Talk:Masters of the Universe (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Unknown

This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.

Editing Guidelines

1 Continuity
2 Informal mediator
3 Consensus editing
4 Scenes almost nearly shot in Idaho
5 Fourth World link

[edit] Continuity

The vast majority of films based on pre-existing properties from another medium, whether it's a novel, tv show, comic book, toy line, video game, etc. do not follow that prior medium's continuity. Period. All such movies, even ones that remain close and faithful to the source material, adapt it. But they do not mirrror it. For the section on Continuity to provide so much rationalization as to how the movie's continuity and the cartoon's continuity could be one and the same is not only inconsistent with all other such articles on WP, but it violates both WP rules as well.

In terms of consistency, take a look around on Wikipedia: Every other article on a movie or other work that is based on a property from another medium details what the differences are between the source material and the new work, but it does not assume, a priori as the previous Continuity section did, that the two are automatically one and the same, nor does it go to such length to explore how they could possbile be so. This is true of works of Batman Spider-Man, Justice League, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, etc. This movie does not follow the continuity of the series, and there is no reason to assume that it does, nor do any other articles on such works bother to rationalize how the work and the source material could be consistent. The various proofs I offered illustrate this with respect to MotU, and thus, Teela's aversion to eating meat is not an item of "Trivia", but a substantial point that illustrates how the movie is clearly not derived from the series.

Now if there were some actual discussion among fans of MotU about the connection between the two properties, one that is widespread enough to be considered noteworthy for encyclopedic inclusion, then the Wikipedia article could legitimately reflect this, but despite the previous passage's statements of "Some fans, however, counter with the observation...", no source is cited for any such observations on the part of the fans. In the absence of such sources, which is a WP rule, the passage is not appropriate for inclusion.

This is not "capricious", as PacifistPrime alleges (or "vindictive", as EmperorSkeletor remarked after I wrote this post), but a valid edit for which I here provide cogent reasoning and citation of WP policy. The fact that it is "long-standing" is irrelevant. WP is a work in progress, and articles are constantly in a state of flux when different editors improve it. Should we not have edited the article on the Watergate informant Deep Throat when he came forward to disclose his true identity, simply because the original article that did not contain that info was "long-standing"? The crux upon which any edit should be judged is on its validity. Not how long it's been present. Nightscream 23:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it seems that EmperorSkeletor is not only engaging in an edit war with me regarding material that he insists on inserting that violates WP's rules on Citing Sources, but now he is also violating its Rules on Civility, as he has taken to deliberately misrepresening my words here. In his most recent re-insertion of the unsourced material, he has written, in his Edit Summary: "Since Nightscream INSISTS that Continuity content is inappropriate here...", which is obviously not what I said, as anyone who reads my above post can see. What I clearly said is that the material he insists on keeping in the article is NOT SOURCED. The idea that I've said that material on Continuity is inappropriate is a blatant and knowing lie on his part, since, as anyone who sees my version of the article can see that I keep a section on Continuity in it. Kinda hard to do that if you think such a section is "inappropriate", isn't it? If you're going to respond to my edits, please do so here on the Discussion Page, and please refer only to that which I have actually said and done, and not things that I have not, okay? You'll notice, as an matter of exmaple, that when I referenced your activities in my post above, I actually quoted you directly, rather than making up some distorted version of it.

EmperorSkeletor pointed out that he now includes a link to the Fanwank article. But that article isn't an External Link that corroborates his souce, but another article on Wikipedia, which itself does not contain a single citation, footnote or source. Sorry, Emperor, but you cannot corroborate an assertion in one WP article by pointing to another WP article. If an article references some ongoing activity in fandom, one that is widespread enough and noteworthy enough to be included in an article about that property, then you have to back that assertion up by showing where on the web it is. You have not done this. All you've done is reference another WP article, which presents that same problem, and I've tagged that other article accordingly for its lack of sources. Unless you can illustrate this assertion about fandom, and show that it's widespread enough to mention in an article about MotU, then the material is not appropriate for inclusion. This has nothing to do with whether "continuity content is inappropriate", it's whether material without references is.

