Talk:Blood War

message: I finally got around to looking at some of these, and to be honest, they appear to have been placed almost at random within the text. Please when adding tons of tags, especially OR tags, be familiar with the topic in question, or read through some of the sources to see if the information you implicate as OR isn't common knowledge for the topic. Some of the remaining tags could use some clarification of the language, and possibly some in-line cites of which specific source applies, but that's a completely different matter than claiming OR. It's sloppy at the very least.
There are also some additional sources, Dragon magazine and others, that could be added. And if anyone wants to add some more out of universe details to the topic, it might be worth looking at some of the design notes and comments by various WotC designers in the interviews about the 4e Manual of the Planes regarding the Blood War. For instance, Planewalker.com has an interview with the authors and that topic is discussed (and I think that Richard Baker has mentioned the topic elsewhere as well). I'd add that bit myself, but in the interests of avoiding COI I won't, since I live with PW's webmaster. Some design comments by for instance, Colin McComb might be valuable too, but might take a bit to find some of them floating around online.Shemeska (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 2008 OR and other tags 

message: Boz, could it be possible that are just adding more original research to this article with a fig leaf of citation? Where, in the publications cited, is the following commentary made:
# The Blood War concept was introduced as part of the new background for the outer planes in 1991's Monstrous Compendium Volume Outer Planes Appendix.
# The conflict is revealed as a bitter war of annihilation between the baatezu race and the tanar'ri; an absolute, all encompassing, and virtually eternal stuggle.
# The Blood War was thoroughly detailed in various books throughout the Planescape setting, particularly the 1996 boxed set Hellbound: The Blood War.
# In true baatorian fashion, their mythology is a Byzantine masterpiece of historical revisionism and state-mandated "truth", which might have little factual basis from an objective viewpoint, and the second Fiendish Codex openly admits to this, though to the devils themselves, the difference might be meaningless.
Is this what these publications say, or are your reading these statements into them? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Items #1 and #2 come directly from the sources I have cited - if you can't look them up yourself, you can at least assume good faith on my part. #3 is unsourced at the moment but factually true; if given time, I could add more to back that up. #4 is not something I added, but since whoever wrote that said it came from a certain book, I added a citation to that book; I have not checked the book myself to see what exactly came from that source and what did not. BOZ (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote what text supports item #1? It would be interesting to read what the publication actually says in this regard, as it is very odd for a statement to be made by the creator of the Blood War concept himself (Tim Brown) as if a third party was the creator. If you can't substantiate items #3 and #4, then to it would be better to withdraw the citation if you have not read it directly yourself, rather than accept dubious coverage third hand. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll play along for a moment more. Item #1 comes from a piece in Dragon #165, with the column serving as a sort of introductory piece for 1991's Monstrous Compendium Volume Outer Planes Appendix. Brown was not the designer for this product, but looking at the credits section I do see that he was the developer and editor. Quoting directly from the magazine, there is a single paragraph relating to the Blood War: "There‘s some new background history, as well. The horrible baatezu race of the Nine Hells is locked in a bitter war of annihilation with the foul tanar’ri of the Abyss. Their struggle has been absolute, all encompassing, and virtually eternal, plunging their respective planes and all those between into further despair and ruin. Other races in the lower planes are mere pawns in this ancient Blood War. Both sides see the Prime Material plane as their future battlefield." BOZ (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be picking on minor details, but don't see how this in universe description of the Blood Wars can be transformed into the conclusion in #1 which you have arrived on about the concept of the Blood Wars being "introduced as part of the new background for the outer planes".  Surely the only objective summary that can be made from this seciton is that the Blood War concept was introduced in Monstrous Compendium Volume Outer Planes Appendix. Whether is provides background for the Plane, the baatezur, the tanar’ri or some other element or game scenario is a matter of speculation only a commentator other than yourself can speculate on? Otherwise, I fear you have crossed the boundry from summary to original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, that doesn't follow.  The quote he provided specifically says "There's some new background history, as well."  I don't see how that's not DOESN'T support #1.  Resistor 17.224.15.109 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not specifically say "The Blood War concept was introduced as part of the new background for the outer planes". I understand why the outer planes was chosen by BOZ because the there is an existing article, but the source does not support this statement. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I _think_ that your complain is with the use of the term "outer plane" vs just "plane."  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I think this is a misunderstanding based on lack of understanding of the source material.  In D&D terminology, the outer planes are a subset of the planes.  The Blood War is an ongoing occurrence set entirely within that subset.  As such, your insistence on the term "planes" vs "outer planes" seem extremely pedantic. Resistor (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The other objection you might be making (again, please clarify for me), is that its unclear if it provides new background for the planes OR the outer planes OR the baatezu OR the tanar'ri.  The Blood War is a fictional historical and ongoing conflict between the tanar'ri and the baatezu, both of whom dwell in the outer planes subset of the planes.  So all of the above!  Resistor (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaint is more fundamental. The primary source is being used to as a basis for subjective commentary, which should only be taken from reliable secondary sources. This is not a technical issue, as you suggest. This is about whether original research or synthesis should be allowed in this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm really not seeing where you're coming from on this one.  The transformation of the precise quote into the reworded version does not appear to me to be original research or synthesis.  The quote says there's new background material.  The background material itself, which, as a primary source, is acceptable for citation for in-universe information, is about X.  Therefore saying there's new background material for X is certainly not original research, and is only disallowed synthesis in the most pedantic sense of the word, particularly as it advances no particular position.  Taken to the extreme, this would mean an article can NEVER combine facts from more than one source, which is ridiculous.  Resistor (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More original research