Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-10 Carnivàle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request for cabal mediation
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Dominic 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- ...On the Carnivàle page
- Who's involved?
- ...So far it seems only three members: myself, JeffStickney, and Gnrlotto
- What's going on?
- ...There is a discussion about the status of a character on the show, if he is dead or not. Gnrlotto argues he is, and reverts any changes that disagree with this
- What would you like to change about that?
- ...I would like a neutral third party to intervine and help decide what the characters status should be
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- ...you can just email me
[edit] Comments by others
This is absolutely asinine.
Wikipedia is a place for facts, not rampant speculation.
"Well, I don't know whom I'm speaking too, but a) "Maybe thats why she shot Jonesy?"--Knauf said Jonesy would be back, too. So, no, sorry, thanks for playing, try again. Mediocre speculation does not a wiki page make. B)"Maybe the Omega's Powers are different?"--Yeah, in the sense that she has aspects of both light and dark, not that she can circumvent all otherwise established rules, besides the fact that we can only go by what we are shown on screen, and this is all speculation and C)"Maybe DANIEL KNAUF SAID HE WOULD RETURN?" Which is why it's mentioned in the cancellation section. But being as it happened after the last episode was aired, it has no bearing"
"Here are the facts:
Management clearly states that to give a life you have to take a life. For someone to be brought back from the dead, you have to take another living person's life. Not plants, not animals, but a human for a human. Sofie + Corn =/= Healed daddy. So, for those who still think it's vague, no matter how much corn she killed around him, Sofie could not revive Justin through corn. Period. Based on the show's own rules, which were evinced over and over and over.
Ben is having a heck of a time trying to kill Justin. Until he has that quick flashback where he must plunge the knife into the heart of the branches. He does so, and then passes out on Justin's corpse until the next morning.
Justin is shown dead. Period. Not waking up, not rolling over, nothing. Dead as stone. A doornail. He is a corpse. Being as we're not stupid, and we know that plants do not equal people on the saving chart, we have incontrovertable proof that Sofie didn't revive Justin through the corn.
"If she was reviving him,, then that occured at the end of season two, not at the beginning of the would-be next show. Although the outcome of whatever happened occured offscreen, chronologically it occured DURING the last show."
This is absolutely the stupidest thing I have read regarding this. A) Being as we have to discuss this like literature, we can only go by what we're shown, not what "may have happened." and B) Carnivale has already evinced itself to be completely contrary to your statement. In the first season cliffhanger, we still get to see Ruthie come back. Even though the rest of the night's events are finished during the next season's first episode. So, if your point of it happening even if we don't see it was valid, he would have come back at the end of the last show. He didn't. Tough."
These are quotes explaining my position. Mine is one based on evidence (what must be used when discussing literature) not "I feel," or "My interpretation is..."
Simply look at the discussion on that section for how many time people try to justify their reverts with "Well, I feel..." reasoning.
Because of this, I am apparently a bully. And that is utterly asinine. Gnrlotto
- My argument is that the ending is ambiguous at best. Brother Justin is technically seen dead but Sophie (whose powers are never fully clarified let alone discussed) is shown doing something to Justin as the show ends. Coupled with the fact that the creator of the show has stated that Justin does not die leads me to think there should at the least be a mention of the fact that Justin may not be dead.Dominic 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The final scene was interpreted by MANY viewers, myself included, to be of Sofie healing Justin. Although the outcome of this was not shown it was heavily implied. To those who saw the final scene in this light, Justin is not dead. Apparently some viewers have interpreted the final scene differently- that is fine too. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be neutral and not take sides. The cast statement as it is currently written ("deceased- Ben Krohn Hawkins") is not neutral. It takes one side in the "is Justin still dead" debate and asserts it as a fact. I believe that the key words in official Wikipedia policy are "consensus" and "conflicting views". Justin's status as to whether he is alive or dead, has been hotly debated on the talk page for a long time. Clearly there is no "consensus". Clearly there are "conflicting views".
- From the article Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View: " The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." I believe that if the cast statement read "deceased- Ben Krohn Hawkins- though possibly revived by Sofie" it would be more in line with that policy. The sentence as I have suggested presents both sides, but asserts neither.
- I do not agree with Gndlotto's argument that literature should be analyzed only in terms of what is explicitly shown. Implied themes are a major part of literature. This is not the same as wild speculation. Many stories have depth and do require some work from the reader/viewer. This particular scene VERY HEAVILY implied that Sofie was healing Justin, and MANY viewers took from that that he is no longer dead. As such, mentioning that scene in terms of that possibility IS valid, and is NOT "rampant speculation". I do understand that all of these themes were discussed in other parts of the article. My problem is the cast statement itself. "deceased- Ben Krohn Hawkins" , without a qualifier takes one specific side in the "is he still dead" debate and asserts it as an indisputable fact, and that is not neutral.JeffStickney 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
One can not refer to implied themes with no basis for them. Your feeling that Sofie was reviving Justin contradicts all known evidence and therefore is nothing more than rampant speculation.
"My problem is the cast statement itself. "deceased- Ben Krohn Hawkins" , without a qualifier takes one specific side in the "is he still dead" debate and asserts it as an indisputable fact, and that is not neutral."
The cast section only deals with the characters as far as they are shown IN the series canon.
The creator said the character would have eventually come back, and that is expressed. If someone were keeping that information out altogether, there would be cause for your sentiments, but there isn't.
"Brother Justin is technically seen dead but Sophie (whose powers are never fully clarified let alone discussed) is shown doing something to Justin as the show ends."
And here you just sunk your own boat. Yes, the last we see of him, he is dead. The cast list reflects this. And yes, Sofie is seen doing something (again, reflected in the cast list). To put anything other than what we are technically shown, as you yourself just said, would be absolutely against NPOV rules and again, is nothing more than rampant and unwarranted speculation.
"Coupled with the fact that the creator of the show has stated that Justin does not die leads me to think there should at the least be a mention of the fact that Justin may not be dead."
Ah, careful mincing of words. He [the creator] says he [Justin] would have come back, not that he did not die.
To "come back" one must first be gone, and the "would have" mentioned after the last episode implies events happening after the last episode was aired. Gnrlotto
[edit] Mediator response
Mediator responded, case closed after long hiatus. - FrancisTyers 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