Moreover, if you really are acting on good faith, and regard this as a legitimate difference of opinion among fandom, then why would you relegate one of the primary points I brought up to the Trivia section, rather than keep it in the continuity section, where you can then respond to it. The material about Teela aversion to the concept of carnivorism is a legitimate bit of evidence about the continuity. If you insist that some in fandom have an explanation for it, why not keep it in the Continuity section so that you can present that explanatio for it? By moving it to the Trivia section, where it is not contextually relevant, you may present the appearance that you are not acting in good fath.

I would also ask you why you do not create an account for yourself, or for that matter, participate in this discussion in a civil matter, rather than inserting Straw Man arguments in your Edit Summaries. Unless you can directly address these issues, please stop reverting the article, okay? Thanks. :-) Nightscream 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

HI there, EmperorSkeletor here.

Okay, look, this is getting a little bit out of hand. I apologise if you feel I have misrepresented you; my words were perhaps a little hastily chosen given my frustrations over this situation. I have nothing against you, Nightscream, and certainly don't wish to break any kind of Civility rules (although, frankly, given the number of ridiculous fights I see happening on Wikipedia I scarcely see what use such a rule is). You seem to be getting quite heated over all this, which hardly seems neccessary. It's just an article on He-Man, and I'm not trying to insult you, much less tell any "knowing lie"s as you so subtly put it. Frankly I don't care enough about you, this argument or even this topic to be bothered doing something like that. If you find my casual use of terms such as "capricious" etc to be offensive, then I honestly apologise. I didn't realise this was a forum where people had to walk on such eggshells, especially considering the somewhat condescending manner in which you have addressed me.

My point, and thus my use of the term "insists", is that I essentially disagree with your (let's face it) rather rigid attitude towards the info in question. To be clear; YES, I AM AWARE that the Continuity material you keep deleting and I keep reviving is unsourced. And yes, I know that this is somewhat against Wikipedia's strict regulations. But seriously, with all due respect, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that the kind of sourcing standards you are trying to hold me to are in any way uniformly applied across Wikipedia articles of this nature. I would confidently estimate that the majority of pop culture articles on Wikipedia contain predominantly unsourced information, ESPECIALLY when it comes to questions of continuity, fan opinion, fanon, fanwank and the like. Not only is this kind of information virtually impossible to source anyway (unless one is a zombie who spends all his time quoting websites and chatrooms, which I certainly am not), but it permeates articles such as this, usually without such rigorous policing.

So yes; okay, ya got me, copper. It's not sourced. Whoever wrote it originally didn't bother and I wouldn't have a clue how to. From my perspective as an academic I'm MORE than aware of how important sourcing is in real academic publications, but, although I'm an enormous fan and user of Wikipedia, I really think it is absurd to get so uptight (no offence) on this particular point when the entire system is flawed when it comes to topics like this. I applaud those who police obvious vandalism or good-faith mistakes, but I really believe this is neither.

As to the content itself, I really do think you're giving it a raw deal. It is a legitimate argument of the kind that exists throughout Wikipedia's pop culture articles. It is an intangible fan opinion that has been published nowhere but nevertheless undeniably exists. I've certainly heard many MOTU fans discuss it. So I think it's downright ridiculous that the continuity section is now shorter than that on "Jack Kirby's Fourth World Connection", which in my humble opinion is a REALLY obscure bit of (fairly questionable, despite being sourced) information that neither I nor any other MOTU fan I've ever met is aware of (unlike the info you keep deleting). There's certainly nothing about it on the major fansite he-man.org.

Furthermore, I really resent the way you've not simply pared down the continuity section, but rather have absolutely decimated it. My most recent edit was an attempt to placate you with a MUCH shorter version which primarily dealt with better explaining what the continuity differences actually were and deferred the actual discussion of the theory to the Fanwank page. Which, I must say in my own defence, was not an attempt to corroborate the unsourced information, merely to relegate it to a page where (I hoped) you would find it more appropriate, along with a whole raft of similarly unsourced material (which, yes, I see you've tagged. Smooth.)

As to the question of the Teela vegetarianism, I'm honestly not trying to suppress it or anything. Unlike you I've never actually deleted it (or anything anyone else has written, for that matter), merely moved it to a place where I genuinely think it's more appropriate: Trivia. I think it's dubious that that 60% of the continuity section should be spent on this fairly minor point. Okay, okay; yes, it is the most direct example of clear contradiction in continuity. However, as a far as anyone interested in the topic is concerned I serioulsy doubt that it is of greater interest than the larger issue of missing characters which you keep truncating. And may I ask what you justification is for repetedly removing the point about He-Man having many gun accessories in the toyline and minicomics? That at least is perfectly verafiable information and much more accurate than the blanket "which He-Man never did" phrase that you prefer.

So, frankly, I find your accusations of Bad Faith on my part pretty insulting. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you just misunderstood my actions/motives, perhaps misled a little by my colourful choice of words. I have no interest in an "Edit War", but I really would like to find some civil way of reinstating at least part of the material that you continually delete. I attempted to send you this as a private email rather than through this public forum, but it seems you don't have an email address I can send to through Wikipedia. I've now reverted the continuity section to my most recent "proposed compromise" version (now including the Teela stuff) in the hopes that it will prompt you to read this and get in touch, either directly or through this forum. And please, re-read this version; I think you will find that it now actually contains virtually nothing which you can really argue has a real sourcing problem. Oh, and I've created an account bio page (which, I take it, is what you meant by "create and account") as you requested, to show my good faith. BTW, don't take anything in it personally; I'm speaking from long experience of my own and friends, not about this.

I hope this will not become a drawn-out or unpleasant process.

With all due respect, cheers. EmperorSkeletor

Thank you for creating an account Emperor, and for your responses here. Let’s see if we can hammer this out. First, apology accepted, and don’t worry about the misrepresentation. It happens sometimes. I can assure you, however, that I am not “heated” over this. Wikipedia has certain rules regarding its content, rules that exist in order to make a better encyclopedia, and in wanting to help in that goal, I merely wish to follow them. If I didn’t, then I’d have no business being here. My thinking is, if you wanna play in someone else’s sandbox, you play by their rules. Similarly, I was not offended by the word “capricious”, I merely noted that it was not accurate. I mean, it’s kinda hard to look at all the work I put into explaining my thoughts behind my actions here on the Discussion page, and then argue that they were sudden or unpredictable, don’t ya think? :-) Similarly, I don’t recall ever speaking to you in a condescending manner, but if you could show where I did so, please do so, and allow me a pre-emptive apology if I came off as such. Now, let me respond to your arguments:

RULES Your first argument is that I am being “rigid” in adhering to the rules regarding sourcing, that the material you insist on keeping is “somewhat” in violation in it, and that there is much material on Wikipedia that is not sourced. First, I am not rigid regarding that rule. Wikipedia is. An encyclopedia is not a collection of personal anecdotes, opinions, rumors, and so forth. To be of any value, it has to be able to back up its content. Your material is not somewhat in violation of this. It’s directly in violation of it. The biggest fallacy in this argument, however, is your assertion that this rule is not applied across the board because so many other articles on WP have unsourced information. This is false. The fact that so much material on WP is unsourced means that we have to source it. It doesn’t mean we can simply throw the standard out the window. If you see poorly written, inappropriate, or unsourced material on WP, then solution is to tag it, delete it, or provide sources. It is not to use that material as justification for inserting more of the same elsewhere. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and that means that the need for editors to correct, fine-tune, add, or delete material is an ongoing one, and it always will be, so long as the body of human knowledge continues to grow. It is not that those other articles “never get touched”. It’s that they’re in the process of being touched, which is why, for example, when you pointed me to the Fanwank article, I tagged it. You can’t use examples of violated rules to justify more of your own. You respond by editing the material you find so that it’s no longer in violation of those rules. When I found the sorry state that the article on Punk’d was in yesterday, I didn’t say to myself, “Hooray! Now I can write the rest of my stuff to look as bad as this!” I took the time out to correct it. The system, therefore, is not flawed, as you assert. It is that much of the content is. The system, on the other hand, exists to fix those flaws, which makes it a pretty good system. Just because it can’t fix every single instance of this simultaneously does not mean that therefore, any time an editor does intervene means that he or she is being “hypocritical”. We editors make these edits every time we find them, and if you look through my Contributions, you’ll see that. Why you think the limited speed with which we tackle all the instances of uncited material on the entire site means that you are somehow being singled out, I don’t know.

You claim that your material is neither vandalism or a good-faith mistake. I agree. It is material that being inserted by someone who seems to think he can argue that he can disregard the rules to his liking, and if that’s the case, then I would suggest (and I swear, I do not say this to be pejorative) that you not remain an editor here. You imply on your user page that we do not have to follow the “absolute letter of rules”. Fine, what would you propose instead? That we simply toss in any old material that’s unsourced, and simply trust the editor when he says that “Oh, I’ve heard of this discussion in fandom”? What kind of standard is that? What would WP look like if did this? How exactly can you say on your page that WP “should not be considered a truly reliable reference as it is far too prone to misinformation”, when you yourself are the one advocating inserting information without any references? Seems to be that you’re advocating practices that are part of the very problem you’re describing on your page, don’t you think? :-)

FANDOM Now the content itself. You say it’s an intangible fan opinion that has been published nowhere but nevertheless undeniably exists. Sorry, but if it hasn’t been published anywhere, then how do you know it exists? How exactly are you yourself aware of it if it’s never been published? If it’s “intangible” and never been published, then it has no place on WP. Period. If you see it “throughout Wikipedia's pop culture articles”, then I would encourage you to bring those articles more in line with the same rule. You claim that you’uve “heard” MOTU fans discuss. I’m sorry, but what you’ve heard in your personal experiences with your friends does not constitute material that is noteworthy enough to include in WP. In fact, not only is one persons’ anecdotes unverifiable, but it also violates another rule against Original Research. If it’s widespread enough throughout fandom to be noteworthy, then please take the time to do a Google search, find enough websites that support the assertion, and place the appropriate citations in the text.

FOURTH WORLD I do not have much of an opinion of the comparative lengths of the sections. Their lengths is determined largely by the available information pertinent to each. Discussion of the film’s continuity doesn’t really merit more than what my version has. But if you have more material that is appropriate for inclusion, then add it. This goes to the point again about WP being a work in progress. The amount of information that is added to any given article or section therein is limited by the interest of editors in that topic, and the information they have on it that they can add. But if you really want my personal knowledge of the two as an example (since you find personal anecdotes to be a legitimate basis for inclusion), I’ve read John Byrne’s mention of the connection, IIRC, in a letter column of his Next Men. By contrast, I’ve never read any mention of the discussions you describe among fandom (which isn’t surprising, since you admit it’s never been published).

DIFFERENCES The differences do not need to be explained, because they are explained by the fact that, as I stated above, medium-to-medium adaptations almost never follow prior continuity. The very fact, for example, that immutable things like He-Man’s sword is different, among other things, makes this fact incontrovertible. Why, after all, would the film being set after the events of the other properties, make Teela shocked at carnivorism? The filmmakers obviously were not following the cartoon or comic continuity, so why pretend that explaining otherwise is relevant, especially when no source can be provided that such discussions are even occurring (the same reason why I tagged the Fanwank article)? Thus, detailing every single difference, and the explanations therefore, is not relevant.

As for the bit about him using guns, I forgot when I wrote that part that we were not just talking about the cartoon, but comics as well. I’ve now fixed that. I would also point out, since we’re talking about it, that the mini-comics themselves did not have a consistent continuity. Further reason why it is impossible to reconcile all these disparate media.

So please stop inserting unsourced material, okay? And if you see similar material on WP, do the right thing. Peace. :-) Nightscream 23:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediator

Hello EmperorSkeletor and Nightscream : ) Nightscream left a message on my talk page telling me about this article dispute. User talk:FloNight#Masters of the Universe I would be happy to act as an informal mediator for your dispute. I think you both will agree, so I'm going to start doing a little bit of background reading. FloNight ^talk 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, FloNight. I would welcome an informal mediator in this dispute, although I will be honest and say uprfront that I'm not interested in dragging this out for very long, as I certainly have better things to do. I don't know why Nightscream claims that I am refusing to converse over this matter; my posts above are proof to the contrary.

Firstly, I'd just like to reiterate my broader argument; the vast majority of Wikipedia articles on topics such as this contain predominantly unsourced information. Seriously! Read any article on a Star Wars character, a television series, a science-fiction movie, a toyline, and you will find little if any sourcing being used. The occasional references cited at the ends of articles are entirely generalised and routinely contain no direct indications of which aspects of the articles' content is being sourced. Now, Nightscream is correct about one thing; the rules ARE clear. But I flat -out disagree with his assessment that this is "no excuse" to include (or, in this case, preserve) relevant TRUE information which, by its very nature cannot be proven. I think it is absurd to expect me (or rather, the original writer of this content) to be held to a higher standard of proof than what is clearly being employed by the majority of users who contribute to these topics. If Wikipedia was an academic journal (such as I have been published in in my professional life) with rules which everyone actually obeyed, naturally I would follow suit. But Wikipedia is not, or at least certainly is not in its thousands of pop culture articles.

I feel like I'm being arrested for jaywalking by the one honest cop from an otherwise entirely corrupt precinct. What's the point of a law if hardly anyone else follows it?

But anyway, that's my drum to beat and I don't much expect you to agree with me. All I'd say about that in closing is that if users like Nightscream truly went around deleting every unsourced fact in Wikipedia's pop culture articles then I'd wager you'd see the overall content drop by about 85%. I'm not kidding.

Finally, to my main point for your consideration, FloNight, is the current status of the article, or rather the section, under dispute. Despite totally disagreeing with Nightscream, I have created a new, far shorter version of the "Continuity" section which I believe no longer contains ANY unsourced information, short of merely mentioning the disputed fan-theory and providing a link to a more appropriate page. I have even acquiesced to re-include his Teela content which I still believe would be better placed under "Trivia". I made all these compromises not because I think it is the right thing to do, but truthfully just to try and placate Nightscream and cease his tedious cycle of deletions. However, he has edited it yet again, truncating it quite uneccessarily (I find his arguments above for doing so thoroughly unconvincing) and, if I may be frank, in a rather poor and hurried fashion with an ugly text-block layout. It certainly reads badly and is now rather inelegantly written. And, unsurprisingly, Nightscream still begrudges me even mentioning the fan-theory and deferring it's discussion to a more relevant article. With all due respect to him/her, I feel this is verging on either pettiness or a truly fanatical belief in the (largely unobserved) rules.

I would appreciate any help you could provide as a mediator, FloNight.

Thanks, EmperorSkeletor.

Thanks for being here, FloNight. :-)

I don't know why Nightscream claims that I am refusing to converse over this matter; my posts above are proof to the contrary I am not claiming any such thing. I claimed (past tense) that you were not engaging me on the Talk page, which intitally, was true. After you began posting here, I ceased making this point, and in fact, the first line of my last post above was "Thank you for creating an account Emperor, and for your responses here." Why you are bringing up an earlier aspect of my posts that has now been resolved and is now essentially defunct, I don't know.

The vast majority of Wikipedia articles on topics such as this contain predominantly unsourced information. Same fallacy as before. If you see other articles exhibiting a violation of WP policy, your task is to bring them in line with it. Not assume that they act as justification for the same behavior on your part. Most articles I can recall reading on Star Trek or Star Wars characters, for example, mentioned where/when they first appeared. If you look at any of the numerous comic book related articles I've created or worked on, you'll notice that I pay great attention to detailing, in the Intro of the article, the book in which they appeared, the year and month that book was published, which publisher published it, and the writer and artist who created the character. My attention to this article is consistent with that adherence to WP policy. Telling me that others violate it doesn't justify your insistence on doing so. I mentioned this above, and you refused to answer it. Thus, you are not being held to a "higher standard". You're being held to the same standard. I also fail to see how you are somehow being targeted if you admit to not being the original author of the material. You have also not established that others who disregard this policy constitute any sort of "majority". Wikipedia policy is clear on this matter. But since you bring it up, could you name an example or two of these articles you mention?

The occasional references cited at the ends of articles are entirely generalised and routinely contain no direct indications of which aspects of the articles' content is being sourced. True. But footnotes, on the other hand, do. So do the articles' Intros, as I mentioned above. In either case, this is wholly irrelevant to the obvious problem with your version, in which the material isn't referenced at all. Any reference placed in the article, even in the general section at the bottom, that could support that section's assertions, would be adequate. The problem is that there isn't any. Not that it doesn't indicate the exact passage it corroborates.

But I flat -out disagree with his assessment that this is "no excuse" to include (or, in this case, preserve) relevant TRUE information which, by its very nature cannot be proven. In what way can it "not be proven"? By its very nature? How do you figure this? If these fandom discussions are widespread enough to be noteworthy, then you should be able to find sites that show it easily. Your version specifically refers to this fandom idea as "popular". How, therefore, can it not be proven? Where does this discussion in fandom take place? In fanzines? On blogs and message boards? If so, then of course it can be proven. Or does it take place in treehouses or local clubs organized by fans living in the same neighborhood? If it's this latter scenario, then you have no way of knowing if it's "popular", which means that this assertion is a sheer invention, much as your "majority" and "85" percent remarks. You emphasize the fact that this assertion is "true", using all capitals, no less, but how can it be true if it's not only not proven, but cannot be proven? On what basis can it be affirmed to be true, then? If it "cannot" be proven, then it follows that one cannot say that it's true at all, and therefore, has no place in any article.

I feel like I'm being arrested for jaywalking by the one honest cop from an otherwise entirely corrupt precinct. What's the point of a law if hardly anyone else follows it? If you honestly feel that Wikipedia is aking to a police precint that is "entirely corrupt", then why come here? And again, you have not established that "hardly anyone" follows it. You've only established that you have no regard for it, and are using others (whom you claim are a "majority", but without illustrating that assertion) as an excuse for it. If WP is "corrupt", then it's because of people like yourself who insist on making it that way. To continue your metaphor, if someone complains that a police precint is corrupt, and then it is found out that accuser is himself a very corrupt cop, he wouldn't have a lot of credibility; he'd likely be thrown in with the rest of the precint by the authorities investigating it. The inability of editors to correct every single infraction simultaneously, on over a million articles, does not speak to corruption. It speaks to the obvious limitations of manpower and time. You at least, could aid in this problem by adhering to the rules, and helping people like me to correct other articles that violate it. Instead, you're pointing to others and acting as if their behavior justifies your own. It doesn't. I've tagged or removed lots of unsourced material on many articles, and this is no different.

All I'd say about that in closing is that if users like Nightscream truly went around deleting every unsourced fact in Wikipedia's pop culture articles then I'd wager you'd see the overall content drop by about 85%. I'm not kidding. And what is your basis for that figure? You've said (repeatedly) that you're an "academic". Where is the data that backs up that figure? Hmmm? As far as your veiled questioning of whether I "truly" act consistently with unsourced material, feel free to look through my contributions, and cite any instances in which you feel I failed to do so.

I have created a new, far shorter version of the "Continuity" section which I believe no longer contains ANY unsourced information, short of merely mentioning the disputed fan-theory... That theory is unsourced, and is the same topic we've been discussing, so nothing has changed. If you cannot do a simple Google search and find a few websites to corroborate this fanwank assertion, then it does not belong in any WP article.

However, he has edited it yet again, truncating it quite uneccessarily and, if I may be frank, in a rather poor and hurried fashion with an ugly text-block layout. It certainly reads badly and is now rather inelegantly written. What was truncated was the material that does not belong there. I left in more of the differences between the film and animated series, in order to compromise more, and flesh out the section just slightly, since you complained that it was shorter than the Fourth World section. I am not overly concerned with its layout or elegance, as the section merely describes what it needs to. I see nothing more elegant in either of our versions.

I find his arguments above for doing so thoroughly unconvincing And yet, you fail to answer a single one of them directly. In debate, when one fails to directly address specific refuations of one's arguments, it is taken as a sign of concession. You'll notice that I've responded to your arguments directly, even quoting specific statements, in order to explain why they are not reasonable. You have not responded in kind, quite possibly because you know that you can't. Do you deny that fanwank mention is unsourced? That WP forbids such material? That it makes absolutely no sense to admit that it's "never been published" and "by its very nature cannot be proven", but then insist that it's appropriate for inclusion? That claiming that something "you've heard" is not a valid basis for it, in part because it violates W:OR? That it's a poor analogy to compare this to Star Wars articles without citation, since everyone already knows that the movies are the source material for the characters, and characters from novels and comics are similarly referenced as such, whereas no one has any similar understanding about your material? That arguing violation in other articles is a poor, and rather cyncial, rationalization for you to do the same, given WP's mandate to its editors to seek out such problems and correct them, rather than exacerbate and perpetuate them? That the figures you give for this other content is a sheer fabrication on your part? That I have been consistent in my adherence to this rule in my other edits? That it makes no sense for you to whine about being targeted personally if all such articles are similarly edited or tagged, esp. if you didn't originally write that section? That it is spurious to apologize to me on the one hand but then call me a hypocrite on your User Page? That it makes no sense for someone to claim that WP is not a reliable source because of the poor quality of information on it and then perpetuate that perception by continuing to come here and add such poorly written information himself? Which one of these counterarguments on my part doesn't work, and why? Tell me. It seems to be that they're pretty cogent and dead-on in their reasoning. Refusing to comment on them only gives the appearance that you know this yourself. Stating one's position is not enough. When one offers reasoning as to why your position is wrong, then you have to respond in kind as to why that person's arguments are unconvincing. In the absence of such elaboration, your words may come off as rhetorical.

With all due respect to him/her, I feel this is verging on either pettiness or a truly fanatical belief in the (largely unobserved) rules. No, just a proper respect for rules that the owner of this site has set forth for it. Were it only the same for someone who claims to be an "academic". As for pettiness, given that you've apologized for me on one hand while accusing me of hypocrisy on another page, implied that I am not consistent in my own adherence to the rules, and dredged up an earlier comment that you know is now moot now that you'uve begun participating here, you'll pardon me if I don't take this latest insult very seriously? :-) Nightscream 10:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooookay...

No offence, mate, but you obviously have waaay more free time on your hands than I do. And, based on your astounding number of suspect inferences and slights on my motivations, you seem to be taking this all rather personally for reasons which quite escape me.

I honestly don't have the time or inclination to write another long response to your essay-length point-for-point rebuttal, and this "edit war" is getting too childish for my tastes. Suffice it to say that I remain unconvinced by the content of your argument and, as I said before, honestly think you are kidding yourself if you really think you're making some kind of positive contribution by being so insistant on this. It's like bailing out a rowboat with a thimble if you ask me.

I'm just trying to preserve something which I read on Wikipedia, found interesting and had heard of myself, and was annoyed to see get deleted. I think it is of interest to MOTU fans and is throughly relevant. Frankly, I don't much care about your high-handed insistance on the rules which, I repeat, very few people seem to follow in articles of this nature. Oh, and for the record, "85%" was obviously an estimate, smart-alec.

I can't be bothered with this anymore, it's frankly not that important to me. So, congratulations; you "win", and go ahead and have the last word if it makes you feel better.

I wonder what your impartial observer made of all this?

See you in the funny papers,

EmperorSkeletor

Emp, if anyone is taking things "personally", it is you, for it is you who have repeatedly made personal comments about me. You've misrepresented my words before, and now you've done so again in your latest Edit Summary, claiming that I was "offended" by your version, when I really wasn't. Comments like this and others are simply an attempt on your part to denigrate the sincerity of those who believe in WP because they do not share your cynical view of it. I tried to argue this dispassionately and in a civil manner. By contrast, you apologized to me the one hand while insulting me on the other, both here and elsewhere. The idea that it is somehow I who have directed slights about your motivations is obviously untrue to anyone who reads this page and yours. You have failed to refute a single counterargument on my part, and you continue to stonewall on the issue with your intentionally vague "unconvinced" argument, since as you know, you cannot refute my statements. You simply repeat the same fallacies over and over again (you think, for example, that using the word "estimate" means that you don't have to have a basis for it). I'm sorry you feel this way toward me, and I'm sorry that you think there's anything "high-handed" about thinking that WP's rules exist for a reason. For my part, my feelings about WP are quite sincere. This is not your personal soapbox or message board, it's an encyclopedia, one which contributors like me are trying to make better. If you cannot conduct yourself with a modicum of civility and intellgence in conflicts such as this, and can only criticize the reliability of the information on this site while simultaneously perpetuating that low quality, and act as you somehow "own" the articles, then perhaps it is best that you leave. Take care. :-) Nightscream 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus editing

Hello EmperorSkeletor and Nightscream. I came to leave some suggestions and found that the dispute escalated while I was sleeping. EmperorSkeletor, it's my experience that most of the time when one party leaves mad they come back, so I'm going to go ahead and leave some advise.

Recommend spacing out edits to daily updates. The benefits of this approach include: 1. Outside users may more easily step in and attempt to settle the dispute. 2. Introspection and detachment from the subject oftentimes serve to cool tempers. 3. Avoids the risk of violating Wikipedia policy and unintentionally reverting four times within 24 hours (WP:3RR). This dispute got worse when you both began more frequent edits and reversts.

Recommend focusing on the article content and not the editor. This is a main point of WP:Civil.

Recommend making no further unilateral changes to contraverseial sections of article. Consensus editing requires discussion that leads to agreement about material by two or more editors.

Recommend that you work together to formulate a question or questions to post on talk that might clarify issues in this dispute. My suggestions, just to get the ball rolling,

1. Should articles on pop culture be held to the same standards as other types of Wikipedia articles?
2. Should the standard for removing material from long standing pop culture articles be verifiable or verified?

I hope both of you will work together. regards, FloNight ^talk 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Emperor is coming back or if he'll make good on his stated intention of leaving this article alone, but my answers to the two questions are:

1. Yes. Of course they should. WP must be consistent in order to be of any value.

2. Yes. You can't just include material because you "heard" about it. It makes no sense to say that a fandom discussion is "popular" but that it's never been published and can't be proven by "it's very nature". Such a statement makes absolutely no sense.

I'd have no problem working with Emperor or others, but he has made it clear that he doesn't care for the rules. He is essentially arguing that we don't have to follow them, and that anyone who does is "high-handed", has too much time on their hands, etc. This is not some good faith disagreement between two people trying to interpret the rules. He is saying he has no intention of following them at all, and his only argument is an exaggerated claim that most WP content doesn't conform to it, which is untrue. I refuted the fallacy of this statement, and he is unable to respond to it, because he knows he's wrong. If you want to come onto someone else's site, you follow their rules. If you don't want to, you leave. Emperor's solution instead is to throw the standards out the window and then complain that WP is not reliable. It's a ridiculous argument, and he knows he can't refute this. I'd be curious to see what his answers are to your two questions, Flo, but if he's not willing to respect the rules as a prequesite for including material, then any attempt to work together may be doomed to fail. Nightscream 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that back in July, User:138.130.216.29 restored the unsourced, non-NPOV material that I had previously deleted, and referred to this deletion on my partr as "vandalsim". This is not vandalism, as I not only provided my reasons why that material is not appropriate for inclusion, but explained my position in detail on this Talk Page with Emperor Skeletor and a third party arbitrator. Deleting material that clearly does not conform to WP policies is not "vandalism", and referring to it as such violates both Civility and Good Faith, and ignores the What vandalism is not policy. I removed the inappropriate material again, and tried to open up a dialogue with that user on their Talk Page.

[edit] Scenes almost nearly shot in Idaho

Some location shoots were planned to be done in Idaho, possibly at Craters of the Moon National Monument, but the company failed to get the paperwork done in order to get permission for burning tires for smoke effects. (That's all I can recall from a small newspaper article, most likely in The Idaho Statesman.)