User talk:SERRALONGA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutral point of view.

Please don't place your idea's about (for example: stargate) in wikipedia [1]. I'm not saying they're not true, but they don't belong in a neutral encyclopedia. Cristan

[edit] You don't seem to learn

Adding the information anyway isn't going to help. If you want to add it anyway, discuss it in the correspondending talk page. Cristan

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I am sure all Stargate fans will appreciate the additional insights. After all, science fiction is supposed to make one think (even if some contributors seem bent on proving the contrary). If Wikipedia is about facts, why not discuss them instead of resorting to censorship?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Aw, come on. You're adding it as a second paragraph, even before that it's all about a stargate. No way it's that important.

Your edit: "Television series in general (and possibly Science Fiction series in particular) tend to reflect the times in which they are written. Some academic writers see Stargate as a quintessentially American response to the challenges posed by the post Cold War world (See Floyd D. Cheung). Certainly references to US military prowess abound in the series - Col. Jack O'Niell's adventures in Iraq; a struggle with an alien "superpower"; the choice of Cheyenne Mountain (the nuclear missile command center for NORAD) as "Stargate" headquarters, and so on. Curiously enough, one of the most dramatic and frequently played special effects – that of a "Stargate" being activated - was obtained by cleverly re-cutting a film sequence of the underwater launch of a Polaris ballistic missile (the clip, which shows the initial expulsion of air from the submarine hatch, is shown sideways instead of vertically. The sequence is played forward and then backwards). A crude animation showing the real-life context can be found here."

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound neutral at all. To me, it sounds like an article on a conspiracy site.

"a struggle with an alien "superpower"
Just about any SciFi and fantasy story has an "unbeatable" enemy.

"the choice of Cheyenne Mountain (the nuclear missile command center for NORAD)"
I couldn't have thought of a better place. It's a nuclear bunker in America. This is not only a good recognisable place for the viewers, storywise it's very logical to place the stargate in a nuclear bunker (especially for secrecy).

"cleverly, Curiously, crude, and so on"
not very neutral

"Curiously enough, one of the most dramatic and frequently played special effects – that of a "Stargate" being activated - was obtained by cleverly re-cutting a film sequence of the underwater launch of a Polaris ballistic missile (the clip, which shows the initial expulsion of air from the submarine hatch, is shown sideways instead of vertically. The sequence is played forward and then backwards). A crude animation showing the real-life context can be found here."
I'm not intimated. However: it's not even completely true:

"Rather than being a jet of water, it is actually the image of high-pressure air being blasted into a tank of water. The effect was achieved by mounting a jet airplane engine two feet above a water tank, and using its 180 mph windstream to create the sufficient water displacement. In post production, the surrounding water was removed with computer editing, and the image of the air-jet pasted into the centre of the opening Stargate."(source)
Doesn't sound very crude to me.

"A crude animation showing the real-life context can be found here."
Why on earth would that be crude? It's a pretty cool effect, and even if that's how they made it, I have no idea how that could be crude to anyone.

I hope you understand why I think your edit doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia. Cristan 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The crude animation Christan, my dear scout-watcher, does not refer to the "Stargate" effect (which is pretty good) but to the US Naval representation of a Polaris missile launch. Watch the video first - if you can tear yourself away from that roadside seat in Holland - and see it for yourself.

No need to offend me. I have seen the entire video now (I have seen a part of it before). It's a pretty old video about a ballistic missle. I know these exist, and if you want to inform wikipedians about this, I suggest you link to an article about it. Besides, the show features massive battles, torture and more, yet you think a US Naval representation of a Polaris missile launch which is only very loosly connected, is crude?

The whole Pentagon link-up with Stargate is a little suspect. But then, certain sectors in Hollywood and the military establishment have always had a tendency to scratch each others backs (cheap footage and military co-operation as a quid pro quo for seeding the "right" ideological messages). Ed Wood knew when he was on to a good thing...

Very interesting opinion. But because it's an opinion, you can't use it on wikipedia.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

What's wrong with using adjectives every now and then? To label an animation "clever" or "crude" is descriptive. Even "curiously enough" gets lambasted by the new puritans. Many on Wikipedia now trumpeting "POV" at every opportunity would have been just as much at home in earlier centuries burning witches, burning books, or painting over genitals in the Cistene Chapel.

Ok, they're not all wrong, but I used these to illustrate that I think that the entire text doesn't really sound neutral.

"Even "curiously enough" gets lambasted by the new puritans. Many on Wikipedia now trumpeting "POV" at every opportunity would have been just as much at home in earlier centuries burning witches, burning books, or painting over genitals in the Cistene Chapel."

You know that doesn't intimidate me, nor has it much to do with this discussion. Besides, nobody asks you to edit or use this website. If this bothers you, I'd recommend the on-line Brittanica encyclopedia: it has completely been written by professionals.

Cristan 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Catalan

I don't care about the edit war on TV3 (Catalonia), but please remember not to link to Catalan, which isn't an actual article, but a disambiguation page. Instead link directly to the subject you mean, such as Catalan language or Catalan people. Ntsimp 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)