; read WP:WEASEL.
* Uncited criticism.
** cited now.  The article section is now far more verbose than it really needs to be, given that the criticisms should only be a minor section. Tjic 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While it does seem pretty clear and obvious, its inclusion is inappropriate for other reasons. Words like "obviously" and "clearly" generally indicate original research, no matter how obvious it is. Even sourced opinion is still opinion. Wikipedia is concerned with presenting fact. The fact that several columnists compare the episode to the Iraq war is not being debated. The place of those columnists' analysis in the article is, however. I don't think it belongs. It's not the notability of the blog that matters, either. It's the factuality of the content. Now, if an official source (e.g. Ronald D. Moore) is available that specifically discusses the intent of the writers/producers, that's a different story. --Fru1tbat 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion 

message: Uhm... I watched this episode and saw no Starbuck with a child, and you didn't even mention the suicide bombings. What's up with that? Daniel Berglund 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you specifically asking? A few people have has a hand in this article so far. Someone did mention the suicide bombings. I added details about Kara and her child. However, since SciFi ran both "Occupation" and "Precipice" back-to-back I may have errored in which episode had Kacey in it. Honest mistake, however I thought she was revealed in "Occupation". I'm probably wrong since I didn't memorize ever detail. I'll have to watch it in re-run to be sure. I'm thinking the hospital scene may have even been in "Exodus (Battlestar Galactica)|Exodus, Part 1" now come to think of it. If someone can verify it then please change it. Cyberia23 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was wrong. According to SciFi she is in the second episode. Cyberia23 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kara 

message: Matthew Fenton,
* You have deleted a section four or more times now, in violation of Wikipedia policy.
* You have leveled an accusation of weasel words, but failed to read the exceptions to the weasel words policy, which this sections falls under.
* You made an accusation of NPOV, with out reading the exceptions to the NPOV policy.
* You complained that I did not cite sources about "many left wing and right wing"...so I came up with three from each side, from highly read blogs and websites.
I imagine that you feel somewhat territorial about the BSG pages; it seems that you wrote many of them.  However, the fact of the matter is that you are acting against Wikipedia policy in a big way.
Do not tell me that if the change does not live up to your perfect expectations in every way that it is my duty to tweak it over and over and over to make it perfect, so that it matches your editorial policies and then you will allow me to post it here.  That's not the wikipedia way.
I posted something entirely valid, and I provided footnotes.
It's your duty to either tweak it so that it's a better entry in wikipedia (while retaining information), or to leave it alone.
You can play this childish revert game for as long as you want; I'll keep adding the info back in, because it's useful and interesting.
So: knowing that, instead of spending six hours over the next month deleting the section over and over, why don't you spend 15 minutes tweaking it so that it suits you better?
Tjic 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would i edit it? Why would i waste my time attempting to cite purely POV? You've provided 0 footnotes, you havent removed the POV either, write it better and post it here and i will work with you but to bring it to a decent standard. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  again.. 

message: Are the "webisodes" necessary to understand season 3?  S0301 feels a little unfamiliar. Pgr94 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just went back and watched them and it fills in a lot of holes.  Would recommend watching the webisodes first. Pgr94 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webisodes necessary viewing? 

message: ;Lead
*Five links in a 20 word sentence?  Is that normal?  Do we really need drama and television program linked here? I would say no, but I'm curious what others think.
*"re-imagined" is used twice in the first two sentences.  Not necessary. 
*"where the majority of the human population are residing" is redundant and not needed. We already know that when we're told that it's a military occupation on New Caprica.
*The sentence "Admiral William Adama continues his plan to rescue everybody there" should be shortened to something like "Admiral William Adama continues planning a rescue." Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues